Reply With QuoteDammit, people actually PAY for this watered-down nonsense? MP.net can produce a better analysis than that.
Russian Military Modernization (Agenda)
Dammit, people actually PAY for this watered-down nonsense? MP.net can produce a better analysis than that.
Fixed it for yaOriginally Posted by artjomh
Actually its pretty good for general western audience. Well the detailed analysis will definately be more interesting
Maximm: no we have not had such analysis about the Russian military reform on mp.net ...
From what I've read here on MP.net and other sites, it's actually pretty much spot on.
It's not inaccurate. It is watered-down.
Any odd bozo with a Google search can say what that guy said. He is talking about nothing at all that is not on the evening news. There is neither special insight, not any particularly deep analysis here.
It's like saying that America killed bin Laden... and expecting to get paid.
The deeper analysis will come later, as told in the video. I don't see what is nonsense in this video.. ?
Ah well not exactly but a read through our news&discussion thread covers pretty much everything.
Scott's hair distracted me from the actual analysis.
Question regarding about Conscripts: When they say they are poorly trained, how do they determine this exactly? Or is it just a broad generalization? What is standard training practices in the Russian armed forces for infantry men? And I thought that VDV usually has good training and are they not conscripts as well?
I volenteer to be the grand duke of Finland!
A mexican cop told them so.
Stratfor? Do they have any credibility left after all those e-mails that went public with wikileaks?
Saying that the Russian army has bad gear because most of what they do is improving soviet design is quite funny for an U.S. firm.
You know the same U.S. of A were most of the helicopters in service were designed for Vietnam, half their bombers for Korea, most MBTs, IFVs and warships all designed in the 80's (or 70's for the carriers and most of the planes if not older) and don't get me started on the small arms (the marines best friends, .50cal and colt 1911 are WWI designed weapons)...
Planned as it is some US designs will see a CENTURY of action.
Sure sometimes they design brand new stuff then realize how much it's gonna cost them to field brand new designs in their enormous army, then they prefer either to upgrade existing platforms and field slowly the new tech (or only the bare minimum of it for specific missions).
Strangely the Ruskies do the same...
Actually everyone do the same (except Saudi Arabia who buy new stuff every time some Prince get it's pocket money but that's more a case of compulsive buying disorder than military budget planning).
Sure Europe is getting some fairly new design of everything. But in exchange our militaries have shrink to the point of being nearly non-existent...
Some of you will recognize the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" policy as the techs like to say it (the designers and engineers call that "great is the enemy of good" policy) in that fact, but the military went as far as inventing a measurement system for it the famously called "force multiplier".
That's an old as fvck question either you spend money on numbers, training or you get new gear every-time it's possible, it's a balancing act. No country has never done the three without having his economy collapsing.
Last edited by Bidoul33t; 08-19-2012 at 12:48 PM.
This analyst does not say anything wrong but this things we already know it so nothing special.
Posting Permissions
