Talk:Russian Ground Forces

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Russian Ground Forces is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

Could someone put down Soviet Military Units table?[edit]

Like there are x many in a brigade and this many in a division. AND what are the Soviet names for them?

-G Look at Division (military)#Soviet Divisions


Who said that Russia was left with older equipment? Russian forces on the contrary had the most modern equipment, and it is being modernized at a very fast rate, just look at RIA Novosti, and how many things have been modernized allready. I would suggest that in order for Wikipedia to be credible, it has to put up up-to-date information. Also, let us use russian sources and not western ones, since western sources are often very biased.

This page on wiki is clearly biased and does not take in to account ANY modern numbers, only the ones from 2000 or 2001, please get some dates from 2006, and numbers from today, not 5 years ago. For now, this page is simply outdated. Hope it will be improved.

I have quoted extensively from the IISS Military Balance 2005-06. Adding more info is no problem if you cite your sources. Please do not also remove valid statements; rearmament at a scale of a batteries of missiles at a time will make requipping the whole of a 20 division army a slow process. Buckshot06 17:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Just made a huge edition to the article[edit]

Added some notes on the forces in Kaliningrad and on the Kamchatka peninsula. Also made some notes on the best Russian-language references and an English-language article which covers some of this. Incidentially the International Institute for Strategic Studies' 'The Military Balance 2006' still lists 1200 T-55 in service and even some T-34. The Russians store equipment for decades and decades sometimes. Cheers Buckshot, 28 Jul 06.

I just added all the stuff you now see in the "Current Inventory". I have been working on it for the past week, and I strove to make it as accurate as possible. All service numbers are active service and taken from .

I know it looks really messy but I tried to fit as much information on one line, as I felt more than one would break the flow. I'm sure you can tell that this is my first time trying something like this. I don't think it looks too bad but I have a feeling everyone else will, so I am open to suggestions on how to improve it without removing any of the content. Hopefully it's not so bad that you guys don't even think it's worthy of being used, as I put a considerable amount of time and effort into it.

I look forward to reading what you guys think. :) --Skyler Streng 02:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Its not messy at all, its really nice and well done. Mathieu121 12:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much :D --Skyler Streng 18:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Who got rid of the T-55? IT IS STILL IN SERVICE!!!

Yeah some people have been making changes already it seems, the T-55 was removed and significant alterations to service numbers of the MBTs have been made. I wish the people doing this would say either in the talk page or edit summary what their source is to back up their edit, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. And the T-55 removal isn't too big of a deal as it is speculated that as of now they may all be in storage.

So anyways, if you're going to be making alterations to the Current Inventory section that I made (and Mathieu121 was so kind to start :D) with service numbers that differ from those given at, please provide a source of some kind, otherwise nobody knows if these numbers are accurate in any way or just made up. --Skyler Streng 15:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes because I have seen (and Im sure you have) people changing things to there thinking of mind (sorry bad english). But the T-55 are in storage (mostly in the eastern army were China is) and therefore should be re-added for if the Chinese invaded or if Russia invades, then they are gona be part of that defense force first and added to the invasion in China, depending what would happen. Mathieu121 19:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: And the BMD-4 is NOT I repeat NOT part of the Russian asernal as of yet. Mathieu121 19:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the the Russian military has just recieved a first batch of BMD-4s about a week ago according to some articles I read, one of them I found for proof for you doesn't have as much information, but still backs up my claim: . While it may not be in full active service yet, I felt it should be mentioned in the article as technically it is now in Russia's arsenal. :) --Skyler Streng 20:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


Neutralaccounting introduced this section: "The Russian Ground Forces are regarded internationally by governments as a sovereign right of Russia to possess. The leaders of NATO and Europe have historically planned their military defense around a conflict with them.

In the West one of the views is that they are tough on chaos warriors that bring order to disorder. Another similiar focus is the interest in the West in their hardware and organization from a technical perspective. Another viewpoint is that they are a partially backward organization that has no significant projection of force beyond nearby countries such as Afghanistan and Chechnya.

A more human centered perspective that is notable both within Russia by some civilians and without it's own country is about its occasional but flagrant abuse both against it's own [[1]] and civilians"

...which I think is a little unfair. No other armed forces entry gets even mentioned as whether the country has a right to possess them. Personally on the rest I'd say that the things are put rather crudely... the Soviet Union posed an undoubted threat to Western Europe, it's not particularly backward, but ill-funded, with low morale, appalling dedoskchina, beyond whatever merit it originally had, destroys cohesion, and it han't brought much order anywhere. I do not believe the inhabitants of Chechniya would agree the Ground Force have brought them order. I think everybody should discuss these sentiments a bit before putting such controversial material, likely to spark an edit war, on the main article. We can fix up a section that includes most of these pretty good points together, which will add value to previously uncovered areas of the Ground Forces, but we need to be careful with our tone or we'll be POVing. Comments and thoughts welcome. Buckshot06 05:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Kirill's Peer Review[edit]

Reproduced from project page:

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Hmm, some general suggestions:

  • The lead should be a summary of the remainder of the article, not a separate section in its own right.
  • The organization structure (not "order of battle", as there's no conflict being discussed) should be presented as prose, if possible, or, failing that, as a table. Wikification of just about everything would also be in order; almost all of these units are deserving of articles.
  • The equipment section should be trimmed to a few paragraphs of prose. The current list is unacceptably long; this isn't list of equipment of the Russian Ground Forces, after all. As a general rule, a list-heavy article will never pass FAC (and is hence likely to fail an A-Class review as well).
  • I would clean up the footnotes to avoid the Latin; even the CMoS deprecates "op. cit." now. (As a side note, "Name, ibid." would only make sense if multiple authors had been cited in the previous note, and only one was applicable; in the case where the previous note references only a single source, the form is a plain "Ibid.").
  • Some major topics that should get discussed:
    • Budgets and expenditures.
    • Command structure, names of major commanders, etc.
    • Ranks, decorations, etc.
    • Controversies, corruption, etc. (tantalizingly referred to—"These numbers should be treated with caution, however, due to the difficulty for even the General Staff to make accurate assessments."—but never fully discussed).
  • Direct citations for as many points as possible would be a good idea.
  • Finally, once the article has taken shape, extensive copyediting will probably be appropriate.

(One minor point: is "Russian Ground Forces" the official translation? I would have thought that "Russian Land Forces" would be closer to the original.) Kirill Lokshin 04:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


Whats with the idea that "there is little chance of it's effectiveness"? When in fact the budget has been increasingh by 25% every year, and more and more money is being put in. I think that this article needs to remove it's opinions and rather put in simply facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:

As you will have seen with the 30odd citations down the bottom, I'm trying to bring this article toward a A-class review standard incorporating lots of quotations from people who know. User:Buckshot06

For example, on your specific point:

'Since 1999 the defense budget has grown more than three times – rising from 109 billion rubles to 346 billion (in 2003). However, no positive changes have come about: the level of combat readiness and discipline is just as low as it was few years ago. All of this means that the Russian armed forces are not ready to defend the country and that, at the same time, they are also dangerous for Russia. Top military personnel demonstrate neither the will nor the ability to effect fundamental changes.' Golts, MILITARY REFORM AND GLOBAL WAR AGAINST TERRORISM, 2004

"The Russian president now faces two challenges in defense and security. The first is that the Russian armed forces do not meet any modern requirements. Top military officials try to reduce the problem down to the need to rearm the armed forces with new precision weapons and other equipment. Russian Defense Minister Sergey Ivanov insisted in 2001 that the first priority in military reform is rearmament, which had to begin with modernization of the Space Forces. Many independent experts doubt seriously that the Russian military-industrial complex is capable of producing modern weapons. But even if a miracle was to happen and the Russian army received this equipment, it would not be able to use it effectively. The war in Chechnya has shown how inefficient is this military concept in a period of local conflicts.

The second challenge is that the unreformed armed forces have become Russia’s most urgent social problem. Decay is the best word to describe the situation. Young men look on army service as state slavery and try to avoid it. Military officials repeatedly complain that they are able to draft less then 11 per cent of those who are supposed to be conscripts. As a result, most recruits meet neither health nor intelligence standards. At the same time, the military fails to man units with the planned number of soldiers. Desertion is now epidemic. Soldiers are deserting in platoons and companies. According to official statements, there are now more then 2,265 deserters (unofficially, the military believes that the number is several times higher). These young people who have left their units with weapons have quickly became criminals. In 2001, deserters killed a general who tried to stop them. Some observers have written about the possibility of a new ‘“Ironclad” Potemkin’ revolt. Soldier morale is extremely low. Military commanders are powerless to stop dedovschina (daily severe hazing of first-year soldiers by those in the second year)." --Alexander Golts, 'Military Reform in Russia and the Global War Against Terrorism, Vo 17 p.29-41, 2004

So when I make these assessments like revival of effectiveness is unlikely, it is Russian sources like this defence journalist Golts that I draw my info from. Buckshot06 04:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


How about formatting the formation dispositions as a definition list? Michael Z. 2006-10-25 16:06 Z

Ground and Coastal Defence Forces of the Baltic Fleet, HQ Kaliningrad
 ? Motor Rifle Brigade, Kaliningrad (designation uncertain - former 1st MRD)
18th Motor Rifle Division, Gusev (cadre)
Leningrad Military District, HQ Saint Petersburg
138th Motor Rifle Brigade, Kamenka
200th Motor Rifle Brigade, Pechenga
Moscow Military District, HQ Moscow (also serves as HQ Western Front)
2nd Guards Motor Rifle Division, Alabino
20th Army, HQ Voronezh
4th Guards Tank Division, Naro-Fominsk
10th Guards Tank Division, Boguchar
22nd Army, HQ Nizhny Novogorod
3rd Motor Rifle Division, Novyy
Operational Group of Russian Forces in Moldova, HQ Tiraspol
8th Motor Rifle Brigade, Tiraspol (former 59th MRD)
North Caucasus Military District, HQ Rostov-na-Donu
131st Motor Rifle Brigade, Maykop
58th Army, HQ Vladikavkaz
One motor rifle division, two motor rifle brigades, one motor rifle regiment
Trans-Caucasus Group of Forces, HQ Tbilisi
Russian bases in Georgia and Armenia
Volga-Ural Military District, HQ Yekaterinburg
34th Motor Rifle Division, Yekaterinburg
15th Motor Rifle Brigade
2nd Army, HQ Samara (former Volga MD HQ)
27th Motor Rifle Division, Totskoye
201st Motor Rifle Division, Dushanbe, Tajikistan
Siberian Military District, HQ Novosibirsk
Three army HQs, one tank division, two motor rifle divisions, one machine-gun/artillery division
Far Eastern Military District, HQ Khabarovsk
Two army HQs, one corps HQ, four motor rifle divisions, four machine-gun/artillery divisions

Anti-Russian bias[edit]

Why is this article so anti-russian? Opnly negative quotes by reporters and experts are made, none positive opnes. After all, wiki remains, in general pro-western source and not very credible :(.

Because you haven't added your corrections with appropriate citations to support them. This is the 'encyclopedia anyone can edit'. --Nick Dowling 07:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, do not trust and do not read enWiki at all. This is a best remedy once and for all. As a Russian Army reserve soldier, I can say trivial things on my own Army experience:
Some comments from the main contributor follow. Buckshot06 17:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Dedovtschina exists and will exist, the struggle against it can not be successful in principle. But near every 'zapah' after one and half year becomes 'ded' and uses this position for his own enjoyment.
In the historical Russian conscript army, this is the case and this is what is said in the article. In a professional army such intense hazing does not occur; cf US, British Armies.Buckshot06 17:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Russian Army is not so unprepared and non-ready for combat. After all as in 2006, the bulk of Army forces was withdrawn from Caucasus and order was keeping by militia and Kadyrov's local forces. After three years of constant street dogfighting US Army cannot simply leave Iraq - their puppet local goverment will be instantly wiped out. While general control over Northern Caucasus was reached, US and Allies were able to control only islands in entire Iraq.
  • New equipment is really supplied to Russian Army but in small quantity. I cannot speak much about it.
We've added some notes; plase give more info with sources! Also see Taman Division article; more there. Buckshot06 17:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In Army, more exact in artillery, I found the practical application of my mathematical university education. This was at least expected thing there! Moreover, I met some other conscripted guys with same talents!
Thought the Artillery often got most intelligent soldiers. Buckshot06 17:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The officer staff in my battery was responsible and ready to aid to rookies. This is the second least expectable thing. They really helped me to adapt to hard army life.
  • Crime rate is really high. The cellular phone was stolen from one of mine comrades, but it was returned after **some discussion** with suspected person. Our brigade commander was in constant fight with crime, from half of year eleven persons were sent to prison for different crimes.
I hope the crime problem is reqsonably well reflected in the article; please change if you can cite sources. Buckshot06 17:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • By my opinion, many problems can be solved if conscription age census will be set for 23 years. Now, the matured guys in age of 18 tortured their mates which are psychologically children yet at the same age! This is a first bad thing. In earlier times 18-aged Russian was muzhik, not child as now. The situation had changed and this should be corrected. The second worst thing - drive out Caucasians and Asiats (descendants of Tajiks, Turkomans settled in Russia) from Army! They are real menace for Russian, Tatar and Bashkir boys.
  • In general, my unit is able to perform any combat task despite these circumstances. Our battery was really comradeship from rookies such me to experienced warriors who fought in Afghan and Caucasus.
So think twice and DO NOT READ THIS YELLOW GARBAGE from defectors such as Rezun (Suvorov). If there will be his execution, I probably will be a volunteer to hangman role.
This article was principally edited by a New Zealander with the most critical things coming straight from Aleksandr Golts. Rezun is interesting but very out of date. Are you telling me Golts is wrong? Buckshot06 17:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I cannot say is Golts right or wrong, my everyday life in Russia has a general rule: do not trust journalist at all - all of them were bought by different political factions and there are no independent and carefully weighted view - only a garbage words against rival and adversaries. May be in Western traditions to trust the press, but, believe me, not in Russian case. Twisted and wormtongue words for propaganda purposes, nothing more. I believe only to my eyes and closest friends, not to these goddamned mercenaries of Russian oligarchs and officials. Former are trying to make the Army drown in feces, the latter praises it as invincible and powerful, damned lie. The Russian army is a ghost of Soviet might but it lives, it wants to survive and in my battery only the commander colonel was aged and experienced veteran. All other officers are quite young people, two of them are only finished the Military School and want to serve further. So the future is not so dark.

And now let's compare 1995 and 2005 in my brigade:

  • 1995 - funding completely ceased, practically no military exercises and manouvers, dedovtschina level is highest, morale is low due to perspective to be send on Caucasus without cartridge and training only to be killed.
  • 2005 - funding is low, but practices with howitzers and small arms are everyday matter (when I was going to sleep at barracks at 22:00 the howitzers shots from nearby firing range were constant - lads were training in night fire), dedovtschina level is moderate-to-high (of course, this cannot be rooted out, but our commander finds the way to reduce it - e.g. he allows on Sundays conscripts to meet their parents and girls but if they had successes in military training and army wanted behaviour. The most succeeded persons can even get a leave for weekend and special hostel outside the barracks and quarters is supplied. Also commanders allows conscripts mothers inspect the barracks), morale is normal. Some people even wish to sign a contract with Army. But the best way to get further in my unit is to became of Sergeant-Instructor. All of these boys were literated and ready to help with complicated equipment. When I was in small hospital after injury I have snack as at home, what a good surprise (but in soldiers' canteen the food quality is owful, really)! The best to wounded and sicked is not an empty words. There were not such things in 1995. Unfortunately, there are a few such people and may be my unit is an exception from others, I don't know.
But the difference in my eyes is obvious. But you cannot find this in our press - pro-President side will talk a tales about might and glory, anti-President will have shower us from their feces-thrower and the truth is only in men who really served in Russian Army.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for your comments and comparisons of 95 and 05. Would you feel happy identifying your unit (even if only by location or MD), so I can cite your experiences in the article? Buckshot06 07:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention to my words. Traditionally, Russian Military does not speak much about their unit identification, but I already have printed my experience in one Russian magazine, so I can tell that my service took place in some unit of Mulino harrison, Moscow Military District. AFAIK, the group of US soldiers or Marines were at this place in 2006 on joint military exercises with Russian Military. Some other remarks about current situation:
  • The overall situation is better than in mid-1990-ies but still very heavy;
  • High crime rate partially has its root from the poverty of 75% of Russian people. Conscripts are taken from the socially-ill strate of people, so they inject their pre-service criminal habits into army life. But this is a illness not army, but country in general. Practically any Russian boy now are trying to escape army service by hook or by crook and this relation makes his life in Army more and more dangerous especially in light of their beings in mass as "mother's sonnies". The life in any army harsh and difficult and these pity young people are completely unprepared, they are still children. So many of them trying commit suicide or escaping or in affect state killing even their friends or became victims of matured mates who are using every chance to show their supremacy over defenseless boys. So I am strong supporter of setting the conscription age at 23: 18-aged children should by matured in adult civil life, threw out their childish pride and accept the chain of command in civil circumstances and only after that he must go to the Army. Torturing children is a shame.
  • The climate in a Russian military unit is fully determined by its commander. Our commander was Afghan war veteran and he pay much attention to every personnel, especially rookies. For example, first time I was asked not only obligatory personal data, home address, my family status but status of my mother, hobbies and interests. But many commanders have no care and dedovtschina in their units roses greatly.
  • Another bad thing for Army in general - the literacy of conscripts: the Soviet Union was pride for its school education, but now situation is worst as before October Revolution: Many intelligent boys are escaping Army service due to these nightmare rumours. My platoon leutenant complained me that new conscripts do not know elementary mathematics especially from Siberian and Far East villages. The situation is partially saved by university graduates who were drafted after finishing their education or computer enthusiasts - but the problem exists and once again this is a illness of entire country. As a result, new high tech equipment is explored by enthusiasts both from young officers and few soldiers. But this is a real chance to make they way from Private to Sergeant in artillery, for example. For me, it was a chance to make my way into the library where many interesting books about artillery usage, tactics and history are stored. But such interest is quite rare, but in 1995 it was absent completely! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)., thanks for your comments. Could you please refer me to the Russian magazine you mentioned, as if I can get that article, I can get it translated and insert the info in the article. I really want to include your thoughts and experiences, but to keep this article at FA the only way I can do that is source it properly. Thanks for you comments again. Buckshot06 21:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Spas KievanRus.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Spas KievanRus.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Outdated/biased article[edit]

This article is horribly outdated and paints a very bleak picture of the ground forces, and passes off the opinions of journalists and editors as facts (the 'Crime and corruption in the ground forces' section, the 'History' section and the 'Personnel' section)(statements like, "Given this situation, it appears that any professional army of a Western type may be a long way off.") . This article frequently lists bleak outlooks by journalists that dismiss the improvements of the Ground Forces and never lists positive outlooks that describe the improving situation in the Ground Forces. There is evidence of 'cherry picking' mostly the negative comments from sources, for example, when I looked at the the Keir Giles, 'Military Service in Russia: No New Model Army' article, it turned out that it wasn't skeptical of the changes in the Ground Forces like the comments that were cherry picked from it would make it seem like, but listed many positive improvements that have occurred in the Ground Forces. This article should be delisted from FA status, it doesn't even meet GA status.--Ilya1166 02:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I would agree with you that the article is flawed and certainly sems to portray what from my own studies would seem to be an image of the Russian military that is perhaps 5 years out of date. Whether or not this is as a result of an agenda I am not so certain - I think it is largely based on a common popular misconception of the state of the Russian military based on outmoded ideas. If you feel the article fails GA criteria such as neurality, you should nominate it at FAR. However, for an article such as this that is fundamentally sound, albeit drawing poor conclusions of the military's current state, I don't think FAR is necessary. The solution is, rather, to find sources that contradict or qualify the statements objected to, and add them to the article stating that there is disagreement etc. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Polkington, you may be interested in my response to Ilya on his talk page; I was the original editor who got this promoted to FA status last year. If you can find me some sourced things disagreeing with the main thrust of the article, I'd be pleased to rewrite it, but all I have right now for opposing sources is the newspaper articles on the plans for the State Armaments Programme - which will not change the training and morale issues. Remember that when the BMP-3 was first issued to troops in the Siberian Military District's 228th MRR (85 MRD), the conscript troops misused them so badly that the regiment was reissued MT-LBs. However much new equipment will not produce better combat capability unless the troops believe in what they are doing and are trained thus as well - otherwise South Vietnam would have won after the US donated them all that equipment in Enhance and Enhance Plus in the early 70s. Cheers Buckshot06 20:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal, and other editions[edit]

The removal of the sate "Crime and corruption in the ground forces". I think if it's so old why you should romove it? If you are Russian, you should know that in some ways what has written there is true. Ofcoures not everything, but why you should rmove it? If you'r not agree - please, edit it and add what you whant, but you should not remove it completely. At last you can rename it like this, for example: "Crime and corruption in the ground forces in 1990-1998". Thats it. ~~Yegor Chernyshev 30.09.07 11:32~~

In thier edit summary User:Miyokan justified the section's removal on the grounds that "No other country's military has such a section. Old info most of this is from a 1995 source and a bit from 2002-military expenditures have almost quadrupled since then". That no other article has such a section isn't a valid reason to remove cited content - there isn't a guideline on what can and cannot be included in this type of article and they can, and should, cover all relevant topics. Many national militaries suffer from serious crime and corruption and articles on these militaries need to address this - the presence of the section in this article was probably one of the reasons it was voted a featured article. More generally, all articles on national militaries should cover the military's problems. The argument that "military expenditures have almost quadrupled since 2002" also isn't valid as this section was on crime and not under-funding, and it hardly seems likely that increased funding will automatically reduce corruption. However, Miyokan's point that some of the references are now dated seems fair. I think that this section should be reinstated as a discussion of the current status of the military and the older references be moved to Military history of the Russian Federation or similar. --Nick Dowling 05:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I know that there are problems in the Army. I am by no means trying to cover up the problems in the Russian army. The problem I have is with the age of the sources. Much has changed in Russia since 2002 economically, the military budget has almost quadrupled, and I am interested, as I think many others are, as to whether this prosperity has transferred into an improvement in the Army situation. There does not seem to be any recent (2006/07) sources about the extent of the problems today as opposed to the cash-starved Army of 2002, and I believe readers are entitled to the most recent sources regarding the problems in the Army. Most if not all the sources here about problems in the Army are years old. User:Buckshot06's justification of keeping the old information - "Do Not Delete Sourced Text you can't replace" - is bad logic. Just because we cannot find recent reports about the problems in the Russian army to replace the old reports does not mean that the old reports should stay.--Miyokan 05:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a current news report, but an encyclopaedia. I have just inserted some updated information related to crime and corruption in the Ground Forces (actually whose source is available to all through the Conflict Studies Research Centre - Kier Giles' report). However, that older information should not just be deleted because there's newer. If this article was to get REALLY REALLY long, maybe some info might be better at Military history of the Russian Federation. Miyokan, I am really surprised, because the sources section of Giles lists many references to publications like Krasnaya Zvezda, Moskovskiy Komsomolets, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Kommersant, Novyye Izvestiya etc, which as a Russian you can read and add information from. Couldn't you find some decent sourced info from sources like that? Please, also, if you feel that other militaries' article lack crime/corruption and so forth sections, add them. For example there is probably a lot of war crimes allegations that could go into the other FA ground forces article, United States Marine Corps. I suppose my basic message is please do not treat these articles like a rolling news report: it's history, just a little more recent than most. And also, please, find some good Russian uptodate sourced material and add it in! Thanks Buckshot06 06:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Russian ground forces history[edit]

This article fails to cover Russian Ground Forces history adequately. It should cover the ground forces dating back to its origins and the Middle Ages, and Soviet and Imperial times like in the Russian Navy article.--Miyokan 14:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, we've got (your recently retitled) Soviet Army for that, and yes, we need an article on the Imperial Russian Army, currently only a redirect. But this article is focused on the new state of the Russian Federation and its ground forces since 1991. History of other institutions should go in their articles. But if you like, I'd be happy to help you collaberatively with starting an article for the Imperial Russian Army - having no article on that is a bit of a gap. Buckshot06 17:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Buckshot, I would like to hear your opinion regarding the renaming of the Red Army article. Personnaly, I don't really like this... --Eurocopter tigre 12:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer it be at Red Army also. Buckshot06 13:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Very well, i'm going to see what's the reason for which it was renamed. --Eurocopter tigre 15:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It was user:Miyokan on 13 Sept 07: 'moved Red Army to Soviet Army over redirect: Was known as the Soviet Army for the majority of its existence and was known as the Soviet Army when it ceased to exist.' However, while he changed the heading, he didn't change the title or any of the article, which makes it somewhat odd now. Buckshot06 16:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You say that you have your "Soviet Army for that", but like I said, on the Russian Navy page there is sections on origins dating back to the 4th century the Imperial Russian Navy. Similarly the Russian Army should have its history traced in this article, like the French Navy article traces through its history.--Miyokan 12:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The proper place to start that, in my view, is at Imperial Russian Army, as I said, raising that from a redirect. My view would be that the material dealing with the pre-1991 situation be transferred from Russian Navy to Imperial Russian Navy. However, wherever you want to start, just start writing good referenced text instead of arguing on talk pages! Tell me where, and I'll help you. There's lots of material in the Ru-Wiki on the Imperial Russian Army if you want somewhere to start. Regards Buckshot06 14:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Russian Navy (as opposed to Viking navy in Russia) probably dates from the Varangian raids on Sevastopol (if memory serves me right), but it didn't become "Imperial" until the Romanovs. Buckshot06 is probably right on the "start writing articles", however a bit of planning doesn't go astray. "Measure ten times, cut once" as they tailors say :o)--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 08:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Special Designation[edit]

This is Spezial'nogo Naznacheniya, or SpetzNaz, so the translation ought too be Special Purpose IMHO, which is the meaning here. I know naznachit' means to designate, but it really means designated for a purpose which is special, that is outside of the functions of other 'regular' units.--mrg3105mrg3105 04:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ofcourse! IMHO, as native russian-speaking person, I am shure that you r compeletely right. --Yegor Chernyshev | User talk:Yegor Chernyshev 04:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
As a matter of curiosity, how does Spezial'nogo Naznacheniya become SpetzNaz? Shouldn't it be SpezNaz without the t? Oldpilot (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I should have transliterated Spetsial'nogo, but before this was standardised, the Sptzial'nogo was also accepted, as was Spezial'nogo, with z equated to ц--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 08:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Railroad troops[edit]

Unofficial site [2] --mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 07:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

SO damn biased[edit]

This article, as its parent article(Russian Armed Forces) is heavily biased and anti-russian.

Comments from the main writer follow Buckshot06 (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I sugest that most western citations should be treated with caution, as they are the product of a intrinsecaly biased source, because the Russian Army is an "enemy" force and is therefore denigrated. I believe that Russian sources should be cited more frecuently, in order no to favor any side and provide a fair point of view, as it correspond to an Encyclopedia.

Most of the really critical sections are from Alexander Golts, a Russian journalist. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

-Crime and Corruption section should be permanently buried, beacuse it lacks current validity,

It's updated with 2007 material from the Conflict Studies Research Centre, British analysts whose material is based on Russian media sources. How up to date do you want to be? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
and an Encyclopedia should be as actualised as possible.

-Devoshina should be less emphasized.

Why? It's destroying the force, even beyond the Soviet era standards. What about those 20 conscripts who literally walked out of their unit in the SKVO in 2002-3 to escape the sergeants? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

-Combat readiness varies with each unit. "Guards" units are first line, highly professional units, whether "Rifle Motor" divisions are lower readiness, general purpouse troops.

The three-tier system, Constant Readiness, not-fully manned, and thirdline cadre is reflected, I hope. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

-Alleged or unconfirmed crimes and criticism should be removed.

We work with WP:V here, and they are all verified.

-"A professional army of the Western type" does not mean anything at all, since each country has its own military doctrine. -Negative comparisons to Western armies are the root of this article, and I sugest it should be rewritten completely.

Comparison of combat readiness is the key factor. Are you seeking a Soviet-style 'postive' article, with no negative comments? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if an engagement happened between NATO and Russia, NATO supposed technological and organisational supperiority would have no meaning against the Russian military doctrine, which calls for use of nuclear weapons against opposing conventional armies,

Indeed, but you will note that NATO's land forces are not gathered on the Polish border ready to drive on Smolensk and beyond, but are tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

and in that aspect the only country which could answer to such a strategy in a significant way would be the USA, with the subsecuent nuclear war and end of human civilisation. I therefore reiterate the need for this article to be completely rewritten, focusing on facts and not in oppinions.

As I said, it's all verifable, with over 80 citations. Please add {{cn}} tags where you would like extra citations, and I will insert them. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 
From my POV of reading the Russian sites and forums the issue of crime, corruption and discipline varies highly from unit to unit, and having a Guards status does not seem to make much of a difference. It really depends on the officers and NCOs and this has been recognised, with substantial changes being made in the Russian Federation forces, not just the Ground Forces.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 00:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you direct me to these forums/sites Mrg? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

New equipment[edit]

Funding for new equipment has greatly risen in recent years, and Russian defence industry continues to develop new weapons systems for the Ground Forces, including new tanks, such as the T-95 and Black Eagle, and new surface to air missiles such as the S-400 Triumf.

The state of tank development remains uncertain. There has been a recent announcement that an unspecified new tank will be adopted in 2010 (see T-95), but that is likely to be good news for only one of the tank factories. Uralvagonzavod keeps building a few T-90s (the design is the Soviet-era T-72 with updated equipment), and Omsk Transmash is selling a few T-80s overseas and continuing to pin its hopes on the Black Eagle. Michael Z. 2008-08-30 01:04 z

Equipment totals[edit]

"Operational" in Russian parlance means that all systems are in a state of operation for field employment. The confusion is caused by the numbers stated in different sources which refer to the different state of readiness of the units that use the equipment, namely active operational, reserve operational, conservation, and "deep" conservation. Deep conservation usually very old equipment. Most recent sources only refer to the first line units that are active. Reserve units remain at cadre strength, while the vast bulk of equipment inherited from the USSR stocks is in conservation, with the units renamed into storage bases with four digit numbering (usually)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 13:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation removed to talkpage[edit]


New Brigades[edit]

Source: [3]

Formation Location Previous Formation Equipment
10th Separate Tank Brigade (10-я отбр) Voronezh 248th GMRR, 10th GTD
19th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade (19-я омсбр) Check-green.svg Vladikavkaz 503rd MRR, 19th Motor Rifle Division BMP
70th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade Ussuriysk 231-й мсп 129-й гв.пулад MT-LBV
25th Guards Separate Motor Rifle Brigade (25-я гв. омсбр) Vladimirsky Lager 42nd Guards Base for Storage of Weapons and Equipment
5th Separate Guards Motor Rifle Brigade Check-green.svg Alabino 1 гв. мсп and 283 гв. мсп, 2nd Guards MRD BTR
4th Guards Separate Tank Brigade (4-я гв. отбр) Check-green.svg Naro-Fominsk 13 гв. тп and 423 гв. мсп 4th Guards Tank Division
9th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade Mulino 245-й гв. мсп 3rd MRD BMP
6th Separate Tank Brigade (6-я отбр) Check-green.svg Nizhny Novgorod 3rd Motor Rifle Division
20th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade (20-я омсбр) Check-green.svg Volgograd 255-й гв. мсп 20th Guards Motor Rifle Division BMP
56th Separate Airborne Brigade (56-я одшбр) Check-green.svg Kamyshin
18th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade (18-я омсбр) Check-green.svg Khankala 71st Guards MRR, 42nd MRD BTR
8th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade (8-я омсбр) Shali 15 гв. мсп and 1 гв. тп. 2nd Guards MRD BMP
17th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade (17-я омсбр) Check-green.svg Borzoi (п. Борзой) 291-й мсп 42-й гв. мсд (на МТ-ЛБВ)
76th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade (76-я омсбр) Check-green.svg Гюмри, Armenia 124-й и 128-й мсб 102nd Military Base
73rd Separate Motor Rifle Brigae (73-я омсбр) Check-green.svg Yerevan, Armenia 123-й мсб 102nd Military Base
21st Separate Motor Rifle Brigade (21-я омсбр) Check-green.svg Totskoye, Orenburg Oblast 27th Guards Motor Rifle Division BMP
23rd Separate Motor Rifle Brigade (23-я омсбр) Check-green.svg Samara 81-й гв.мсп 27-й мсд BTR
28th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade (28-я омсбр) Check-green.svg Yekaterinburg 276-й мсп 34-й мсд BMP
7th Separate Tank Brigade (7-я отбр) Check-green.svg Chebarkul 295-й гв.мсп 34-й мсд
32-я омсбр Shilovo п. Шилово Новосибирская обл. 85th MRD BTR
35-я омсбр Алейск 122-я гв. мсд BMP
36-я гв. омсбр Borzya (Борзя) 272-й гв.мсп 131-й гв.мсд BMP
37-я омсбр Kyakhta (Кяхта) 6th VkhVT BMP
5th Separate Tank Brigade (5-я отбр) cт. Дивизионная г. Улан-Удэ 5th Guards Tank Division
38th Guards Separate Motor Rifle Brigade п. Екатеринославка Амурская обл. 143-й мсп 21-й гв. мсд (на БМП)
39th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade Южно-Сахалинск 33-я мсд (на МТ-ЛБВ)
57th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade Bikin ЕАО 81-я гв. мсд (на БМП)
59th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade (59-я омсбр) с. Сергеевка Приморский край 127-я пулад (на БМП)
60th 60-я омсбр п. Липовцы Приморский край 218-й тп 127-й пулад (на БМП)
64-я омсбр Хабаровск 882-й мсп 270-й мсд (на БМП)
69-я отд. бригада прикрытия (Babstovo) ЕАО 128-я пулад BMP
4th Military Base Check-green.svg Владикавказ, г. Джава, г. Цхинвал 693-й гв.мсп 19-й мсд база для Ю. Осетии
7th Military Base Check-green.svg Maikop(Майкоп) 131-я омсбр база для Абхазии (Гудаута, Очамчир)


Hello Buckshot06,

why did you remove nocladors excellent graphic of the Russian Ground Forces? It has all the information one might need at a glance and is absolutely not "unreadable" or "unworkable". So why remove it? Are you not able to move your eyes from left to right or to scroll up and down? (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Check his talkpage for our discussion - he's fully in agreement. LIsting every formation to brigade level in an army over 20 divisions strong makes it very hard to comprehend the diagram. As you will see at his talkpage, I suggested an alternate diagram to army level, then a brief listing x numbers of combat brigades, y combat support brigades, z CSS brigades. Noclador has additionally put the diagram at Commons. A much more comprehensible diagram is at each military district. A full Vid-level diagram needs to be a little less detailed. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm insofar in agreement with Buckshot as most people coming to wikipedia are not specialists and just want a little overview of the topic. For such people a graphic that goes down to battalion and company level is overkill. However for Military Experts, as I and also probably the user with the IP above are, a graphic can never have enough details :-) I know that the guys at the Italian Army print my graphics out and study them up and close. But those do study military structures for a living - and so for wikipedia we have to find a compromise. I can do a graphic as Buckshot suggested easily and what I would like to see would be to have a link to a dedicated page like Structure of the French Army or Operational Structure of the Italian Army for most of the big Armies (i.e. USA, Russia, Japan, ecc.), which lists every known unit for us military buffs and professionals.
But most importantly: Thank you IP user for the compliment on my work :-) I did not know my work has fans, but am happy to hear that and thank you for your kind words. I appreciate your commendation very much :-) thanks, --noclador (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


Why is the T-95 mentioned here as in development? It was cancelled... (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you're removing things, it generally helps if you note the reason why you're removing it in the edit summary; otherwise, it looks like vandalism—especially when you're editing as an anonymous IP. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Irrelvant. The T-95 was cancelled, end of story. It should not be here. - (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"Russian Army soldier on guard"[edit]

This guy is Army?

Isn't just the Airforce, Federal Protective Service, and the FSB(excluding Border Troops) that has blue on their hats and shoulderboards?

His hat emblem is obviously not a propeller, so he is FSB, Federal protective Service? (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete the mess.[edit]

This article is now in very bad shape. Someone use a language and use negative comments which I not expected in Wikepdia.

Please delete this mess soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Armed forces numbers according to IISS[edit]

Russian Armed Forces: 771,000

  • Ground forces: 380,000
    • Army: 230,000
    • Command and support: 150,000
  • Navy: 130,000
  • VDV: 32,000 <- this is added separately from ground forces. Also turns out to be lower than actuall number see: Russian Airborne page
  • Air Force: 148,000
  • Strategic misiles: 80,000

DO NOT revert to 230,000, especially with including VDV. that is false. Nezi1111 (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

IISS 2014[edit]

I have the 2014 edition, but the numbers you are throwing around above for the Ground Forces look grossly inflated. (Buckshot06 any thoughts?):

  • Total: 845,000
    • Ground Forces: 205,000 (including VDV) and 80,000 conscripts
    • Air Force: 150,000
    • Navy: 130,000
    • Strategic Deterrent Forces: 80,000
    • Command and Support: 200,000 (nowhere does it suggest all of these belong to the ground forces!!!!)

Personally, I don't believe that in the space of a single IISS publication, the Russian ground forces expanded from ~285,000 to 380,000. Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I have the 2014 edition in front of me, and it corroborates Antiochus the Great's data, though I should say the Ground Forces is broken down into est. 205,000 (incl 35,000 airborne) est. 80,000 conscripts. Should note that the Space Forces are listed as 40,000, no doubt included in command and support.
Are you using a different edition @Nezi111:? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
apparently yes. my edition says 771,000 total not 845,000 which is closer to the russian sourced 766,000. also it categorically puts airborne separately. ground forces is 230,000 (not including VDV) + 130,000 command and support? should we add another category for the armed forces page if we don't add it to the GF? Nezi1111 (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Which year's edition are you using, and which page number? I've got a number of the last few editions, and the VDV has always been listed with the Ground Forces in a "(including AB)" format. I'm intrigued here - maybe there's been a format change I haven't seen. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Russian Ground Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This article has no external links section, but here is an assessment from Jane's. TGCP (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Russian Ground Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Insertion of equipment gallery[edit]

I have just removed (again) the pic gallery of Ground Forces equipment. GALLERIES stipulates that, in all but exceptional cases, they should not be used, instead pictures should be inserted beside text discussion of the subject of the picture. Galleries themselves should be on Commons. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Otechestvennye zapiski, 2002, №8