Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I suppose in that case they can be shot as spies or terrorists.

So Russia went into Crimea to protect ethnic Russians, but covers up details of Russian Service Personnel killed in Crimea and disowns those captured...

The facts are that Ukraine's pro Russian/ Russian backed government was ousted.

Russia invaded Crimea using special forces and now Crimea belongs to Russia.

Putin said at the time that there were no Russian forces in Crimea and that they would not annex Crimea.

Putin several months later said that it was planned all along.

Given these facts, anything the Russian government says, is not to be trusted.

I wish we could break off doing any kind of business with Russia at all

Weird, I thought that Russian was quite positive to their so called volunteers. Admitedly taking any sort of official action at all to retrieve them would imply that they had a hand in sending them of course. It also points out that the weight of evidence the other side developers, including having actual soldiers admitting they were sent by the government, doesn't matter one bit to the Kremlin.

Naturally the official statement isn't going to be reflective of what's actually going on. I can imagine those prisoners will be transferred over at some point as part of a ceasefire deal. They're saying to world that they don't care about the "volunteers", meanwhile telling the troops that they have their full backing and another few divisions will be along next week.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Weird, I thought that Russian was quite positive to their so called volunteers.

It appears that they are - so long as they are not killed, captured, or otherwise cause the Kremlin an inconvenience.

I'd like to hear the sentiments of Russian soldiers on the matter. They're either saying "heh, will that won't be me!", or moaning to no end (well depending on if their commander's within earshot). I think that they just lifted up random border regiments and told them to go off to war. Though there will of course be the diehards (particularly units which served in Chechnya and Georgia were picked and well...), I doubt many of those guys are seeing this as anything other than work, and work without the security isn't something to be happy about.

I'll read the novels about this in a decade and see what the soldiers actually had to say. Probably a lot of "we just did what we were told and didn't ask too many questions", "yeah it was crap, but what'cha gonna do?".

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Freakazoitt wrote:

It looks like train transportation marks. It should be same for Russia and Ukraine, as they succedors of USSR.

No.

Oh, and let me ask, how many Buryats live in Donbass?



And the guys who just can't be bothered. 5th armored patches on, truck with the white square behind them.

If I wasn't Movement Coordinator I would say those white "squares" were Battalion identification marking. Though the white "square" would be where I would duck tape (100 mph tape) trans packet/TCN/sequence number

 Wyrmalla wrote:

I think the square's just a common symbol for motorized infantry units, on its own in the case of the 5th, or mixed in with other symbols as per other units. Those were some of them recorded as of that post I made last year, though you'll probably find a comprehensive list of all the different insignia now if you Google it. =P

No sane person is denying Russia is in Ukraine. That ship sailed a long time ago. It's come down to more bizzare talking points like "well there aren't that many Russians" or "it's ok as long as there's some kind of plausible deniability".

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Does Russia still have national service? I'm always amazed that so many Russians who post about Ukraine and elsewhere are so au fait with Russian and former Soviet Bloc military markings on vehicles.

That may be because Soviet and modern Russian military markings are not as consistent like Western markings. it is usually whatever the regimental commander prefers that gets painted on. The Russian military is not always as well organised as Shoigu would like.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Weird, I thought that Russian was quite positive to their so called volunteers. Admitedly taking any sort of official action at all to retrieve them would imply that they had a hand in sending them of course. It also points out that the weight of evidence the other side developers, including having actual soldiers admitting they were sent by the government, doesn't matter one bit to the Kremlin.

Naturally the official statement isn't going to be reflective of what's actually going on. I can imagine those prisoners will be transferred over at some point as part of a ceasefire deal. They're saying to world that they don't care about the "volunteers", meanwhile telling the troops that they have their full backing and another few divisions will be along next week.

A few divisions? Do you know how many men there are in a division? The entire Russian military has just 6 divisions. So where are these hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers in Ukraine? What are they doing there? Eating salo? They are clearly not fighting in any case.
Just to remind you, not every small group of soldiers is a division.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
A few divisions? Do you know how many men there are in a division? The entire Russian military has just 6 divisions.

A "division", as it's commonly understood to most of us, is typically 10-20 thousand troops, the Russian army has far more than 5-6 "divisions" in this sense,the modern Russian army is typically described as being roughly 23-30 divisions in strength, though since 2010 they're organized into 43-48 "Brigade" sized groups from what I understand, organized into a total of 11 "Armies" each composed of 3-4 of the new "brigade" sized forces, spread over 4 military districts.


EDIT: for comparison, the modern German army, about 1/4 the size of the Russian army, has IIRC 3 divisions and a number of smaller independent groups that have enough troops to make another 2-4 between them, so a total of 5-7 divisions worth of troops, which is about 1/4 as many as Russia has, so that's pretty proportional. The US army has IIRC 21 divisions (3 for training) and another 22 independent brigades and regiments. The US Marine Corps has an additional 4 divisions.

 Vaktathi wrote:
A "division", as it's commonly understood to most of us, is typically 10-20 thousand troops, the Russian army has far more than 5-6 "divisions" in this sense,the modern Russian army is typically described as being roughly 23-30 divisions in strength, though since 2010 they're organized into 43-48 "Brigade" sized groups from what I understand, organized into a total of 11 "Armies" each composed of 3-4 of the new "brigade" sized forces, spread over 4 military districts.

It can get confusing though because they mix them up into tactical battalions these days. So, the above white square might signify that particular battalion.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
A "division", as it's commonly understood to most of us, is typically 10-20 thousand troops, the Russian army has far more than 5-6 "divisions" in this sense,the modern Russian army is typically described as being roughly 23-30 divisions in strength, though since 2010 they're organized into 43-48 "Brigade" sized groups from what I understand, organized into a total of 11 "Armies" each composed of 3-4 of the new "brigade" sized forces, spread over 4 military districts.

It can get confusing though because they mix them up into tactical battalions these days. So, the above white square might signify that particular battalion.

Indeed, and modern armies seem to, in general, be moving away from "divisional" sized elements, with Russian and NATO armies all fielding lots of brigade and regimental sized independent formations and fewer things running in "divisional" sized elements.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Does Russia still have national service? I'm always amazed that so many Russians who post about Ukraine and elsewhere are so au fait with Russian and former Soviet Bloc military markings on vehicles.

That may be because Soviet and modern Russian military markings are not as consistent like Western markings. it is usually whatever the regimental commander prefers that gets painted on. The Russian military is not always as well organised as Shoigu would like.

So disorganized in fact that single soldiers can up and leave with all their gear. Hell whole units can desert with no repercussions. Not only that its apparently such an issue that no formal statement that I'm aware of (not that I really care to check obviously) has been made by the Kremlin on the matter of all that top of the line hardware and millions of pounds worth of armour and logistical tech. For a country with such a poor economy you'd think the government would be up in arms about all that defense expenditure which has been stolen by thousands of deserters. Even worse on top of the theft they still have these soldiers on their payroll, despite being deserters, and are still shilling out for the satellite network, etc, that these men are using as they fight a war on behalf of Russia. Indeed dire straights for the Russian military and government. I can't see them surviving a scandal of this size, with all the incompetence and corruption being laid bare for the world to see.

...That is the thing though. Apparently the schmucks who buy into all that bull about volunteers are somehow fine with the idea that the system could be so broken. Que some nonsense/ joke response to this.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Weird, I thought that Russian was quite positive to their so called volunteers. Admitedly taking any sort of official action at all to retrieve them would imply that they had a hand in sending them of course. It also points out that the weight of evidence the other side developers, including having actual soldiers admitting they were sent by the government, doesn't matter one bit to the Kremlin.

Naturally the official statement isn't going to be reflective of what's actually going on. I can imagine those prisoners will be transferred over at some point as part of a ceasefire deal. They're saying to world that they don't care about the "volunteers", meanwhile telling the troops that they have their full backing and another few divisions will be along next week.

A few divisions? Do you know how many men there are in a division? The entire Russian military has just 6 divisions. So where are these hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers in Ukraine? What are they doing there? Eating salo? They are clearly not fighting in any case.
Just to remind you, not every small group of soldiers is a division.

...It was a joke.

I hardly imagine the Russians are deploying their full forces to just that one war. Hell they're fighting a few right now, though yes Ukraine's the largest. Most of the units seen in the conflict are those from out in the sticks, but they're clearly backing them up with better lads and equipment. There's probably a source with more accurate numbers out there, though I can picture that the Russians had a good few thousand men at least in country at the height of the conflict. Now they'e consolidating and letting the separatists take the brunt of the conflict, but its obvious that they still have a significant number of troops there (and no I mean on top those in occupied Crimea).

Well if there are no radio transmission intercept coordinating these units which would mean they are using land lines and cells phones.
Actually they might have a version of our SINGARS to

Why wouldn't they be using just the regular gear that their issued with? They lifted everything else. The Russians were never trying to cover up their presence, it so obvious and their arguments so thin that they're presumably just carrying on as normal with how they conduct themselves (bar obviously covering up any insignia and taking the soldier's documents). They can use outside logistics all they want, receive flak for it, and then the government just comes in later and says "yes we were providing that, but its fine because we're admitting to it now, even though you all new about that months ago".

Aye though, the soldiers are still using their phones to go on Twitter, so I can imagine that any bases that they have in country are acting as hosts (...that is if the coverage isn't crap). They're so close to their Russian bases that they could possibly use those connections too to ping the higher ups, though how secure that is questionable. The internet in that part of the country's presumably a bit patchy now as IIRC a load of operators pulled out though, not that any military units would be dumb enough to use a civilian connection to pass orders over.

Their equipment, vehicles, uniforms, and more likely their personnel issue weapons are "sterile"
I've done this on a smaller scale but if I am killed and they manage to get my blood they can identify me (and every other current US S/M) by DNA. I highly doubt the Russians military is even close to that identification

It generally sounds like Russian forces aren't there necessarily in huge numbers, but rather specialist roles and to basically form the core around which specific conventional actions (like taking Debaltseve) are conducted. Very much like the early US role in Vietnam

It also sounds like cell phones are playing a large role on both sides, and I know there was a video (I *think*on VICE) where Ukrainians were talking about a Russian they'd captured who'd been coordinating artillery, and using a cell phone to do so. In an unconventional conflict, this makes a lot of sense. Neither side really has great capabilities to intercept those, conventional radio equipment would be very easily spotted, and the cell equipment itself is disposable and easy to use to directly contact someone else (like an artillery battery commander).

 Vaktathi wrote:
It generally sounds like Russian forces aren't there necessarily in huge numbers, but rather specialist roles and to basically form the core around which specific conventional actions (like taking Debaltseve) are conducted. Very much like the early US role in Vietnam

It also sounds like cell phones are playing a large role on both sides, and I know there was a video (I *think*on VICE) where Ukrainians were talking about a Russian they'd captured who'd been coordinating artillery, and using a cell phone to do so. In an unconventional conflict, this makes a lot of sense. Neither side really has great capabilities to intercept those, conventional radio equipment would be very easily spotted, and the cell equipment itself is disposable and easy to use to directly contact someone else (like an artillery battery commander).

That is pretty spot on. If the Russian military was deployed in large numbers, the conflict would look very different from how it now looks. If Russian soldiers are active in Ukraine, it is more likely in small groups to provide a professional core to the seperatist forces. It is not like Donbass has any shortage of volunteers willing to fight (grievances against the government in Kiev go pretty deep there). Russian forces would also be handy to ensure the seperatists don't do anything 'stupid', and remove troublesome local commanders.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Russian forces would also be handy to ensure the seperatists don't do anything 'stupid'

What, like shooting down another airliner?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
A "division", as it's commonly understood to most of us, is typically 10-20 thousand troops, the Russian army has far more than 5-6 "divisions" in this sense,the modern Russian army is typically described as being roughly 23-30 divisions in strength, though since 2010 they're organized into 43-48 "Brigade" sized groups from what I understand, organized into a total of 11 "Armies" each composed of 3-4 of the new "brigade" sized forces, spread over 4 military districts.

It can get confusing though because they mix them up into tactical battalions these days. So, the above white square might signify that particular battalion.

Indeed, and modern armies seem to, in general, be moving away from "divisional" sized elements, with Russian and NATO armies all fielding lots of brigade and regimental sized independent formations and fewer things running in "divisional" sized elements.

Most was broken down into brigades, but the Russian army still has 6 active divisions. The Taman and Kantemir divisions have even been reactivated again to restore the 1st Tank Army.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Russian forces would also be handy to ensure the seperatists don't do anything 'stupid'

What, like shooting down another airliner?

I think that is more the responsibility of the airlines, by not flying over a warzone. If you go into a area that is known to be dangerous, and you get shot down, that is your own fault.
But yes, accidentally killing civilians is probably one of those stupid things that the seperatists are trying to avoid (and cover up if it does happen). Propaganda is very important for them, and if it is shown they are just as brutal as the Ukrainian government, they'd probably lose a lot of support.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I think that is more the responsibility of the airlines, by not flying over a warzone. If you go into a area that is known to be dangerous, and you get shot down, that is your own fault.

Ah, another spot on my Dakka bingo card filled, much obliged!

He does make a good point. Flying over an active warzone, which we know to be covered by SAMs and other air combat, is pretty damn stupid.

 Grey Templar wrote:
He does make a good point. Flying over an active warzone, which we know to be covered by SAMs and other air combat, is pretty damn stupid.

Why was MH17, a civilian airliner, flying over a war zone?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/07/economist-explains-14

Apparently everyone does it.

If rebels had declared it a no fly zone they would have gone round.

But even in the Gulf wars passenger planes flew over Iraq.

Its nothing new and flying at 33000 ft transmitting its identity should have been enough for people who know how to fire a BUK.

 Grey Templar wrote:
He does make a good point. Flying over an active warzone, which we know to be covered by SAMs and other air combat, is pretty damn stupid.

Yes. Still doesn't mean that the entire blame, or even most of it IMO, rests on them. I think you're entitled to expect people not to shoot at civilian airliners.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
He does make a good point. Flying over an active warzone, which we know to be covered by SAMs and other air combat, is pretty damn stupid.

Yes. Still doesn't mean that the entire blame, or even most of it IMO, rests on them. I think you're entitled to expect people not to shoot at civilian airliners.

Absolutely.

The problem is that there are military planes that look like airliners.

MH17 shouldn't have dressed that way if it didn't want to be raped by the Russians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
The problem is that many military planes look like airliners.

They don;t have the same flight profiles. Not even close.

 CptJake wrote:
MH17 shouldn't have dressed that way if it didn't want to be raped by the Russians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
The problem is that many military planes look like airliners.

They don;t have the same flight profiles. Not even close.

Agreed. It was sending out civilian radio, and flying too high and was on schedule for the flight.

 Tyran wrote:
The problem is that there are military planes that look like airliners.

Military planes don't fly in steady straight lines.