That's the title of an online compendium of analytical articles about how the Russian military is structured, and how it operates. Strategy Page reports:
The analysis in the How Russia Fights project began when General Christopher Cavoli, commander of American army operations in Europe and Africa, realized something. U.S. Army Foreign Area Officers/FAOs assigned to the European theater lacked a detailed understanding of the Russian Armed Forces/RAF and were unable to adequately advise him and other senior officers. Between 1991 to 2014, the United States considered Russia to be a strategic partner. As a result, FAO training shifted its focus away from Russian military capabilities to areas like China and the Pacific. To address this training gap, Cavoli assembled a team of retired Russian speaking Army FAOs. These men had more than 200 years’ experience working on aspects of the Russian military and how they operated. This group called themselves the Troika, the Russian word for three. The Troika was asked to create a training course for FAOs focused on the RAF at the operational and tactical levels.
There's much more at the link. Recommended reading.
The full course developed over several iterations, and is now available for download under the title "How Russia Fights: A Compendium of Troika Observations on Russia's Special Military Operations". It makes very interesting reading.
Peter
12 comments:
If we stopped studying how Russia fights because we considered them to be a "strategic partner," that makes us stupid. You want to study how your friends fight, because it helps you figure out things like what you can trust them to do, what their capabilities are, and what it means when they say certain things.
For example, if an American says the situation is "a bit sticky," or the equivalent thereof, he'll need help eventually but can probably hold for a bit. If a Brit says that, he needs reinforcements there immediately.
In watching the UKR situation at the operational/tactical level, the Russians seem to do the same thing again and again. They create a pincer movement around an objective (village, town, city), gain "fire control" over the roads leading in to it, thus cutting off resupply, then close the pincers creating a "cauldron" where what UKR troops are left are then trapped. While this is happening, incessant artillery and guided bombs are thrown into the objective to soften it up. It seems to be a "process".
"How Russia Fights" TL;DR: Poorly.
They make the French Army look valiant, by comparison.
Hey Peter,
I cribbed this off my blog. Hope you don't mind. They are not soviets anymore but from what I can tell, the Army still runs basically the same way taking orders from the Stavka.
One of my specialties or discipline in the service was "The Soviet Army" and how they fight. What doctrine they use in the attack.
Basically they would use a 3 layer approach, the initial group that would be considered class "A" divisions, would attack the FEBA(Forward edge battle area) look for any weak points, then once they find it, the second echelon which would have their latest equipment and best trained units would move up, attack the weak points and force a breakthrough then run into the rear of the opposing formation and the 3rd echelon which was comprised with "class B and some class"C or V"units would provide security for the operations. This is the doctrine developed by Georgy Zhukov and it worked well against the Germans in WWII. The Soviets still trained on the same model. Casualties were of no concern to the leadership, That was one of the big differences between " us" and " them".
I will give an example...If one of our units ran into trouble, we would call for arty or air support. It is part of our doctrine to do this. Part of the combined arms training that we do. Well the Soviets would NOT do that...The Soviets would doctrinally refuse such a request especially in the initial assaults, they wanted to save the combat power for the break through, and not "waste" it on small actions. That is why most of the artillery and free rockets were assigned directly to the Soviet Army or Front Commander, to save the resources.
We developed "airland battle" our doctrine in the late 70's to disrupt the echelon attacks that the Soviets would do in case of an attack. Our Apache helicopters and A-10's reflected this doctrine. That is what we used in Desert Storm. the Iraqi's were trained and equipped according to Soviet doctrine. We knew that we couldn't go toe to toe in an slugging match with the Soviets, they still outnumbered us in men and tanks. I think Stalin said "Quantity has a quality all its own". So we had to be "smarter" then they were. They had a lot of top down management, whereas we trained individual initiative in our soldiers.
I know Cavoli personally and he's everything that's wrong with the US Army. Lying, backstabbing, shitbag that got plenty of people killed getting himself promoted. I ever see him again I'm gonna knock his tonsils out of his lying ass and then set my dogs on him.
Lalo
Russia fights by enduring. Stoic endurance of misery and doing without is in the Russian DNA, something they have a huge capacity for, with reserves - as Napoleon and Hitler learned.
You know, Comrade Aesop, when Russia defeats the Ukraine, you will retcon everything you've said, and insist that you always knew that Russia would be the winner.
I trust your Medical and Shooting advice.
Your political advice stinks.
Poorly does not mean unsuccessfully; just poorly done. I think Russian will eventually win is some form or another, but it will hardly be in the same shape as before. The view from atop a pyramid of skulls is doubtless breathtaking, but the vista can hardly be an improvement for either the viewer or the viewpoint.
If Russia defeats Ukraine, it will have taken them five to ten times the casualties it took them to lose in Afghanistan (they've already trebled those losses in 1/3rd the time, so I'm probably understating the enormity of their eventual debacle by orders of magnitude), against a country 1/10th as militarily strong as they are, and with less than one quarter the population.
A couple of "victories" like that, and the Russian Federation will go the way of the former Soviet Union, except more spectacularly and bloodily. Putin was measured for his casket when this war lasted beyond six months.
That's before Russia has to deal with a decades-long Ukrainian insurgency, which most of NATO would gleefully and surreptitiously support in perpetuity.
As it is, "putinic" is likely to replace "pyrrhic" in the dictionary.
We've passed the point where Russia can "win". We're probably past the point where Ukraine can "win" for any value of that word, looking at the devastation wreaked on their country in three years.
But nowhere is it written that both countries cannot lose.
At this point, that's the likeliest outcome, and it's leading the race by ten lengths right now.
Putin didn't go to Anchorage because he was ahead on points. His economy is on its back, and the legs are starting to twitch.
At this point, my only curiosity is how many times Charlie Trump is going to try and kick the "peace" football Putin keeps holding before he catches a cluebat across the forehead, and whether he'll pursue it with a Chamberlainic "at any price" mantra, or finally wise up and stop urinating into the wind.
How did that work out for Gorbachev in Afghanistan?
Just wondering.
Sorry dude, but the Boomers are still thinking "We Stopped the Krauts by ourselves, and Our Greatest Allie level boooosheeet. Steiner is ready to send his divisions, and Britain rules the waves. Senile Dementia is a helluva drug
Any Day Now™ v. 1267.0 is now operational.
Russia is averaging 1000 casualties/day, like we did at NO point ever during the Vietnam War.
Tell us more about Senile Dementia.
Post a Comment