Russian Tanks

[Snipey]

In response to the questioned posed to me in a thread that got closed for an unrelated reason:

Russians did use a bit of T-80 tanks:

http://www.southossetiaconflict.org/?tag=news

"British Sky News: same picture. First report: footage of Grads firing, and a comment of “Georgian side states that 7 of its citizens have been wounded in Russian strikes”. Followed by footage of Russian tanks rolling into Ossetia. 1500 people killed by Georgians? Tskhinvali in ruins? Too unimportant to notice. Instead they show a split picture: on the left reservists drafted by Saakashvili standing around in civil clothes looking clueless, and on the right modern Russian T-80 tanks with reactive armor and BTRs rolling by. Another great (not-so-)subtle way to brainwash people into believing the “right” story."

Also from: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008...e-south-osset/ (Yeah, typing five more letters was soooo hard...)

"One Georgian tank unit lost 400 out of 500 soldiers [to Russian T-80 tanks], according to an Ossetian soldier and blogger fighting for the Russians. But tank killers from the Georgian infantry, armed with unidentified guided missiles — allegedly of Israeli origin — sparked a minor panic and a major diplomatic row between Russia and Israel, when they destroyed several T-80s"

Not entirely true about the panic, because Georgia lost 400 troops, Russia lost a few, like 4-5 tanks, which is roughly 20 men, that's a 1 to 20 casualty ratio, I doubt it'll bring about panic.

[Imp]

Unless the mind sets changed which I doubt Russia is not worried about the loss of a few men. Expensive hardware & trained crews is a diffrent matter plus it does not look good.

[Snipey]

Well you have to keep in mind that Russians won a massive victory. This war had stabilized the entire Caucasian Region, and removed Russia's last Achilles' heel. And in a rare case, all Russian/Ossetian/Abkhaz soldiers injured in this war, who have survived the first week of it, will be getting the best healthcare treatment. Even some Georgian POWs will. (Yes, I said it's a rare case, happens only when Russia truly wins it big, should be an everyday occurence though, anyways...) The loss of crews and tanks is regrettable, however it's a big question about how many crewmen were actually killed. Those who survived, even if unfit for duty, will get roles as drill instructors. And to stabilize the Caucasian Region, Russia would be willing to pay billions, so the cost of tanks here did not matter.

The political dilemma between Russia and Israel over this, which Iran had played upon brilliantly, is another matter for another thread.

[c_of_red]

I sort of agree. It was a big, short term win for Russia, not because it stabilized anything. Attacks on Russians are still happening in the Caucasus. In the long run, it will seriously damage Russian interests.
The win was showing that the USA hasn't the backbone to live up to it's security agreements. That makes NATO a Joke.
The 19th century really sucked for Russia. The 20th was even worse. I'm not sure why Russian would choose to try and return to the 19th century instead of joining the civilized world in the 21st century. Time only goes one way.
Meanwhile, I found this on the OOB of Georgia;

"From mid-June to mid-July 2005, some 800 Georgian troops conducted large-scale tank exercises using some 170 battle tanks. One year earlier, Georgia had only 76 T-55 and T-72 tanks. Ukraine supplied many of the new T-72 tanks, some of which were improved T-72 SIM-1 models."

snipped from here;
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...orgia/army.htm

So it looks like Georgia picked up about 90 some T-72's in '05. Not sure if that version of the T-72 is in the game as a T-84.

[Snipey]

How can it be a Russian victory if it did not stabilize anything? Russia's goal was stability, they have achieved that. However, the war was limited to the Caucasian Region, so other NATO states, (all NATO states except UK/US) had no interests in that region. Why would France risk a war with Russia over Georgia?

Finally, I hope this statement from Moscow Defense Brief, one of the most credible sources on the war, will end the arguments here, and we can focus on tanks:

"external observers frequently miss the point that Russia’s stake in the conflict over the unrecognized republics is much higher that that of Georgia’s entry into NATO or the destabilization of energy transit routes that bypass Russia. Russia simply could not afford to lose: in view of the harsh nature of the conflict in Abkhazia and Georgia in the early 1990s, Georgia’s seizure of these territories would mean ethnic cleansing, and the flight to Russian territory of many tens of thousands of embittered and armed refugees. The loyalty of the North Caucasus republics of North Ossetia and Adygeya, tied by blood relation to South Ossetia and Abkhazia, would be undermined. North Ossetia, moreover, is the largest and most loyal autonomous republic in the region. Russia would have been shown to be weak before the entire North Caucasus, and this would have marked a return to the situation of the 1990s."

It is interesting that both sides used T-72s. Were there any variants between Russian and Georgian tanks?

[Wdll]

The war provided good and bad things for Russia. Among the ones that gave both were that it showed that it will attack anyone near her that threatens her security, that caused a small panic among ex soviet states that want closer ties with the "west". Most of them now have increased talks with NATO and purchasing of anti tank and anti air systems.

I can't say, as an individual, that I care much about what happened there. Georgia risked, with the implied backing up of NATO, and lost. What I find hilarious is how some (not all) "western" countries were all pissed off with Russia for doing exactly what they have done (and they have done similar and worse) in the Balkans over the last 15 years with the most recent example that of Kosovo. I guess it hurts when an ally of yours faces the same judgement from someone that can do something about it.

I am not saying that Georgia was not right to want its territory back in their sphere of control...read this with what I said in the previous paragraph.


For me, it showed once more how useless an alliance is when you can't depend on your allies to help defend you. That was the biggest shock to the NATO alliance and showed how much one can rely on an american government (would Obama do something different? I don't know) for protection against an opponent that has teeth.

Plato was right ~2500 years ago, he is still right. The strong will do what they want and the weak will have to accept their fate being dictated by the strong.


I haven't heard or read about any tank battles in the war. From what I know all the tank casualties for the russians were from ATGMs and other inf activity, while Georgia lost most of her tanks due to the crews abandoning them and retreating on foot/cars/whatever. They were too worried about being sitting ducks to russian air power, which is kinda funny with the russians playing horribly the hand of theoretical air supremacy, which showed huge warning signs for the combined tactics and communication between the air force and the army in Russia now (well, last year at least).

[c_of_red]

"so other NATO states, (all NATO states except UK/US) had no interests in that region"

Factually inaccurate, sir. The Russian willingness to use gas supplies for political leverage has made a trans Caucasus pipeline a potential threat to Russian plans for expansion. Look at some of the propose routes and notice where the Russian have set up shop. So now the pipelines will be laid across Iran, Iraq and Turkey. Russia is practicing 18th century politics, with 'spheres of influence and power projection.
Only this ain't the 19th century. ICBM's don't really care about the little mudhole countries the cross on their way to a target. Right now, few Western nations have ICBM's. ANY NATO country has the technology to build ICBM's and the nuclear warhead to go on one. They don't because for the last several decades, they have relied on the USA to spend the money to protect them. That will change if it looks like the USA WON'T protect them. Evidence is that the USA will not honor it's commitments.
Now if NATO was operating under 19th century political rules, their response to the Russian rape of Georgia would be to establish the Kurds that live in Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran as a Nation. That would guarantee European access to the gas supplies Europe needs.
It would really get everyone's panties in a wad, but there isn't much that any of those nations could do about it. The ONLY one that can fight their way out of a paper bag is Turkey. If faced with a trade between giving up a small part of their land (<10% IIRC) and getting rid of a bunch or unruly citizens in exchange for full EU membership, what do you suppose the Turks would do?
If Biden is POTUS by then (very likly) then there will be no objection from the USA, since this idea is Biden's in the first place. Back in'04, Joe wanted to divide Iraq in 3 and knock off chunks of Iran and Syria to create a new Kurdish nation. Biden would be the most aggressive foreign policy President since Teddy.

So long term, the Russians have created an incentive for the Non-nuclear states of NATO to go nuclear. They have served notice to the mudholiestans to buy beg borrow or steal weapons to fight future Russian incursions with. They have made it clear to the EU that having a Russian paw around the Eu's throat is an essential part of Russian foreign policy.

Those are some of the reasons why long term, the rape of Georgia is a disaster for Russia.
Unless, of course, you think having some poor country whose only noteworthy export is wine and dictators under your thumb is worth seeing Poland and Germany build nuclear weapons. Nothing like Poland having 50 ICBM's with 400 kiloton warheads to give "pootie" an ulcer.

[Wdll]

The Russians do not need Georgia. I don't know what maps you have been seeing, but it is not the russians that have problem with the pipeline routes, it is the Nabuco that has problems...Russia has source and route to send gas to its european customers...(although the new Bulgarian government tries to cause problems for the southern route over the last few weeks)

The USA cannot create a Kurdish State unless it is willing to fight Iran, Iraqis and Turkey, plus Syria at the same time. It will just not happen any time soon. Also, I don't think you know turks very well. While a large part of the population wants joining the EU, they would NEVER accept to give away land, which btw would not be 10% but at least 15%+. Not only for the duh reasons but also because if they do so they will have even more problems with their population. The turkish state is not a 100% "pure" turkish country. They people in power know very well that giving away land (which won't happen anyway) will mean the collapse of the Turkish republic. They will fight with everything they can before they accept that, so they will never accept to give away land. Then, the military that basically controls the country, does NOT want to join the EU in the first place. It is partly why in the last 6 months they have increased the hostilities over the Aegean. If Turkey ever joins the EU, they know that it will mean their end (military) in terms of power. They will not accept it.
Then of course it is a matter of major EU countries like oh, France, Germany, Italy, UK, not really wanting to accept Turkey in due to realistic and racist reasons.
The EU membership "card"/"carrot" is like a joke that everyone knows but none admits it.

For the foreseeable future, no other european country will acquire nukes. Thankfully they are not all as bloodthirsty and warmongers as some in the USA are(were?). Perhaps you would see things differently too if the USA had suffered the two world wars in the same way the european countries had.

As for Turkey, it will be a good ally of the USA for as long as they believe they have something to gain. If that stops or if the islamists, who are already in power, manage to control the military, then you will see how quickly the balance of power in the region will "change".

[Mobhack]

This is rapidly returning to "political" stuff that has no place in this forum, which is to discuss the WinSPMBT game.

If you want to get into such controversy, then there is an existing thread or two on the Tanknet forum somewhere that you can join.

e.g : http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=26028

Andy

[Koh]

Back to topic. Any photos of those T-80s in the war? I'd rather see the pictures myself than trust someone saying it's a T-80 in a picture. Wouldn't be the first false identification.

The reason I'm so sceptical is because the formation lists I've seen for Caucasus tend to list the units equipped with T-72s and T-64s. I don't know the Russian policy but the swiftness of their response would indicate that they probably didn't have the time to ferry in troops from other military districts.

- Koh