“90 day wonders” or “2 weeks training”.

[Packard]

In World War II, the USA trained soldiers in an accelerated program that took 3 months.  Those junior officers were deemed “combat-ready” and were referred to as “90 day wonders”.

I read yesterday that Russia is planning on training their newly inducted soldiers for two weeks before sending them into battle.

That hardly seems time enough to gain proficiency with the firearms.  It is certainly not sufficient time to train a soldier for the physical demands of fighting.  Strength, endurance and stamina will take at least 3 months, but preferably 6 months to achieve.

I am a good marksman with a pistol, but it will take two weeks to just transition from a handgun I am familiar with, to a new one. 

It seems like Putin wants to punish his soldiers more than he wants to defeat his opponent.

 

[woodferret]

Agreed...

That said, first batch are actually experienced reservists.  Prior combat experience or skills-in-need.  I wouldn't worry about them.

They're reservists and are likely meant to bolster LPR and DPR garrison forces which in itself are militia level troops.  I doubt these are direct fighting forces but do bring a degree of force parity to held positions to avoid the rapid pull back that happened recently in the north.  The bulwark of the ZSU (that makes the 10:1 force ratio) is pretty green too if that matters.

 

[Ron B]

When Russia went to war in WWII, one soldier had the gun, the other carried the bullets.  Not enough to go around to everyone, and that way you took care of your fellow soldiers.  I think Russia had more casualties in the first month than the United States did in the whole war.  If you were a male Russian born in 1923, out of 100 in your High School graduating class, the average was only two survived the war. 

Some of the best snipers were Russian women.  The Germans learned that the hard way.

Sometimes we were not much better.  More American pilots died in training and accidents than were shot down.  Most of the pilots flying the C-47s dropping the paratroopers had never been under fire before. Before D-day happened, casualties for those hitting the beaches were estimated at 50%.  As General Sherman stated, "War is Hell". 

 

[luvmytoolz]

From what I've read it's very grim over in Russia at the moment, it's widely reported that they are conscripting the very young and the very old, and everyone inbetween. Talk is they have provisions in the legislation to conscript a million or more, and give them all 2 weeks training.

It also seems people who have been protesting the war are also being served in bulk with conscription along with other dissidents and prisoners.

Clearly just cannon fodder.

 

[xedos]

If you have 1000 men highly skilled and trained and I have 100,000 - I will eventually overwhelm you in almost all circumstances no matter your tactics and my lack of skill.

 

[Bohdan]

Russian army doesn't have training camps. The new recruits are trained "in the field" while their group is held back in reserve.

As the army needs men at the front I fear that these will undergo training under live fire.

As an aside there are very few ethnic Russians being called up. They are mainly from ethnic minorities far from Russia where their demise will not be noticed by the Russian pubic in the larger cities.

 

[luvmytoolz]

If you have 1000 men highly skilled and trained and I have 100,000 - I will eventually overwhelm you in almost all circumstances no matter your tactics and my lack of skill.

I'm pretty sure that was Russia's opinion early on, but time has proven otherwise.

 

[AlexThePalex]

They don't even get the two weeks training. Family of conscripted Russians report they get one day of orientation, just enough to show how to load a gun, and are then send of to the front. No way they get any training when they're there except while under fire. Putin is in total panic, and he will drag all of Russia with him.

If you have 1000 men highly skilled and trained and I have 100,000 - I will eventually overwhelm you in almost all circumstances no matter your tactics and my lack of skill.

I'm pretty sure that was Russia's opinion early on, but time has proven otherwise.

WW2 has proven Xedos correct. The Ukraine conflict is still young, real wars are won by attrition, and the scale is here in Russia's favour. The Ukrainians can only hold out because of western weapon supplies, but their casualties are not replaced. And Russia will not stop, they never stop. Putin will call up a million more conscripts, and a million after that. And after he finally had success in Ukraine, he will turn his eye to other old Soviet countries.

Unless Europe and the USA get actively involved by sending troops into Ukraine this conflict will spiral out of control. The lesson of history is already there. When Hitler took Poland in 1939, England and France turned a blind eye. This initial success gave the Germans confidence and emboldened them to start up WW2 for real.

 

[mino]

When Russia went to war in WWII, one soldier had the gun, the other carried the bullets. 
...snip...

This is a myth. Good propaganda myth that survived its creators.

The Soviet Union had one of the, if not the, biggest armaments industries of the time. Bigger than the German. They wre fresh from the Civil war and from WW1 which provide huge old stocks. It is for this reason many historians today claim /I am not one of those/ that the Germans attacking the Soviets was more of a pre-emptive action as the Soviets wanted to attack the Germans ... they based this mostly on indirect interpretation of the absolutely HUGE weapons stocpiles the Soviets had before the war.

Sure, I am confident there were cases, especially in besieged cities like Leningrad, where there was more /civilian/ manpower than availabe weapons and "soldiers" were kept on "standby" to pick up in case those with weapons issues were killed or injured. Like was the case, locally, with every military of the time and even today. But this would have been anything but prevalent, not to mention "characteristic" of the Soviet armies of the time.

Besides, this is actually a Nazi talking point which the (non-scholarly) West included in its own folklore.
Originally, Nazis actively publicised this to cover the seemingly inexplicably high Soviet "military losses". The Germans avoided admitting in official statistics that they basically killed so many civilians as part of their "subhuman erradications" drive. At the time the formal law of Germany forbade killing non-combatants, so unless they wanted to be /formally/ court-martialed, they just proclaimed everyone killed as a combatant. Problem solved.

In reality, the SU versus German combat losses we about on par in the big picture. One battle was worse for one, next battle went bad for the others but the average came about the same. The difference is that 90% of combat happen on SU territory where local populace was considers "free for all" shooting practice. About 2 Soviet civilians die for each soldier dying. The German civilian lossses were pretty small in comparison to their military ones. And most of those were towards the end of the war from allied bombings. So when one looks at totals of the dead on the Eastern front the gross numbers based on grave quantities are totally misleading.

 

[mino]

They don't even get the two weeks training. Family of conscripted Russians report they get one day of orientation, just enough to show how to load a gun, and are then send of to the front. No way they get any training when they're there except while under fire. Putin is in total panic, and he will drag all of Russia with him.

You are mixing conscription - which is in place in Russia but not in NL I believe - with mobilisation that was just announced.

These two are entirely different things.

I presume you are not familiar with the Russian context here /their setup was the same at my place just 2 decades ago/:
Conscription means the duty of every adult man to "serve the state" in military for a given period of time. That is the general and historical meaning.

Today most militaries which use conscription have a professional contract force and the conscripts fill in only service roles in peace time. In such a military, unlike in the Conscripted militaries of old, the primary objective of the time a conscript is serving his term is NOT to fight, but to train for a potential future (!) mobilisation AFTER his term has ended.

What this means in practice is that in such a "hybrid" model the "new" conscripts are sent to fight as THE LAST ONES in case of mobilisation as they are still in "training". Lets put aside now how effective a 1-year training is.

The first to be mobilised are the LAST YEAR's conscripts as those have their training "fresh". Basically such conscripts are immediately mobilised into the regular army after their conscription term (and their ends-year training) ends.

There are more subtleties but that is the main point ref. conscription which you referred in error here.

Ref. the folks actually being sent to combat, those are already partially-trained men - after the 1-year training they got during mandatory conscription term.
Depending on when a mobilised person had their mandatory conscription term, such a man would be either sent to a "refreshed" quick course where "what is new since" and "lets repeat what you learned in past" is run over quickly.

When a specific person is fresh from completing his conscription term /aka his training/, i.e. within a few montsh/years, such a person may not be sent for a refresher as there is no point - the person just came from a 1-year training after all.

This is where the story youread about is possibly true - a mobilised conscript may be sent almost directly to his unit IF he is young and had completed his training very recently. But where you are wrong is in assuming that is something unusual or "wrong". It is actually the normal working of a universal mandatory service military organization.

Nothing bad or good about it. It is just what andatory military service is about - to provide the state a readily-available pool of TRAINED personnel. The idea there is that 10 1-year trained men are more valuable than 1 professional soldier who could be funded in their place.

We may argue if the mandatory service concept has its place in wars of today - I would argue the current conflict is a proof it has as Ukraine was ableto mobilise an almost million force from 200k just because of this - but that will not change the mechanics of it.

Hope helps.

 

[ChuckM]

One increasing possibility is that this war will begin to end when Putin goes ahead with his nuclear threat, and drops a bomb or two (tactical ones) not on any NATO members, but on Ukraine, and then the US (with NATO) gets militarily involved on the ground, at the sea and in the air using conventional weapons and cyber weapons.

If Putin chooses to escalate after the US/NATO's physical intervention, then it'd be a full-blown nuclear conflict.

 

[semenza]

Interesting. 

Just a heads up to make sure politics, controversial issues, and inflammatory comments are kept out of the discussion.

Seth

 

[luvmytoolz]

I think if Putin appears to make serious a nuclear threat that it will pretty much force the other countries hands in getting involved.

It's one thing for Nth Korea to make veiled threats which no one really takes too serious, but Putin on the other hand would be taken seriously.

 

[woodbutcherbower]

Unless Europe and the USA get actively involved by sending troops into Ukraine this conflict will spiral out of control. The lesson of history is already there. When Hitler took Poland in 1939, England and France turned a blind eye. This initial success gave the Germans confidence and emboldened them to start up WW2 for real.

No disrespect intended my friend - but my opinion differs from yours. The USA (and the UK as their longtime allies and friends) have collectively thrown billions of $$$$ and £££££ at distant conflicts which have ultimately proved to be futile, and nothing to do with either of us. The so-called 'special relationship' between USA/UK is (and always will be) 100% solid. Lend-lease, thousands of UK-based US flightcrews in hundreds of B-17's escorted by P-51's, plus the Manhattan Project/Enola Gay/B-29 - these are the things which definitively ended WW2 to the benefit of a huge slice of mankind. We Brits will never forget the help given to us by the USA in our greatest time of need - and in return, we've always been the USA's #1 emergency responder - right there in the zone when times get tough for our oldest ally and greatest friend. Since forever. Iraq, Afghanistan, wherever ...... but ultimately, neither of us is the policeman of the world, and we don't need to get involved in someone else's argument unless it directly poses a threat to us = which it currently doesn't.

The UK is already showing its support to Ukraine by sending containerloads of hi-tech weapons to the Ukrainians to assist them - and our Government immediately fixed up a 'no-border-control' refugee escape system for the wives and children of combat soldiers to protect them and get them away from the hellhole. We currently have thousands of Ukranian soldiers' wives and kids here right now, living with UK families who volunteered to give them a temporary home and shelter. My daughter has a young Ukranian mother and child living with her - Mom has already learned the basics of our language and she's settled, happy and stress-free. She gets to talk to her husband once in awhile, when cellphone signal over there becomes available..The speed at which the little 5-year-old girl has become English semi-fluent is incredible. As of today - Mom just landed a cleaning job, the child starts UK nursery (kindergarten) next week. Her school fees have been waived by the school and are being provided for free.

To me - the measure of a civilised society is how we treat others who are less fortunate than ourselves, and I'm proud of how my country's citizens have stepped up to the plate. But there's always a line to be drawn - and sending our troops in there will only escalate an already dangerous situation - because suddenly that makes the UK Putin's enemy as well.

History is a thing of wonder. We really need to start learning from it.   

 

[Bob D.]

"We Brits will never forget the help given to us by the USA in our greatest time of need"

That may be true but I think we (the US) should have offered a hand much sooner.

We stood on the sideline until Japan forced our hand. If that hadn't have happened
what would have transpired in Europe over the next six months would have been a
completely different story.

 

[ChuckM]

Snip. and sending our troops in there will only escalate an already dangerous situation - because suddenly that makes the UK Putin's enemy as well.
Snip.

The UK is already Putin's enemy, so are all of the NATO members,but to different extents. I'm afraid that Putin, not the UK, will decide through his military decisions and actions in the coming months whether or not the British troops would be part of the war.

 

[jimbo51]

This is an important topic that does not belong on this forum.

It does not relate to woodworking or Festool.

 

[ChuckM]

[attachimg=1]

Many things not related to woodworking or Festool have been discussed before in this Forum under the Offtopic section.

 

[woodbutcherbower]

This is an important topic that does not belong on this forum.

It does not relate to woodworking or Festool.

100% fair and understandable comment [member=4632]jimbo51[/member]  - but this thread is off-topic and not in the general woodworking/Festool discussion threads. If the subject matter upsets or offends you, it's your option not to visit or read any further posts here. The current discussion is balanced, thoughtful, well-reasoned, civilised and polite - but is also subject to scrutiny and moderation if this situation changes. My experience is that FOG members are almost universally intelligent, tolerant, and respectful of the opinions of their fellow members.

I wish you a good and happy day.

 

[luvmytoolz]

This is an important topic that does not belong on this forum.

It does not relate to woodworking or Festool.

Isn't this "Off-TOPIC" - "General Friendly Chat"?