Hey Jagdflieger,
Sorry, but for some reason I missed this earlier in your post#5,394.
re "So yes around 120 BTG's constitute around 60% of Russia's BTG trained units. if you know about the composition and tactical role of a BTG, then you will also realize that these formations are totally self-dependent - meaning as some forum members posted, e.g. 1 BTG =700 men + about the same amount or more in a supportive role, is wrong. since they run their own support, logistic, medical etc. within these approx. 700men strong BTG's. - that is why the Russians developed these BTG formations in the first place."
The bold part is incorrect. There is a common misunderstanding about the 'independent' aspect of the current Russian BTG. The BTG is the smallest 'independent' maneuver unit in the Russian army. That means that in terms of command & control they are supposed to be capable of operating for a limited amount of time without as constant supervision and as constant supply/support from higher level assets.
The attached specialty units (like an artillery battery for example) gives them more rapid response to requests for fire support because requests go directly from the line companies to BTG HQ to the artillery battery, as opposed to the larger formation Regiment or Brigade which has 1 or 2 more steps in the division communication network. While they may bring a bit more ready ammunition per gun with them than a regimental artillery unit might have in close proximity, they still have to have a similar ammunition logistics chain - or they run out of ammo. Remember, when they say attached units, we are not talking about giving them an artillery battalion. It is usually 2-4 guns at the most - nothing to laugh at but they still have limited fire endurance.
Another unit that may be attached is an Aviation asset. Again, this unit will be dedicated to the BTG in the command net. The helicopter unit will usually consist of 2-6 attack helicopters operating in reconnaissance and attack, flying out of a rear area base unless there is reason to think more rapid response will be required - in which case the helos might be temporarily forward based in close proximity to the BTG. But, the forward based aviation unit will have only the most basic maintenance support and limited ammunition. They will still have to rely on serious maintenance and resupply from the rear areas. They just won't have to perform the first resupply quite as soon.
The only instance where the examples in limitation I mention above (and several others) might not apply is if the unit does not maneuver in the sense of leaving one area and advancing into another, but instead remains stationary in an attempt to control an area (such as the Russian experience in Afghanistan) in which case more of the support units can be brought to the forward base areas (if they can be kept secure).
The BTG still requires all the normal number of support units or more than a regular unit of similar size, it just won't need it to be in quite as immediate proximity. The same is true for US and most other NATO 'independent' maneuver units.
An extreme example of what we are talking about is the US Army Ranger units. In theory a Ranger unit will deploy with the intent to be reinforced at some point in the near future, or extracted from the area, or make their own way out of the area. The plan is always to equip the unit with at least enough material to accomplish the limited time of the planned mission. But in order to have any confidence that they can operate in this manner they have to constantly maintain a high level of training and competence, including integrating with support units. The last time I had any contact with any Ranger personnel, the average training budget and logistic/support chain for a Ranger battalion exceeded that of the average Armored Brigade. (To be fair, part of the support chain for a Ranger unit includes the transport unit - which could be a fair number of transport aircraft/helos or ship/boat transport - plus aviation assets like attack helicopters and fast movers for CAS.)
Basically, you don't get more for less, You get more by providing more.
Hopefully what I typed makes sense?
www.washingtonexaminer.com
nypost.com
SaparotRob notes, that's a steep learning curve for the Ukrainian Air Force. Maybe they have some helicopters that are capable of this duty?
wlewisiii's skepticism, then FSB boss Patrushev seems to be the front-runner, and he's just as loathsome as Vladdie.
www.bbc.com
