Ukraine is under attack. It's a full on war.

[Effete]

Over the last 10 years or so, various US and NATO commands have conducted military maneuvers and war-games, hypothetically having Blue Teams and Red Teams. During such events, and there have been several, posing hypothetical wars involving Russia, the conclusions have been that the US and NATO gets fucked the majority of the time. Likewise, the US Pacific Fleet has done the same type of exercises posing China as the enemy force--and such results have created no small degree of alarm, criticism, and scandal, as also in the majority of such hypothetical wars, China comes out on top, and America gets fucking blasted.

Just throwing this out there as idle speculation, but do you suppose those assessments were purposely misleading to funnel more money into the military-industrial complex? It's just a question, since I have no proof, nor am I making such a claim. All I have is my distrust of the entrenched bureaucracy that is the US government. Personally, I find it difficult to believe that one of the wealthiest nations on earth, that spends 80% of its GDP on defense, gets blow tf away by a country who's military is still primarily composed of leftover surplus from 30 years ago.

Call me a nut, but with Biden's ties to both Russia and Ukraine, I wouldn't be surprised if this was all some "inner circle" globohomo agenda to destablize the region, distract the plebs, and pay off some of the players. Ukraine almost certainly has dirt on Sneaky Joe's shady dealings, so it really feels like he's using US tax dollars to grease some palms (to the tune of 33 billion+). Additionally, the EU has been pushing for an autocratic superstate for quite some time, and Poland has been a pretty big stick in the mud about it. What better way to whip them in line than to threaten them with potential invasion?

Again, I don't know. I'm just asking questions... cos honestly, none of the shit they're telling us makes any sense.

[Shrieking Banshee]

Again, I don't know. I'm just asking questions... cos honestly, none of the shit they're telling us makes any sense.

I do not trust the global superstate power mongers, but I believe in this case its missing critical things:
Russians march really well. As in amazingly well. Its probably the #1 thing they can do over any other military. Does that translate to any other sort of combat effectiveness? No. And yet they still do it.
Playing games is not the same thing as an actual war.
As for palm greasing: That generally reaches the limit of 'My life is personally in danger for this'. The oligarchs in Ukraine have a cushy thing going, and there was no garuntee that Russia would fail to take the capital initially. Palms could easily be greased without smashing your cushy tax base and putting your soverignty at risk.
Poland has always been on edge about Russia invading, but for that reason its a big player in NATO, not the EU.

There is certainly distraction theatre at play here, but I don't think this is the angle.

[Effete]

Yeah, I'm not putting my tinfoil hat on just yet. I'm just trying to see what the magician's other hand is doing.

[blackstone]

Another key factor in the frankly pathetic performance of the Russian military is a lack of NCOs. The Russian armed forces are still structured as they were in the Cold War, WWII, and WWI: lots of officers, and small NCO corps, and lots of enlisted. A modern military cannot be structured in such a fashion and expect to win wars.

Why?  Most modern (Western) militaries are structured to where officers give the orders, NCOs make sure the orders are carried out, and the enlisted execute those orders. There's a clear division of labor and responsibility in the command structure. It leaves the officers to be concerned with priorities of a higher, strategic level. NCOs are to make sure the overall command is carried out, but are the ones who dwell on the details at a tactical level. Plus it's instilled (at least in the US military) that officers take advice from senior experienced NCOs in their plans.

You have none of that in the Russian military. You have officers performing tasks that NO officer in their right might should be performing on the modern battlefield. You have Brigade commanders performing tasks that a company Sergeant should be doing. Plus, the lack of NCOs leads to a lack of discipline among the enlisted. Believe me, I know. A bunch of unsupervised Joes will do whatever they want. It like herding cats.

This has led to desertions, surrenders, and all out near fratricide (a Russian brigade commander was purposely ran over with a tank by his own troops. Don't know if he survived). On top of that, with all of the officers doing jobs they shouldn't be doing, you have a record number of Generals being killed on the battlefield.

NCOs are the backbone of a modern military. NO NCOs, no backbone. Therefore Russia's army has no backbone. 'nuff said.

I've seen a lot of similar analyses but for other countries instead of Russia. It seems to be very common for many militaries to have their performance massively hindered due to a lack of NCOs. Since there seems to be such a consensus about the importance of NCOs (and certainly not one I'd disagree with) why is it so common for many militaries to hobble themselves by not developing a proper NCO corps?

Much of it comes down to costs. How much time and money is a country willing to invest in its military?

I can only claim knowledge of how the US and Russian military is structured. Generally speaking, The US armed forces required a minimum of time in service before one can advance in rank, especially to NCO ranks (E4/5 - E9).  When an enlisted person is eligible for promotion, they generally have 3 to 4 years in. Even then, promotion isn't automatic. The US Navy for example, you take a test upon the knowledge of your rating (MOS, job). all services require you to meet the minimum physical requirements. Any medals, rewards, commendations, may count for "points" towards promotion as well. Farther advancement in the senior ranks (E7- E9) require successful completion of leadership training.

With that being said, order and discipline is maintained by the NCOs within the command, who are generally ones that have comes through the ranks in the same command. This builds trust and closeness with the junior enlisted. Esprit de corps, as it's called. Basically, you trust the guys above you because we've all been through he same shit and you pretty much know they've got your back. Does this happen all of the time? No. But for the vast majority it does.

the Russian military? Not so much.

The invest a lot in their officers, and see them as the ones to not only to create orders, but many times to make sure they're carried out (unless a senior officer is savvy enough to get his juniors to do so). Order and discipline is maintained primarily through fear and intimidation, not by respect or Esprit de corps. Hazing is a common form of discipline and is rampant in the Russian armed forces. If a recruit after a year of service shows "brains", he may be promoted to Sergeant. Time in rank means nothing to the Russian armed forces. It's not uncommon for a private with many years in, dress down a Sergeant with only a year or two in.

Plus, the Russian armed forces has only 3 ranks of NCOs. US armed forces? Six. Why is that important? better division of labor and responsibilities in the command structure.

I do know what I'm talking about with first hand experience. this isn't just academic talk. I spent 4 years active in the US Navy and then 6 years in the Army Natl Guard, one of those years active Army in Iraq in 05. I've been around good and bad officers and NCOs. the best NCOs and officers are the ones who don't just give orders, but listen as well. Ultimately it's up to them to give the orders and make things happen. Bad NCOs and officers make decisions unilaterally. they're the ones who are "out of touch" and lack the empathy to understand the impact of their orders.

[oggsmash]

Another key factor in the frankly pathetic performance of the Russian military is a lack of NCOs. The Russian armed forces are still structured as they were in the Cold War, WWII, and WWI: lots of officers, and small NCO corps, and lots of enlisted. A modern military cannot be structured in such a fashion and expect to win wars.

Why?  Most modern (Western) militaries are structured to where officers give the orders, NCOs make sure the orders are carried out, and the enlisted execute those orders. There's a clear division of labor and responsibility in the command structure. It leaves the officers to be concerned with priorities of a higher, strategic level. NCOs are to make sure the overall command is carried out, but are the ones who dwell on the details at a tactical level. Plus it's instilled (at least in the US military) that officers take advice from senior experienced NCOs in their plans.

You have none of that in the Russian military. You have officers performing tasks that NO officer in their right might should be performing on the modern battlefield. You have Brigade commanders performing tasks that a company Sergeant should be doing. Plus, the lack of NCOs leads to a lack of discipline among the enlisted. Believe me, I know. A bunch of unsupervised Joes will do whatever they want. It like herding cats.

This has led to desertions, surrenders, and all out near fratricide (a Russian brigade commander was purposely ran over with a tank by his own troops. Don't know if he survived). On top of that, with all of the officers doing jobs they shouldn't be doing, you have a record number of Generals being killed on the battlefield.

NCOs are the backbone of a modern military. NO NCOs, no backbone. Therefore Russia's army has no backbone. 'nuff said.

I've seen a lot of similar analyses but for other countries instead of Russia. It seems to be very common for many militaries to have their performance massively hindered due to a lack of NCOs. Since there seems to be such a consensus about the importance of NCOs (and certainly not one I'd disagree with) why is it so common for many militaries to hobble themselves by not developing a proper NCO corps?

Much of it comes down to costs. How much time and money is a country willing to invest in its military?

I can only claim knowledge of how the US and Russian military is structured. Generally speaking, The US armed forces required a minimum of time in service before one can advance in rank, especially to NCO ranks (E4/5 - E9).  When an enlisted person is eligible for promotion, they generally have 3 to 4 years in. Even then, promotion isn't automatic. The US Navy for example, you take a test upon the knowledge of your rating (MOS, job). all services require you to meet the minimum physical requirements. Any medals, rewards, commendations, may count for "points" towards promotion as well. Farther advancement in the senior ranks (E7- E9) require successful completion of leadership training.

With that being said, order and discipline is maintained by the NCOs within the command, who are generally ones that have comes through the ranks in the same command. This builds trust and closeness with the junior enlisted. Esprit de corps, as it's called. Basically, you trust the guys above you because we've all been through he same shit and you pretty much know they've got your back. Does this happen all of the time? No. But for the vast majority it does.

the Russian military? Not so much.

The invest a lot in their officers, and see them as the ones to not only to create orders, but many times to make sure they're carried out (unless a senior officer is savvy enough to get his juniors to do so). Order and discipline is maintained primarily through fear and intimidation, not by respect or Esprit de corps. Hazing is a common form of discipline and is rampant in the Russian armed forces. If a recruit after a year of service shows "brains", he may be promoted to Sergeant. Time in rank means nothing to the Russian armed forces. It's not uncommon for a private with many years in, dress down a Sergeant with only a year or two in.

Plus, the Russian armed forces has only 3 ranks of NCOs. US armed forces? Six. Why is that important? better division of labor and responsibilities in the command structure.

I do know what I'm talking about with first hand experience. this isn't just academic talk. I spent 4 years active in the US Navy and then 6 years in the Army Natl Guard, one of those years active Army in Iraq in 05. I've been around good and bad officers and NCOs. the best NCOs and officers are the ones who don't just give orders, but listen as well. Ultimately it's up to them to give the orders and make things happen. Bad NCOs and officers make decisions unilaterally. they're the ones who are "out of touch" and lack the empathy to understand the impact of their orders.

   Something I always wondered with the Russians, was what their nuclear power trained guys were like (regarding selection and ranks and training).  I know when I was in being a Nuc took a shitload of training and continued training in fleet as well as a selection process.  Everyone started as an E4 in the fleet, and it was interesting as some guys more or less started as E5 if they reenlisted.   This lead to a bunch of petty officers with little actual leadership experience.  though it did tend to even out pretty quick among the guys reenlisting (most wanted in for the long haul, so did what they could to become efficient leaders).

[SHARK]

"Lazerpig's" interpretation also pushed me to consider, if the T-34 was such a shit tank, according to him--it honestly begs the question of in wonderment of how the Russians managed to ever get past Stalingrad then, let alone roll the Nazi armies back to Berlin.

The guys video is mostly comedic. It overplays the T-34 problems, but that was just the one I had at hand at the moment. But what I mean is that if 82% of the tanks where lost (~40% can be chalked up to just poor build quality). Thats just a hard statistic. Thats a higher ratio then just about every other tank during the war produced in that quantity. Thats higher ratio then the germans, and they lost the war!

But the Sherman is a great example. There is a scandal because of the casualties number. But that sort of scandal just doesn't matter in a USSR army if the results are worth it.

What I mean is that life isn't a videogame. Russia wasn't playing Zerglings to Germanies Terrans (or whatever that 3rd faction is). "Quality is a quantity of its own" doesn't work when every new soldier still needs to be trained and needs to pick up experience from 0 because the last tank crew died.

As to answer the question: There was more then 1 tank that the Soviets used (IS 2 for instance). And you can still win a war if you have 2nd rate equipment if there is other stuff happening alongside it. Allied denial of supplies, equipment failures, and the germans just completly overstretched themselves as their own logistics people said what they where doing was going to be impossible.

I just cannot for the life of me call what the USSR did a '1st rate army'. I can't call something that just counts on massive reserves of personel to die for the high commands mistakes to "Teach itself" as "1st rate". Yes by the end of the war it had become allot more efficient. And it won through good tactics and such. No amount of bodies would be enough to compensate for poor tactical and strategic performance.

But Russia was by and large playing a defensive war in their own territory, while germany is a country less then a third of its size that had attempted to conquer the whole world.

Edit: To stress again: The USSR army was very effective. But it not 1st rate.

Greetings!

Well, while it is true that the Russian military doctrine often had tendencies to be "casualty-heavy" and having less regard overall for operational losses, to my mind that is not really the bar for determining what a 1st rate army is. In my view, when one considers that the German Wehrmacht was essentially *The Standard*--as them being the 800-lb gorilla conquering all of Europe at the time in breathtaking speed--the Red Army ultimately demonstrated that they could stand toe to toe with the Wehrmacht, and WIN. That isn't an achievement that can consistently be claimed by any other nation involved in World War II except for the United States. In addition, when one considers the absolute beating that the Wehrmacht gave to Russia during the first year of the war, literally encircling and slaughtering *millions* of Russians, and taking over 3 million Russian prisoners--the Red Army's resurrection and match to triumph and victory is astonishing, and again, in my mind, makes the Red Army at the time a 1st rate army. In terms of how they fought, taking on the large majority of the Third Reich, fighting the most elite infantry and Panzer forces, almost always in terrible weather and terrain conditions--over thousands of miles that composed the Eastern Front--and evolving their combined arms forces, their tactics and operational capabilities, all combining to break the Nazi war machine and march victoriously into Berlin in 1945, the only army I can think of that really was in that club at the time was again, the United States.

It is for these reasons that I consider the Red Army of 1944-1945 to have been a 1st rate army.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[Ghostmaker]

Supposedly, Putin's going under for cancer surgery.

If he kicks off, that might cause the whole thing to peter out. Maybe we'll get lucky.

[Shrieking Banshee]

I gotta say, I really hate Putins rhetoric (snd his cronies) in all of this. I hate the childish spineless way he is addressing this conflict. Like a little kid insisting that a dog ate his homework.

Have the dignity to call what your doing a war and claim conquest for empire. Don't pathetically whine that the west is supplying Ukraine weapons for some reason.
Don't whine that the West is killing your soldiers by proxy when you sent them there to die based off of wishful thinking on your part.

Shitty thing where done in Donbas (most of which you supported). But you forfeit all the right to claim it was in its defense when you called on the Ukraine military to overthrow the president!

It is for these reasons that I consider the Red Army of 1944-1945 to have been a 1st rate army.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Alright. But from the POV of the general boots on the ground trooper, it was in no way a first rate military time. The general atmosphere after the war was dour. It felt like a phyrric victory to many outside of high command.

Edit: also forgot the irony: my great grandfather was a wwii tank commander. Died in the line of duty.

[Crawford Tillinghast]

Edit: also forgot the irony: my great grandfather was a wwii tank commander. Died in the line of duty.

Weird generational thing here.
My father served in WWII.
My great great grandfather died wearing Confederate grey, attacking Sheridan's position at Murfreesboro.

[Zelen]

Supposedly, Putin's going under for cancer surgery.

If he kicks off, that might cause the whole thing to peter out. Maybe we'll get lucky.

The only way this conflict ends is if there's regime change in the USA.

[blackstone]

Supposedly, Putin's going under for cancer surgery.

If he kicks off, that might cause the whole thing to peter out. Maybe we'll get lucky.

The only way this conflict ends is if there's regime change in the USA Russia.

Fixed that for ya. You can than me later. Now the rest of us who are educated about the situation will have an intelligent conversation.

[oggsmash]

Supposedly, Putin's going under for cancer surgery.

If he kicks off, that might cause the whole thing to peter out. Maybe we'll get lucky.

The only way this conflict ends is if there's regime change in the USA Russia.

Fixed that for ya. You can than me later. Now the rest of us who are educated about the situation will have an intelligent conversation.

  Well, in fairness, the USA does seem to have a pattern of supporting radicals to fight off someone they do not like through proxy, only to have those same radicals take power in that country, and then the USA comes around and fights that radical government 10 years or so down the road.

[Shrieking Banshee]

The only way this conflict ends is if there's regime change in the USA.

To claim that the conflict in Ukraine now has no USA intervention is ignorant.
To claim the only thing that matters in the conflict now is the USA is also ignorant.

This sort of dialogue has ticked me off. It denies any people in the conflict any sort of personal will and motive and assumes the USA is the only driving factor of the Universe.

Well, in fairness, the USA does seem to have a pattern of supporting radicals to fight off someone they do not like through proxy, only to have those same radicals take power in that country, and then the USA comes around and fights that radical government 10 years or so down the road.

Believe it or not: The USA is not the only nation in the planet capable of arming radicals.

Nations fighting through proxy has been a thing even as a FOUNDING element of the United States. Its like saying all of this is actually the Fault of France because they supported the radical revolutionaries of the American colonies.

[GeekyBugle]

The only way this conflict ends is if there's regime change in the USA.

To claim that the conflict in Ukraine now has no USA intervention is ignorant.
To claim the only thing that matters in the conflict now is the USA is also ignorant.

This sort of dialogue has ticked me off. It denies any people in the conflict any sort of personal will and motive and assumes the USA is the only driving factor of the Universe.

Well, in fairness, the USA does seem to have a pattern of supporting radicals to fight off someone they do not like through proxy, only to have those same radicals take power in that country, and then the USA comes around and fights that radical government 10 years or so down the road.

Believe it or not: The USA is not the only nation in the planet capable of arming radicals.

Nations fighting through proxy has been a thing even as a FOUNDING element of the United States. Its like saying all of this is actually the Fault of France because they supported the radical revolutionaries of the American colonies.

Those damn frogs!

[Ghostmaker]

The Pentagon just straight up admitted they're feeding military intel to Ukraine.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/u-s-provided-intelligence-that-helped-ukraine-sink-russian-warship/ar-AAWXPmJ?ocid=uxbndlbing

WHY? I don't care if we do it on the sly -- to hell with the Russians -- but damn it, you don't fucking BRAG about it you fucking donuts!

But you know why they're suddenly bragging. Brandon's poll numbers are sliding inexorably into the grave. Even the RvW screaming won't save the Democrats, what with the economy going down like Harris on Willie Brown.

Anything to try and make Sleepy Joe and his shitty misadministration look good. Even if it pisses Russia enough to start shooting at us.