Doctrina USA vs Doctrina rusa. Analisis

More thoughts on the differing design philosophies...

The different styles of the two militaries is best seen by the average man in their small arms, something every sportsman is familiar with today.

The Russian AK-47 (actually AK-74 now) vs the M-16.

The AK has much looser tolerances. You can dip the thing in mud, bang it off, and its ready to fire. Its cheap and the ammo (7.62x39) hits a lot harder than the .223. Its biggest weakness is that it is not very accurate especially at long range.

The M-16 is built like a fine watch--its expensive and accurate as hell, but it comes at the price of weak ammo with low kick and it can be jammed up by a single grain of sand.

If a guy with an AK is fighting a guy with a M-16 in a mudhole at 25 yards, the AK has the advantage.

If the fight is taking place on a field with a clear line of sight at 500 yards, the M-16 has the advantage.

Kalashnikov, who designed the AK, said any fool can make something complex, it takes a genius to make it simple.

They also reflects different military philosophies. The Russians envision storming the enemy lines with bayonets drawn and tearing out the enemy's guts with their bare hands when they run out of ammo. The Americans envision just setting up a perimeter to keep them from breaking through then pummeling the enemy position with artillery and 500lbs bombs.

If you like the AK, you'll probably prefer the Russian planes too--much cheaper, much faster, much heavier armor, much bigger guns. If you like the M-16 you'll probably like the US planes--expensive and clumsy, but with an array of targeting systems that can pick the hairs off a gnats ass at 100 miles. All Russian air training is based on flying low to the deck, coming in under their radar, and locking them into a dogfight. All US air training is based on preventing that from happening.

The military structure reflects the culture from which it arose.

The US military came from a culture where cost is no object. In fact the goal of most generals is to make it more expensive, to secure more budget and ensure a more lucrative "consulting" position at a defence contractor upon retirement. Very few flag officers in the Marines and none in the Army or Navy are experts in strategy or tactics--that work is done by colonels in dead-end posts. The generals are more accurately described as "military politicians". Common soldiers are viewed as being non-expendable and easily discouraged. I mean no disrespect to the many brave servicemen who serve honorably, but it is well known that the US can not accept heavy losses. Vietnam taught the US that most soldiers join because of the money for school or to get a job as a cop... and a mercenary will only fight if he believes he will live to spend his loot. If 5000 soldiers were lost in a day like in the Civil war, it would destroy political careers and cause many black and latino soldiers to simply go AWOL and refuse to fight for a "white racist nation". With that in mind the US structure has been built on maximum costs and minimum deaths. If it costs a billion dollars to prevent the loss of one black female soldier--so be it--that's a double positive for a military politician. The US will think nothing of spending more on a single plane than most countries spend on an entire airforce. The goal of ground forces is just to maintain the front line, not to go after the enemy--just keep them from escaping then drop a 500lbs bomb on them. Its expensive to use a million dollar bomb to blow up a mud hut, but it prevents politcally embarassing loss of life and keeps government spending high.

The ZOG military is built a lot like the evil Empire's in Star Wars--block the enemy in then hit them with superior firepower.
YouTube - Star Wars - Battle of Endor
YouTube - Star Wars - Battle of Endor

The Russians did not have the option of developing hardware without regard to cost. It would be foolish for them to set up a rigid command and control structure, hold the front lines, and let the battle be decided by superior firepower. No military force on earth, and possibly even all of them combined, could stand toe to toe with the US military and live. Thats why the Russian military is based on inexpensive work arounds--find a low cost way to prevent the enemy from focusing fire on them. Rapid movements that don't wait for approval from central command are key to this. If the enemy lines can be broken, if command and communication can be taken out, the enemy (having a structure that forbids acting without orders) is finished. Perfect example is the Serbian radar operator who was able to detect the F117. If he was in the US he would have been court marshalled for tampering with equipment without proper authorization--filled out in triplicate. In the Serb military he was considered a hero for his ingenuity though. Although Russian soldiers are also considered expendable, its a different kind of expendable based on a different culture. Russians are devoted to their national military heros. Men are encouraged and honored for their sacrifices. In the US most of our military heros have been thrown out with the garbage--after all you can't honor a white soldier who killed more Indians than anyone else. Our hero for Iraq part 2 was supposed to be Jessica Lynch--a white girl with a non white boyfriend--until it blew up in the Jewsmedia's face and it was revealed she got her unit killed. The only acceptable heros are the Tuskegee airmen. The Russian soldiers are far more accepting of heavy losses and acts of heroism. America does not have sufficent national pride from its multi-cultural army to employ such tactics.

Now that I've said that... I think the Russians have an edge. The battle between our forces basically hinges on if the US lines can prevent any and all breakthroughs by the enemy. The US structure is set up such that if the enemy does break through, if they manage to cut communication and supply lines, its all over. Thats why the US places such a high emphasis on following orders and not engaging in heroics. A break in even one spot is catastrophic. One incompetent unit can literally bring down an entire army.

Three guesses as to where the weak link in the chain will be...

Which is a better gun... a shotgun with birdshot or a 30-06 long rifle?

You could write down a whole list of numbers and make a table. Include things like which projectile has more inertia, range, accuracy, reliability, reload speed, etc.. But what does that really tell you?

Its just a measureing contest to see whose is bigger.
"Mine is longer."
"Mine has more girth."
"I'm bigger so I win."
Having a big one is great, but not if you stick it in the wrong hole.

That type of resoning doesn't give a complete picture. You need to also ask, "How do I plan to use my equipment as part of my overall plan?" Having one that's big enough to get the job done is crucial, but how you use it counts too.

Which is better, the rifle or the shotgun? That all depends on if you are hunting pheasent or grizzly!

One of the greatest stratagists to come out of the USAF wasn't a General. His ability to cut through B.S. prevented him from achieving that political rank. Colonel John Boyd has been instrumental in developing modern air theory. He divided warfare into three elements:

Moral Warfare: the destruction of the enemy's will to win, via alienation from allies (or potential allies) and internal fragmentation. Ideally resulting in the "dissolution of the moral bonds that permit an organic whole [organization] to exist." (i.e., breaking down the mutual trust and common outlook...)
Mental Warfare: the distortion of the enemy's perception of reality through disinformation, ambiguous posturing, and/or severing of the communication/information infrastructure.
Physical Warfare: the destruction of the enemy's physical resources such as weapons, people, and logistical assets.--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bo...ry_strategist)

A higher level always trumps a lower level. A good example is Vietnam. The US never lost a single tactical engagement. They were technologically superior in every way. The Asians didn't win because their Kung-Fu magic makes them better fighters--they won because they won on the moral and mental levels. The US only won on the physical. US soldiers fought bravely and had better weapons, but the politicians running the war used bad strategy. The Vietnamese used George Washington's methods against us--retreat at every chance. They didn't need to win a decisive battle, they only needed to keep US forces on the field till they ran out of money and political will. Time always favors the native forces on their own soil. The war was completely lost when we lost the moral level. The Viet Cong were willing to fight to the death to defend their blood and soil from an invading foreign race. The US wasn't even really sure why it was there in the first place. Historians still debate it to this day. Who wants to die for a pointless war?

Which plane has better numbers is important. No matter how strong the will of a bunch of bushmen is, they can't take out an Abrams tank. But when the physical resourses are comprable it is crucial to consider strategy and moral as well. What the equipment will be used for is as important as what the equipment is.