The scientists from the Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies have made the first surveys of the causes and nature of all major foreign conflicts with the participation of the armed forces after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Rossiiskaya Gazeta daily reported.
Military experts under the leadership of director of the centre Ruslan Pukhov have made a detailed survey of all major military conflicts, which broke out in the world from 1991 to the present time. Their survey can serve as some kind of a textbook for our servicemen, because it spells out what weapons and strategy secure a success in combat actions today. Are modern artillery and missiles always guarantee the victory?
In 1994 the armed conflict sparked up between North and South Yemen. North and South Yemenis had modern weapons at those times in the arsenals of their armies, mostly the weapons of Soviet production, including operational tactical missiles Tochka and multiple launch rocket systems Grad. However, threatening missiles turned out to be absolutely useless in the hands of “the warriors of the desert”, as the latter made much noise with a low effect.
Meanwhile, the Indian-Pakistani conflict in Kargalar in 1999 confirmed that the missile systems and the artillery remain menacing weapons in the hands of skilled warriors. The conflict exposed an interesting feature of modern wars. According to leading expert in armaments Mikhail Barabanov, it became clear that the times of the artillery with medium calibres from 76 to 130 millimetres are over. Quick-firing guns with the calibre of not more than 57 millimetres to down low air targets, hit lightly-armoured vehicles, infantry and big guns with no less than 152-155 millimetres to break into the reinforcements and the gunfire by adjusted shells. Those who outline the prospects of the state defence order have something to think about.
Meanwhile, the Kargalar conflict sheds the light on the fact why India preferred the French fighter Rafale to the Russian fighter MiG-35 in the recent tender. When the warplanes were used high in the mountains during the military conflict with Pakistan, the advanced French fighter Mirage-2000 and its weaponry showed the perfect combat capacities in contrast to outdated fighters MiG-21 and MiG-27. These warplanes cannot be compared, but India was disappointed losing right two fighters MiG-21M and MiG27ML for one day.
However, the helicopters Mi-17 showed their best capabilities, and their purchases in Russia grew sharply. This is the main multipurpose Indian helicopter now.
There is an assumption that professionally trained white warriors are more combat capable than the blacks. Is this so? Fierce combat actions were waged in the African Great Lakes Region in 1994-2007. At the initial stage mercenaries from Belgium, Italy, France, Bosnian and Krajina Serbs, who were united in the White Legion, participated actively in the combat actions. Belgian mercenary leader Christian Tavernier commanded the White Legion. The air force of the legion had four helicopter gunships Mi-24, which hired Ukrainian crews maintained and piloted.
In the armed struggle with black combatants the White Legion, even under the support of Ukrainian helicopters, did not show good results in combat actions and was disbanded shamefully.
Meanwhile, the combat actions of the NATO commandoes differ greatly from the White Legion, primarily US commandoes in the combat actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Small units of rangers destroyed the whole regiments of armies and dispersed the Taliban militants. This fact confirms that the times of the heroes, which rely only on their submachine guns, military professional skills and valour, passed away. Not just a military unit, but a complicated and well-coordinated military machine takes the upper hand in a modern military conflict.
The US commandoes were trained better than the White Legion in Africa. They are different, because they made part of the system, which included air, maritime and space forces and the most sophisticated telecommunications technologies.
It is interesting to analyze the NATO air strikes on Yugoslavia, the combat actions of the Western coalitions in Afghanistan and Iraq and the recent civil war in Libya. This is primarily because these wars are close in time, as the modern ways to capture foreign territories were used in them for the first time.
For instance, why Yugoslavia, which had modern air defence systems and fighters of the MiG-29 type, failed to rebuff the NATO air strikes? In a more detailed survey it is found that the Serbs lacked modern air defence missile systems that predetermined the outcome of the war. In general, up to now the Western military coalition did not take combat actions against the air defence missile systems of the latest generations, including S-300P, S-300V, S-400, Tor, Tunguska and Pantsir.
According to military experts, even a small number of modern air defence systems of Russian production in Syria, does not allow the Western countries to repeat the Libyan scenario.
Director General of the Almaz-Antey Air Defence Concern Vladislav Menshikov believes that the main way of combat actions waged by modern weapons is an air assault operation in its various variants. The air defence systems play a vitally important role to rebuff any possible military intervention.