Comments by "possumverde" (@possumverde) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

  1. They did a decent job of hiding behind their past reputation but It probably should have been expected since their military kept many of the Soviet army's flaws but got rid of their "fixes." One example is the role of Commissars. Due to heavy reliance on conscripts and brutal, civilian unfriendly tactics, major morale issues are an intrinsic problem. Especially with ground forces. Without Commissars up front cracking the whip, Russian high command has to do it instead and thus make themselves vulnerable to attack. That's why they've been losing generals like they have. Losing Commissars back in the day probably raised troop morale briefly. Losing generals however, only tends to make it worse. Also, while government corruption has always been an issue, the Soviets were at least smart enough not to steal from the military to the point that very little maintenance could be afforded and did a good job of keeping things simple and easy to operate. Modern Russian equipment/vehicle designs are often very complex with too many unnecessary weapons systems stuffed into them. Complexity means high maintenance and when the vast majority of military funding is ending up in private bank accounts, proper maintenance does not get done. Thus their armor and aircraft are constantly breaking down which leads to even more morale loss and lessened combat effectiveness. At least now the illusion has been dispelled and countries on a more equal footing with them know that the Russian military is of no real concern other than the potential use of nukes and their use is highly unlikely. Putin may think them viable but his generals know it would be suicide and would most likely end him before they'd allow him to end Russia out of petty spite.
    7
  2. 1
  3.  @jamesgreen8573  Perhaps... However, the Russian military has some major intrinsic flaws in it's structure and operation that greatly lessen it's effectiveness even at full power. Their heavy use of conscripts and extremely brutal, civilian unfriendly tactics means constant morale issues (especially for ground forces) and unlike the Soviet army, Russia no longer has Commissars up front cracking the whip. These days they have to risk sending generals to the front to fill that role (which is why they've been getting so many killed.) Generals getting killed isn't exactly good for morale either. Beyond that, their maintenance issues have turned their air force into more of an air farce which is only capable of keeping a small fraction of their aircraft airworthy with heavy reliance on canibalizing the rest for parts etc. Their armored forces aren't much better off and have the additional problem of poor design. Their main tanks are too low to the ground and can get buried up to their turrets in mud that larger tanks could just power through. They're also very easy to destroy with not necessarily well aimed shots due to their autoloader system. Most of their ammo is in the turret and not well shielded. A single hit has a good chance of setting it all off and blowing the turret (and crew) sky high. That's why so many images of destroyed tanks show their turrets 15 feet or more away from the body. Riding around in armor you know to be a flawed deathtrap only kills morale more. All they really have that's effective are their long range artillery and missiles (and technically nukes but their use is unlikely.) While you can level cities with such, that's all you can do. Anything more requires ground forces and they, unlike the ranged units, are the ones who will have to see the bodies of civilians in the rubble, get spit on by survivors, etc. Once again leading to severe morale issues. Likely to the point of simply refusing to go in and occupy such leveled cities like they have been refusing to do for nearly two weeks now in some places.
    1