The Gulf War had about a 100-1 death ratio estimates on the low end, and that was against the 4th largest army in the world at the time.
It's not out of the realm of possibility that one of the largest militaries in the world would get that result against a small corrupt Slavic nation, even if it were getting help from the west.
The Gulf War had about a 100-1 death ratio estimates on the low end, and that was against the 4th largest army in the world at the time.
Yes, it's not completely impossible. But this was after shock-and-awe and establishing air superiority very early on, and just mercilessly pounding demoralized conscripts from the air.
I'll never understand the Russian air force's non-existent performance. Whoever heads the Russian air force should follow the example of his predecessor in June 1941. Apparently, USSR military doctrine was that they were never going to get air superiority, so they focused on artillery and AA instead. Bizarre stuff.
It's not out of the realm of possibility that one of the largest militaries in the world would get that result against a small corrupt Slavic nation, even if it were getting help from the west.
Two corrupt Slavic countries going at each other. One has the greater theoretical manpower (though not used, because they used only 170k for an invasion of a huge country with 50 million people) and more material, while the other has 800k with military experience due to 9 years spent terrorizing the people of Donbas.
In absence of a successful coup de main, it does not seem immediately clear to me that the Russians have the advantage, unless they actually mobilize their superior resources and manpower.
It probably as someone has stated before a doctrine issue. The USSR and Russia afterwards strategic planning never envisioned a scenario in which they would be able to have or maintain air superiority long term over hostile territory and instead is focused on defense and retaliatory actions.
It makes sense when you look at Russia's primary potential enemies are. Also when you factor in Russia's previous military engagements have all be low level conflicts in which there wasn't any form contestable air space.
True. Russia has the longest borders in the world with nations of various hostility. Their entire history of modern military doctrine has been "can we defend ourselves against massive, land based armies long enough, utilizing tactical retreats and scorched earth while the war machine gets going?". Mobile anti air platforms that can fall back with mechanized units while production and conscription ramps up is certainly helpful as compared to immobile air bases. Once you get the massive war machine operational, you can build enough ground forces and mobile AA to cover for that weakness. After all, if you have the most powerful air force in the world but an enemy army overruns your airfields, what good are those planes?
Conversely, the US has to utilize amphibious landings to engage in the most likely theatres of war, and as you know, an amphibious landing without air superiority is simply a fancy way to waste resources and men.
The Gulf War had about a 100-1 death ratio estimates on the low end, and that was against the 4th largest army in the world at the time.
It's not out of the realm of possibility that one of the largest militaries in the world would get that result against a small corrupt Slavic nation, even if it were getting help from the west.
Yes, it's not completely impossible. But this was after shock-and-awe and establishing air superiority very early on, and just mercilessly pounding demoralized conscripts from the air.
I'll never understand the Russian air force's non-existent performance. Whoever heads the Russian air force should follow the example of his predecessor in June 1941. Apparently, USSR military doctrine was that they were never going to get air superiority, so they focused on artillery and AA instead. Bizarre stuff.
Two corrupt Slavic countries going at each other. One has the greater theoretical manpower (though not used, because they used only 170k for an invasion of a huge country with 50 million people) and more material, while the other has 800k with military experience due to 9 years spent terrorizing the people of Donbas.
In absence of a successful coup de main, it does not seem immediately clear to me that the Russians have the advantage, unless they actually mobilize their superior resources and manpower.
Russian air power is the most confusing thing.
I remember playing THeatre Europe as the Allies - you had to focus on Air Superiority from the get go otherwise you'd be crushed.
It probably as someone has stated before a doctrine issue. The USSR and Russia afterwards strategic planning never envisioned a scenario in which they would be able to have or maintain air superiority long term over hostile territory and instead is focused on defense and retaliatory actions.
It makes sense when you look at Russia's primary potential enemies are. Also when you factor in Russia's previous military engagements have all be low level conflicts in which there wasn't any form contestable air space.
True. Russia has the longest borders in the world with nations of various hostility. Their entire history of modern military doctrine has been "can we defend ourselves against massive, land based armies long enough, utilizing tactical retreats and scorched earth while the war machine gets going?". Mobile anti air platforms that can fall back with mechanized units while production and conscription ramps up is certainly helpful as compared to immobile air bases. Once you get the massive war machine operational, you can build enough ground forces and mobile AA to cover for that weakness. After all, if you have the most powerful air force in the world but an enemy army overruns your airfields, what good are those planes?
Conversely, the US has to utilize amphibious landings to engage in the most likely theatres of war, and as you know, an amphibious landing without air superiority is simply a fancy way to waste resources and men.