Georgia and Russia at war.

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


the main idea was just to talk about the weapons used in conflict. i think we are not talking about that too much. and its a very important point.

the georgians have outdated hardware specially the old and very unsafe t-72´s and the mtlb´s, but the russians have a lot of diferent kinds of weapons, some outdated others very moderns, like the su-35´s or the newers t-90´s, those have the latest in warfare technology.

was the russian knowloge of t-72 weakness, a really decisive point for russians takes very quickly the south ossetia capitol and also defeat the georgians over that territory ?

did russian commanders underestimated the georgian air defence systems ? should that explain the losses in russia airforce ? or the choice of engajed air weapons wasnt the better ?

seems like the russian warfare in ground was very eficient and victorious, but since the georgia have a so small air force and also havent any kind of fighter and russia at least lost 4 aircraft, seems like the air campaign didnt follow the ground´s success.

regards jugbr
 
Kruska
Georgia was part of Russia only from 1801 to 1918 after that it was independent appr 2year, ruled by Menseviks, until conquerred by Bolseviks in 1920 IIRC. After that to 1991 it was a SSR, Sosialist Soviet Republic, and part of Soviet Union, not part of the Russian SFSR. And as a SSR it had right to separate from the Union according to the constitution of the Soviet Union (that right was of course only theoretical but the last couple years of existence of SU but it was in the constitution of SU) and it used that right in Apr 91 IIRC and SU accepted Georgia's declaration of independence in Oct 91, a couple months before the dissolution of SU. So all went according to SU constitution and international law or at least more or less according those. Now IIRC areas can be separate from states if the "mother" state accepts that. If "mother" state doesn't accept the separation it had right to use certain amount of force to prevent the separation but not "excessive" force but of course what is "excessive" is a matter of opinion. And even if Georgia had not declared itself independent it would have become automatically independent when SU dissolved in Dec 1991.

And both South Ossetia and Abkhazia were ASSRs inside Georgia ie parts of Georgia SSR during Soviet era. At least most ASSRs belonged to one or other SSRs, for ex many were part of Russian SFSR.

Juha
 
Juha said:
Kruska
Georgia was part of Russia only from ..........
Click to expand...

Hello Juha,

Thanks for the information; (Georgia's independence a couple months before the dissolution of SU) basically it matches my knowledge in respect to Russia or Georgia and that these "separatist movements" in majority occurred between 1989 and 1991, at a time were Russia was in no position to do anything about these matters.

That Russia's attack on Georgia is unlawful in regards to international law is a fact. So was the US/UK attack on Iraq 2003 and many other war occurrences. The primary institution of these laws is the UN, which sadly enough is brushed aside when it comes to clarifying matters peacefully or suddenly embraced when it harbors an advantage for one of the member countries.

I am however trying to point out, that the ongoing NATO expansion will only infuriate Moscow even more and as such will rather provide a negative sphere and the illusion towards possible new members to feel safe.

As such these "hopeful members" are not taking the appropriate path of seeking friendly negotiations with Moscow, but indeed tend to flex their non existing muscles towards an angry bear.

BTW, where was the UN or who ever when Stalin attacked Finland and other countries?

Regards
Kruska
 
Pisis said:
Well, Czechoslovakia's initial actions back in 1968 were, as you write, just peaceful reforms, and it led to occupation anyway.

I think the Georgian units were only trying to keep order in what from their perspective is their territory.
Click to expand...
firing with MLRS at the city districts is a proper way to keep order?

Interesting that the Czech president Klaus unlike his East European colleagues has recently heavely critisized Georgian goverment and the European approach at the conflict as whole.
 
Russians have admitted losing three SU25 (ground attack) and a TU22. At least that is what I have read. Georgians claim much more. Typical in this type of thing for such claims to be made. All 4 probably went down to SAMs with a lesser chance of AAA on the SU25s. No chance AAA had anything to do with the TU22. Way to high up. Very, very doubtful there was any air to air.

For now, the Russian claims are probably closer to the truth. Until you can look at the wreckage, claims are just claims.
 
Kruska
I don't have sympathy towards Saakasvili and his government. IIRC states had right to use force to suppress separatist movements but not "excessive" force. And based on the limited info I have IMHO Georgians used "excessive" force in their attack. And then there was the question of firing at Russian peacekeepers. There were firefights before Georgian attack and it is impossible to say who began those. But Georgian attack was really extremely stupid thing to do. And Saakasvili's attempts to obtain outside military help after that is pathetic. He is like a man who in purpose kicked a bear and now hopes that others would rescue him from consequences. If he was a man he would resign and ask forgiveness from all who had suffered from his blunder(s).

Ramirezzz
"firing with MLRS at the city districts is a proper way to keep order?"

No. IMHO not even when used by Russians in Chechnya. And I mean the first Chechen war, the second was began by Basajev's attack over border to Dagestan. BTW Shamil Basajev led a couple Chechen battalions in Abkhazia against Georgians in early 90s. So USA and bin Laden is not only case when a superpower had much trouble with ex-ally.

Juha
 
Kruska
"BTW, where was the UN or who ever when Stalin attacked Finland and other countries?"

Now Kansainliitto, what that was in English, the League of Nations, kicked SU out because of its attack on Finland and we got some material help from Sweden, France, GB, Italy etc. And some thousands volunteers came to help us, mostly from Sweden.

Juha
 
it's latest version M3 is actually not that old, introduced in 1983. Quite young for a strategic bomber
otherwise, should the tu-22m a great plane and the failure was to ensure a total air superiority to use him as recognition plane ? or that was a role that tu-22m wasnt able to play, since it is know as nuclear bomber and not recognition plane.
Click to expand...
it's actually quite capable recce airplane with some very decent SIGINT and SLAR hardware on board.
quite possible. There were some speculations now and then the Ukranians supplied Georgia with their long-range SAMs S-200. No other SAM in Georgian arsenal could get the Tu-22 at its cruise height (some 13000 meters I believe). But the claims are unconfirmed of course.
also is suposed that there was killed a su-25 and a mig-29, but the numbers that georgian and russians gave are totally conflitant. georgia says they killed 30 russian planes, instead russia just report 4 losses.
Click to expand...
well the Georgians claimed even some Tochka-U tactical surface-surface missile parts as aircraft parts of some Russian plane.


Georgians had some upgraded T-72 with the GPS pos system, French heat seeking devices and FALCON C&C system. This gave them theoretically some advantage in a night combat but most of them never made a shot at Russian armour because of air attacks.
 
Juha said:
Kruska
No. IMHO not even when used by Russians in Chechnya.
Click to expand...
agree. A lot of fatal errors were made during the first campaign,both political and military.
BTW Shamil Basajev led a couple Chechen battalions in Abkhazia against Georgians in early 90s. So USA and bin Laden is not only case when a superpower had much trouble with ex-ally.

Juha
Click to expand...
it's interesting that some Chechen units as the "Vostok" batallion took part in the 2008 campaign as well.
 
I'm doing research for a painting. With regard to the aircraft being used by the Georgians, which unit or units use the Su-25's? Is there a website with information about Georgian Su-25 units? Are the aircraft refered to in the news reports Skorpion variants?
 
Hello Ramirezzz
Quote:"it's interesting that some Chechen units as the "Vostok" batallion took part in the 2008 campaign as well."

I noticed that also, Caucasus is full of surprises if one doesn't know the history of the area.

Juha
 
There are PLENTY of people here in the US speaking about the conflict both in favor of Russia, others in favor of Georgia - In front of the Denver state building last night there were demonstrators on both sides - no one is being silenced here, maybe the majority are no longer interested.

As far as silencing you - you made some ignorant and baseless accusations in your post and you were told to knock it off and you didn't. Just so you know this is a private forum so we have the right to edit as we please. I've been pretty liberal with you and as stated actually agree with you on many counts but if I find you posting baseless and ignorant acquisitions on this forum, I will ban you. Please translate this carefully because I will not give you another warning - I hope I have made myself PERFECTLT clear!!!
 
JugBR said:
like the su-35´s
Click to expand...
in this type of conflict you don't need to present the latest hardware you have. Some proven types like Su-25 and Su-24 are more than enough. Beside that Russia deploys their Su-30s (there not many of them in the Russian Army either ) in fighter regiments.

or the newers t-90´s, those have the latest in warfare technology.
Click to expand...
Only units of the North Caucasian Military District were deployed, they haven't any T-90s there. As I said, less sofisticated hardware is still enough for that purposes.
was the russian knowloge of t-72 weakness, a really decisive point for russians takes very quickly the south ossetia capitol and also defeat the georgians over that territory ?
Click to expand...
Russians used T-72s as well. I would say even if Georgians had Challengers instead of T-72 the outcome would be the same. Airstrikes rule.
The decisive point in taking Tshinvali was a good planning and execution, decent air support, good teamwork between tanks, artillery and infantry.
did russian commanders underestimated the georgian air defence systems ? should that explain the losses in russia airforce ? or the choice of engajed air weapons wasnt the better ?
Click to expand...
well even if you've planned your operation good through there's always a chance of being shot down by some well placed Shilka or Igla.
 

Я не знаю чего ты там написал. Ваще не могу понять. Пипец блин. Завтра на трезвую голову попробую разобраться. Сейяас ваще пох!
 

How did the US and NATO meddle along Russia's borders. If Russias former satelites wish to cozy up to the west that is there god given right. They are a soverign nation and Russia has not right to interfere in that either.
 

And he does not speak Russian, and you know that! Therefore speak in a language he can understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A Vietnam War pilot vanished over 50 years ago. His remains have just been found and identified
Replies
9
Views
726
fubar57
U.S. Cold War Sentinels (Documentary)
Replies
1
Views
283
Gnomey
M
Launch the Alert Fighters ....And Grab the Xbox Controller
Replies
1
Views
174
Denniss
D
A
Canada and the seemingly unreachable 2%
Replies
11
Views
968
Admiral Beez
A
AVIATION ODDITIES. Aircraft Innovation And Research Pioneers. Episode 2
Replies
0
Views
479
Dronescapes
Menu
Log in
Register