Amid Airstrikes In Syria, US Officials Admire Russia's Cost-Effective Military Campaign

Senior members of the U.S. administration have praised Russiaâ€™s successful and cost-effective military campaign in Syria, undermining U.S. President Barack Obamaâ€™s statements from earlier this year that Moscowâ€™s involvement in the war and attempts to prop up Syrian President Bashar Assadâ€™s government would drain its resources and see its military stuck in a long, drawn-out fight.

"I think it's indisputable that the Assad regime, with Russian military support, is probably in a safer position than it was," a senior administration official who asked to remain anonymous told Reuters on Monday. Five other unidentified U.S. officials interviewed by Reuters also said Moscowâ€™s mission had been successful so far while successfully keeping costs low.

Since Russia became militarily involved in the Syrian war at the end of September, itâ€™s estimated that its annual costs will come in at about $1-2 billion, which it has managed to cover using its annual military budget of $54 billion rather than needing to borrow or take from other sources.

"All the available data shows us that the current level of military effort is completely insignificant for the Russian economy and Russian budget," said Vasily Kashin, a Moscow-based analyst at the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies. "It can be carried on at the same level year after year after year."

This time the Russians are using the old Soviet doctrine:

Obliterate everything and everybody with no mercy.

Berlin 1945 = Homs 2015

No press, no UN condemnations, no sanctions, no real bad Press.

Lord Putin does whatever he wants because he is a leader who stands behind his allies 100%.

President Ovomit is a faggot who attacks his allies and own troops. Ovomit is and remains what he was up until 2008 - a Community Organizer.

And once you get to a certain point, it doesn’t matter how high quality your gear is - you get swarmed under because you don’t have enough of it to make a difference. It happened to the Brits at the Battle of Isandlwana, when near naked tribesmen armed only with spears charged into the cutting-edge-tech armed Brits - who had modern rifles, light artillery and a *rocket battery* - and won. With fewer casualties than the Brits took.

Or just ask any German soldiers who fought in armor in World War II. One on one, the German tanks were more than a match for any Allied tank they came across. The German Panther was widely rated as being better than (as in able to defeat in combat) up to five US Shermans, for example. The legendary Tiger was sometimes rated even higher, at eight Sherman tanks. The problem, as German tankers on the Western Front were known to ruefully note, was that sure, you could kill your five or eight Shermans... but there was always at least one more that *would* disable your tank. And often more than one. Shermans hunted in packs. The Allied victory in Europe was bought in part with the lives and tanks of American tank crews, but the sheer quantity of those tanks and crews

The Eastern Front was even worse for the Germans once the Soviets hit their stride on the later marks of the T-34 and the companion tank destroyers. The Panthers and Tigers would knock out maybe 4-5 tanks each and then be overrun by a tsunami of Russian steel - dozens of T-34s backed up by monstrous SU-152 and ISU-152s tank destroyers firing from longer range (whose enormous explosive shells could blow the turrets off of even Tiger IIs with just one non-penetrating hit) and types like the SU-100 tank destroyers armed with their smaller but very effective high velocity cannon sniping from cover.

Sure, none of these vehicles from America or Russia were a match for the advanced German armor one on one or even one on two. But they were dead reliable and didn’t break down or have high maintenance requirements like the German high-tech counterparts. In the end, that’s what won the armor war. And that is likely what’s going to keep winning wars well into the future - gear that is good enough, inexpensive, and made in enormous quantities.

After winning World War II with the philosophy that quantity has a quality all it-s own, America switched to building the best possible for each item. (Note, sometimes it was just expensive, inferior junk, but that was mostly due to politics and lobbyists.) The problem with the quality over quantity philosophy is that, for mostly political reasons, expensive quality has become unaffordable quality. (If you don’t think the reasons are political look at the non-weapon related requirements in every military contract; set-asides, diversity training, sexual training, must-be-produced-in-Detroit, etc.)

It would be almost impossible to change the politics of weapons production. The solution, I think, is to convert to largely autonomous drones that are inherently cheaper and disposable. There are obvious pitfalls to this, or any alternative approach. But everything is a tradeoff.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.