Russia’s army is learning and improving on the battlefield

https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/05/21/russias-army-is-learning-on-the-battlefield

by xqcgrek2 • 3 years ago

43 157 3 years ago

helge92105• 3 years ago

Army is a reflection of the society. For the army to improve radically, the society itself has to learn and improve. If it didn't happen for the last 200 years, why would it happen now?

perceptronas• 3 years ago

It did happen multiple times. Usually Russians get better after 1 year of war. It seems the same thing is happening again.

Someone2• 3 years ago

Because being shot at and seeing comrades get hit is a strong incentive?

Also, do you have an argument as to that “it didn't happen for the last 200 years” claim?

helge92105• 3 years ago

They still don't have running water and indoor sanitary facilities in most of the rural areas.

konart4• 3 years ago

You might want to read at least some books on Russian history and results of the Crimean War specifically.

Or chose a number different from 200.

helge92105• 3 years ago

Crimean War was lost. Russian-Japanese War was lost the same way. WWI way lost by Germany, but Russians lost even to Germans. WWII was won as part of the Allies by sacrificing Ukraine and using the extensive support from the US. Looks like a pattern to me.

cpursley12• 3 years ago

Yuri Gagarin and Russia's 99.6% literacy rate disagree. Like it or not, Russians (and Ukrainians for that matter) consistently read and math gooder than Americans.

t_tsonev• 3 years ago

You don't need to be a math genius to buy stuff from China.

helge92105• 3 years ago

USSR did run to the finish losing medals to put the first human to space. USA did the same to put humans on the Moon. You can safely ignore these data points as anomalies. Can Russia consistently innovate in any technological field?

gdy14• 3 years ago

The USSR won the WW2 in case you haven't learn that in school.

AzzieElbab2• 3 years ago

That “Russia” was called USSR, was supported by the West, and included Ukraine among others. This time Russia’s only ally is Iran.

ceejayoz8• 3 years ago

School would probably also have noted that 80% of the USSR's copper, 1/3 of its explosives, fuel, trucks, etc. came from the US and UK via Lend-Lease. At a fairly critical time in the war.

Zhukov: "People say that the allies didn't help us. But it cannot be denied that the Americans sent us materiel without which we could not have formed our reserves or continued the war. The Americans provided vital explosives and gunpowder. And how much steel! Could we really have set up the production of our tanks without American steel? And now they are saying that we had plenty of everything on our own."

School might also have noted the complicated history of the USSR and the Nazis; things like the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.

elzbardico2• 3 years ago

The USSR definitely won in Europe, but the US won over the Japanese in the Pacific. Both contributions are equal in terms of importance.

dragonwriter4• 3 years ago

The USSR included Ukraine and was the beneficiary of US lend-lease, too, and per Stalin would have lost without Lend-Lease.

So, you know, not exactly the same as now.

igravious• 3 years ago

https://archive.ph/v5jmX

aliljet2• 3 years ago

I'm a little baffled by this, 'Russia has deployed big ew systems for every 10km stretch of the front. They are largely aimed at drones. And they work: Ukraine is losing a staggering 10,000 drones per month, says the report, amounting to over 300 losses daily. ew is responsible for around half of those losses, a Ukrainian official tells The Economist.'

What Electronic Warfare is going to pull 5,000 drones a month out of the sky?

ajsnigrutin• 3 years ago

Jam GPS, jam transmitters, drones "get lost", fall down.

aliljet2• 3 years ago

Yep. You're right. It's really just nav blocking that's killing the drones. I wonder if there's a way to have these drones operate without a need for GPS. Instead, use cameras to read terrain and map that against the known terrain...

fabian2k4• 3 years ago

A large number of these drones are just regular civilian models. Those are likely easy prey for electronic warfare.

sharemywin• 3 years ago

especially if your supplier country is secretly rooting for your enemy.

pjc506• 3 years ago

That seems astonishingly high, but on second thoughts the whole point of drones is that they're effectively an expendable munition, and if you lose one it counts as having advanced to contact.

Drones are really limited in their autonomous abilities and vulnerable to GPS jamming. Someone needs to work on image-based return to base navigation.

skissane• 3 years ago

'Russia has deployed big ew systems for every 10km stretch of the front.

I assume Ukraine would be trying to blow these EW systems up using HIMARS/GMLRS/etc? I wonder how hard that is.

ceejayoz8• 3 years ago

They can be far more mobile than, say, an artillery piece, as they're just spewing out interference. HIMARS is much more useful for targeting things like ammo depots or fixed positions.

cpursley12• 3 years ago

This issue is EW is wreaking havoc on these GPS guided systems (as are S-400 & BUK interceptions). Not to mention munition supplies for them are dwindling.

- https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/himars-less-effect...

- https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2023/05/03/commentary/w...

tivert7• 3 years ago

What Electronic Warfare is going to pull 5,000 drones a month out of the sky?

If they can jam their control link and GPS, wouldn't they just crash?

IIRC, Ukraine (and Russia) are using a lot of civilian-grade drones, which I would assume would be very vulnerable to military electronic warfare.

iavael• 3 years ago

Why should they crash? It's not like operation of motors and avionics depends on navigation or control link.

kjhughes• 3 years ago

The Economist article is based on this original paper, which includes a well-written, extensive executive summary:

Meatgrinder: Russian Tactics in the Second Year of Its Invasion of Ukraine by Dr Jack Watling and Nick Reynolds, 19 May 2023

- HTML wrapper with executive summary: https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/special-r...

- Full PDF paper: https://static.rusi.org/403-SR-Russian-Tactics-web-final.pdf

cpursley12• 3 years ago

Great link. The RUSI article on "The Return of Industrial Warfare" was also really informative.

ghosty141• 3 years ago

Very interesting read, thank you!

andrewclunn• 3 years ago

I have a bet going with a co-worker regarding the state of this conflict by the end of the year. He gets his information from what would generally be considered "reputable mainstream sources" and I from the "darkweb underbelly" of the internet. It'll be an interesting test to see if I have been able to discern between the truth and misinfo, and whether the institutions behind his sources do a better job at vetting information, or are just propaganda mouthpieces. He thinks Russia is about to lose handedly, I believe large swaths of Eastern Ukraine will effectively be part of Russia going forward. We put some money down. Time to see which epistemological approach wins out.

digdugdirk• 3 years ago

By the end of 2023? What did you agree on for the definitions of "lose handily", "large swaths of Eastern Ukraine", and "effectively part of Russia"?

From a long term perspective, Russia has already lost handily - the cratering of the male fighting-age population (either from casualties or from fleeing the country) will be nearly impossible to recover from.

mnky9800n2• 3 years ago

They also ejected much of the intelligentsia from the country who had the means to leave.

timbit42• 3 years ago

the cratering of the male fighting-age population (either from casualties or from fleeing the country) will be nearly impossible to recover from.

This is happening to Ukraine as well. Ukrainians are not having children right now.

cpursley12• 3 years ago

You're probably getting downvoted because betting is pretty darn cynical. But I also follow some of the Russian & Ukrainian propaganda sources to contrast it with Western media. While 80% of the time it's total garbage, they are often several days - even weeks ahead on certain stories. And some stories never even make it to mainstream media. The key is to know what to ignore (i.e., jingoistic bantering, etc) and what to pay attention to (photos, videos). It's also not for the faint of heart. Lot's of people getting killed, dead bodies, fresh graveyards, etc. I often have to take breaks from looking at it.

dncornholio2• 3 years ago

What I've found to understand is that Western media actual represents most facts. Ukraine media often understates Russian success. While Russia media always overstates their success. The regular media then usually gets the story right.

Also, video's of fighting and people dying isn't very informing, they are too situational and too local.

Lesson of the day, both UKR and RUS media are not very trustworthy. It's gotten to a point where I've stopped investing in it.

giraffe_lady• 3 years ago

If I was doing something this sick I would not be posting about it under my real name got damn.

dmpk2k• 3 years ago

It may look crass, but putting money on the line means there is price for hot air, thus hopefully the people involved will do more research and think a bit more deeply. If you're not willing to put serious cash down on a position, you are in some sense implying little confidence in that position.

pjc506• 3 years ago

"End of the year" is far too soon for that one, I think. Simply on linear progress I wouldn't expect Ukraine to be back to the start of 2022 until after then, and Crimea and Donetsk/Luhansk are going to take longer.

The F/16 deal is evidence towards the idea that the war is settling in to be a long one.

civilized• 3 years ago

There are plenty of balanced and perceptive people in the mainstream. For example, Fukuyama recently argued for Ukraine to let Donbas go, focus on retaking Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, then use NATO membership and their position around Crimea to disincentivize further Russian attacks [1]. (Viscerally I would prefer a sweeping Ukrainian victory retaking all occupied territory, but retaking Donbas and Crimea would be "hugging a hornet's nest" even if it could be done.)

I think predictive success is more down to the person sorting the info than the source. I ignore most of the war of words and focus on the territory changes. Maps are more honest.

[1] https://www.americanpurpose.com/articles/nato-membership-for...

nocoiner• 3 years ago

Sounds to me like you’re friend is the sucker at this particular poker table. Seems like you’ve got this one in the bag, regardless of where he gets his news.

Congrats on the favorable terms of your best, I guess.

_kbh_6• 3 years ago

What happens if part of Russia get occupied by Ukraine, like what is reportedly starting to happen now in Belgorod?.

PuffinBlue3• 3 years ago

Russian EW is also apparently achieving real time interception and decryption of Ukrainian Motorola 256-bit encrypted tactical communications systems, which are widely employed by the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

Interesting. I wonder if this is via cryptanalysis or something like breaching key storage/espionage.

tyingq2• 3 years ago

I believe it's symmetric AES256, and you load the keys into the radios with a wired/dedicated keyloader device. The Russians must have some hack into wherever the keys are being stored centrally before they get into the keyloader.

Or, more mundanely, they don't rotate the keys often, and the Russians just have some number of stolen radios. You can find videos of both sides picking up radios with drones too.

PuffinBlue3• 3 years ago

Furthermore, these measures have reduced the probability of kill of a variety of anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) at ranges beyond 1,400 m.

That’s a significant drop in Javelin range.

roenxi3• 3 years ago

This situation was dangerous and remains dangerous. There are a couple of significant risks here:

1) Western policy risks building up a big Asian military alliance. It should be obvious to China that what is currently happening to Russia is also slated to happen to them. India will be nervous too unless they are hopelessly naive. China and the US were friends once too, back in ... the 2010s...

2) We're escalating towards WWIII. This is like watching athletes limbering up.

3) In the modern era it is astonishingly rare for the US military to get involved and leave a country better off than when they entered. The US does not have the resources to head in and rebuild Ukraine - that privilege now belongs to China, world manufacturing superpower. We're going to see massive distabilisation in Eastern Europe for a generation. The Poles are wise to be rapidly militarising.

bischofs• 3 years ago

The annihilation of Ukraine and the violent expansion of a nuclear armed dictatorship is not a risk in your eyes?

bombolo4• 3 years ago

they don't want to expand. The original goal is to have ukraine not in NATO and not pointing missiles at them.

Ukraine although not in nato, had been doing training with nato for a while prior to the invasion.

pjc506• 3 years ago

It should be obvious to China that what is currently happening to Russia is also slated to happen to them

What, the US has scheduled the Chinese invasion of Taiwan for the convenience in destroying China?

it is astonishingly rare for the US military to get involved and leave a country better off than when they entered

I think you need to distinguish between a hostile occupation and a liberation. Which is what went wrong in Iraq, of course; it was astonishingly naive to assume that the US would be greeted as liberators there. But remember, Ukraine is being liberated by fellow Ukranians on the ground.

The Poles are wise to be rapidly militarising.

The Poles are militarizing in case Ukraine loses and they have to fight the same war. It's extremely in Poland's interest for the Ukranians to win.

ceejayoz8• 3 years ago

It should be obvious to China that what is currently happening to Russia is also slated to happen to them.

"If we arrest this murderer, other murderers might get worried!"

An international spanking for starting a war of aggression is a wonderful precedent to set.

tivert7• 3 years ago

> It should be obvious to China that what is currently happening to Russia is also slated to happen to them.
An international spanking for starting a war of aggression is a wonderful precedent to set.

That's the wrong metaphor. The West is in no position to provide "spankings" on demand. It's not the world's parent, and even it if was, children eventually grow up and parents pass their peak and decline in strength.

China will learn from this (Russia's tactical mistakes), and will adapt to avoid repeating them. The West may get cocky from the successes in Ukraine, and fail to adapt, and put itself in a position to be "spanked."

You can actually see the same dynamic in Ukraine: Russia invaded in 2014, and totally spanked Ukraine. Ukraine adapted, but the Russians cockily waltzed in in 2022 expecting to be able to repeat 2014, and got spanked themselves.

heartbreak• 3 years ago

what is currently happening to Russia is also slated to happen to them.

Pretty sure Russia started this war, not the other way around.

EnragedParrot3• 3 years ago

Western policy risks building up a big Asian military alliance. It should be obvious to China that what is currently happening to Russia is also slated to happen to them. India will be nervous too unless they are hopelessly naive. China and the US were friends once too, back in ... the 2010s...

So your position is, "we should stand aside and turn a blind eye to Russia's violent and unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation because China might worry that we won't allow them to violently invade other countries?"

roenxi3• 3 years ago

Been my policy since Iraq. Let the bullies bully.

For all the horrors in the Middle East, the Iraq war was less damaging locally than Ukraine will be for Europe.

This one war could easily accomplish what took decades of coups and army movements over in the ruins of the Ottoman empire.

thc-271829• 3 years ago

1. Nothing was being done to Russia to force them into their war of choice. China ought to learn that too.

2. We're already in WW3, heavy hitting countries aren't directly firing at each other but enough of the world is indirectly or directly in war via proxies that I'd say the world is already in the war.

3. Ukraine isn't being rebuilt by just one country. A good portion of the free world already has established funds for non military aid to Ukraine. As far as I am aware China has not really aided Ukraine at all.

kaba02• 3 years ago

Why would we be in WW3, when a former superpower that is merely a vestige of its past slowly grinds up their (unfortunately) expandable populace by attacking another sovereign country, which the West supports through monetary/strategic ways only?

A world war would require some kind of equal threat, but that’s just orders of magnitude not the case with Russia vs NATO, and China has no reason to go against NATO for Russia either. Sure, we have nukes now so we still are standing in a bucket of gasoline with a lighted match, but suicide is not in the interest of Russia either - hopefully someone would coup before that.

pjc506• 3 years ago

Western policy risks building up a big Asian military alliance .. China .. India

China and India have a weird, nasty little border dispute where they've agreed not to deploy firearms so troops routinely have fistfights instead. Anyone claiming they're on the verge of an anti-US alliance can't be taken seriously. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-53062484

peteradio• 3 years ago

Brothers fistfight.

throwawaylinux2• 3 years ago

Closer than neighbors who haven't agreed to not deploy firearms to settle border disputes though, right?

vharuck• 3 years ago

Western policy risks building up a big Asian military alliance.

I wonder if China's plan is to give Russia enough aid to keep the war going and build a sizeable debt, but not enough for Russia to actually win. In that plan, China would hold economic and political power over Russia.

I don't see why China would want Russia to win. A nuclear neighbor run by a defacto dictator high on the spoils of war? NATO strengthening ties and military forces in response to a major adversary? Sounds terrible. A subservient neighbor without access to any other advanced country's economy, so you can squeeze them on imports and exports, and they also have nukes you can rattle by proxy? Chance of NATO calming down after a few years of good behavior from Russia? Sounds nice¹.

¹Not nice for anyone but China, of course.

dncornholio2• 3 years ago

WWIII is already in action. It's a cold war, but it's world. It's actual hypocrisy that it's OK to send guns (but not the best!) and not soldiers but whatever.

mock-possum• 3 years ago

if china doesn't want to find themselves in the same situation, literally all they need to do is not invade any other countries, simple as.

oneTbrain23• 3 years ago

Most likely USA will be destroyed. Most American nukes are in their 50s-60s. USA also has a doctrine to cut loses as can be seen in Vietnam and Afghanistan. A quick sucessions of tactical nukes on American carrier fleets and pre-emptive strikes on 30 of American top cities will render American surrender. Even if they decide to launch, their ballistic nukes are interceptable, their satelites are now trailed by many Russian and Chinese satelite killers. As for F35, let just dig in that Israel F35 has been shotdown in Syria and likely another one F35 accident in Pacific in the last 24mths. Russia alone has about 20K nukes and deliverables with near 100% accuracy while USA THAAD and Patriots have been widely known as duds (Saud had to change their policies to make peace with Yemen and Syria because of poor American weaponry). By the way, USA imports Russian uranium. Considering John Titor's timeline America nuked and fractured in his timeline plus some East Asian prophecies about the fall of USA, I do believe WW3 would be a short one. The whole text of original Titor are in Library of Congress. Read that version. It did mentioned about Bill Gates and segway. Poles are widely known as military weak. Their only good one was their winged Hussars in medieval time. Already closed to 20K of theirs in Ukrainian as "mercs and volunteers" slaughtered. I dont think they willing to go WW3. They are too close to Russia, just purely on logistics, not enough Americans soldiers and artillery shells able to sustain Russian assault backed by Chinese factories. It is better they go for MYOB strategy. Doing Ukrainian or 80s Saddam-USA friendly Iraq policies are fatal. With Russians and Chinese establishing their influence in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Africa, and now Ukraine I just dont see how EU can do much. Already they have to content with x6 fuel price without Russia and Chinese now able to half thrir fuel cost thanks to Russians gas pipes....that is 12x advantage just on energy alone. If you look at IQ and labor cost, EU sre serious outnumbered. We not even counting massive industrial espionage to bring EU IPs into Russia and China.

fabian2k4• 3 years ago

From the original report (https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/special-r...):

An overview of Russian adaptation reveals a force that is able to improve and evolve its employment of key systems. There is evidence of a centralised process for identifying shortcomings in employment and the development of mitigations. Nevertheless, much of this adaptation is reactive and is aimed at making up for serious deficiencies in Russian units. The result is a structure that becomes better over time at managing the problems it immediately faces, but also one that struggles to anticipate new threats. The conclusion therefore is that the Russian Armed Forces pose a significant challenge for the Ukrainian military on the defence. Nevertheless, if Ukraine can disrupt Russian defences and impose a dynamic situation on them, Russian units are likely to rapidly lose their coordination. Changes in the air combat environment, for example, have led rapidly to incidents of Russian fratricide.

Both sides are adapting, we'll see how this develops once the Ukrainian offensive starts.

jimbob45• 3 years ago

I have to believe that experience is gained largely equally on both sides in any conflict. The more interesting question would be whether or not there has ever been a case in history where experience was gained asymmetrically in a conflict.

Kye• 3 years ago

I read an analyst early on who said much of Ukraine's surprising resistance came from rotating experienced fighters from the front to build up guerilla capacity throughout the country as Russia tried to complete the takeover it started in 2014.

So while the "farmer steals tank" stories were funny, it was likely part of a well-trained, well-organized, and well-equipped resistance. Russia's 2022 escalation improved that preparation as theory met reality and they adapted. Ukraine had 8 years to dig in for a long fight. Russia had 8 years to let its armor rot more.

chewz2• 3 years ago

This isn't new for Russian Army. You win wars with staying power and quick adaptation.

The funiest millitary book I have ever read was Decision in the Ukraine written form the Western (German) perspective... It is basically accusing Russian army of not fighting "fair" - digging with defense in depth, using well places artillery and minefields to blunt the offensive of elite German SS Panzer corps.

Russia Against Napoleon is also well worth reading to realize to what lengths Russia can go to win the war... This small Russian, hungry army in rags in Lower Silesia in 1813 who still had the spirit to carry the war to Paris by 1814...

https://www.amazon.com/Decision-Ukraine-Operations-Stackpole...

https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Against-Napoleon-Story-Campaig...

MilStdJunkie2• 3 years ago

Indeed. In the vast historiography of WW2's Eastern Front, the winning qualities of the Red Army have changed nearly as fast as the roster of writers enunciating them. German generals, American spooks, British professionals, then the post-Fall ex-Soviet source equipped historians, all with their own different verdict on what fueled that dramatic reverse[1]. With one single exception: the fact that Russians learned very, very rapidly.

Being not one generation separated from Russian émigrés myself, that resonates with my outsider's view of the national character: charismatic, paranoid, chimeral, but deeply brilliant. It's unfortunate that these qualities somehow never gave rise to secular skepticism, but perhaps such a large land mass doesn't have much room for that kind of civitas.

[1] Or not so dramatic at all. With better numbers, historians of the 21st Century have become increasingly certain that the reverse was not so dramatic, and that German victory in the East might well have been impossible. It never feels like that at the time, of course; go ask any unfortunate American veteran how in control of events they felt on the streets of Fallujah.

chewz2• 3 years ago

My favorite example is reactive armour of 1945.

When Russian tanks entered German towns in 1945 they had been greeted with Panzerfaust... So the Russian tankist started welding spring beds to their armour making Panzerfaust useless in city warfare.

sam_lowry_• 3 years ago

secular skepticism

This and cheap alcohol are the only things in abundance in Russia.

stunt• 3 years ago

How is this a surprise? Nothing can improve an army like war. Just compare the US military before and after the Afghanistan war. Each individual piece of equipment and every tactic went through several evolution.

This is why other countries send troops every time the US goes to war. They send them to practice and learn. Certainly, the United States did not need the help of Ukraine, Latvia, and Moldova in the Iraq war. They went there to learn.

The Middle East has been the largest playground for the world's armies.

Russia’s army is learning and improving on the battlefield

Related Stories