All talk about the preservation and strengthening of the airborne troops is nothing more than PR. In fact, the Airborne Forces were given the opportunity to die a natural death, periodically throwing up equipment and allowing them to break bricks with their hands and heads in front of the admiring public.
When Vladimir Shamanov led the landing troops last week, and at the inauguration ceremony of the new commander, the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Federation, General of the Army Nikolai Makarov, said that the reduction and transfer of the Airborne Forces from divisional to brigade basis would cease and the landing troops would be strengthened, many, and not only military, were delighted. Finally, the Airborne Forces - the elite of the army - were left alone and a real combat general was appointed commander. Only there is nothing to rejoice at.
Let's try to figure it out: what is the Airborne Forces? "The Airborne Forces (Airborne Forces), a highly mobile branch of the armed forces, designed to cover the enemy by air and conduct hostilities in his rear" (website of the Ministry of Defense - E. T.). The Airborne Forces as a separate branch of troops existed only in the USSR - in other countries, paratroopers are part of the ground forces or the Air Force. The airborne troops are the striking force of the aggressor army, which in its structure was the Soviet army. Following the tactical nuclear strikes behind enemy lines, "blue berets" land, seize bridgeheads, and huge masses of tanks rush to join them, breaking enemy resistance. This is, in fact, the essence of Soviet strategy. Now there are no tank armies, they did not bother to develop a strategy for the entire post-Soviet period, since they did not manage to decide on a potential enemy. And if there is no enemy, there is no strategy. But the Airborne Forces, albeit in an abbreviated form, continue to exist. And, as General Makarov explained to us, they will be strengthened …
Imagine a picture: hundreds of heavy transport aircraft are flying over a certain country, from which paratroopers and combat vehicles are falling on the enemy's heads. If the enemy does not even have small arms, then everything is fine. And if he still has machine guns and machine guns and, God forbid, some kind of air defense? The end then the landing. This means that the Airborne Forces can be used only where there is no enemy and cannot be, for example, in the Siberian taiga or in Antarctica. During World War II, there was only one large-scale landing - the landing of the Germans in Crete in 1941, but even there, in conditions of extremely weak resistance, the paratroopers suffered such losses that Hitler prohibited such operations. The Americans threw out the landing units in Normandy in 1944 out of despair - it was necessary to somehow distract the Wehrmacht while the infantry and equipment were landing on the coast. The actions of "Private Ryans" were unsuccessful, the losses were enormous. There was no more large-scale landing, which was envisaged by the Soviet military doctrine. Another thing is tactical helicopter landing in the interests of the ground forces: they were the basis of the strategy and tactics of the Americans in Vietnam and Iraq, of the Soviet troops in Afghanistan and proved to be highly effective. But in this case, the paratroopers must obey the ground forces, and not constitute a separate branch of the army! And the lot of paratroopers is landing in small groups to perform special forces tasks. But our Airborne Forces exist separately, special forces - separately.
Although the Airborne Forces in modern conditions is an absolute nonsense, this nonsense is subordinated, if not the strategy (which does not exist), then the terms of reference for the defense industry.
The main problem of the Airborne Forces, Shamanov said when taking office, is the obsolescence of equipment and weapons: the BMD-1 and BMD-2 airborne assault vehicles were put into service more than 30 and 20 years ago. True, the paratroopers are already receiving the latest BMD-4: "The vehicle is an airborne combat tracked amphibious vehicle that can be parachuted and landed with or without personnel inside" (official technical specification - E. T.).
They ordered the defense industry to make a "flying" BMD-4 - and they did it. Yes, no one has ever thrown out combat vehicles with crews in combat conditions, this is nonsense! It is extremely difficult to land so that the crew avoids serious injuries, such ideas have long been abandoned all over the world. No, the Soviets (and now it is not clear which ones) have their own pride, and a weakly armored, unnecessary, in general, car is born …
The airborne forces assume the presence of a huge amount of military equipment, primarily helicopters - in the Soviet air assault brigade of the 80s there were 120 of them. And we are solemnly declared that the Russian army (not the Airborne Forces, but the entire army!) Will receive 100 helicopters of all types. Those currently in service will be decommissioned. We also need a lot of military transport aircraft, and Russia does not produce them at all. That is, the paratroopers in six years will be walking or riding in "flying" BMD-4s. In other words, to be ordinary infantry - as they were in Chechnya, and before that - in Afghanistan. And even earlier - near Moscow and Stalingrad.
The paratroopers are truly special soldiers: brave, tough, well-trained. Therefore, they were used to plug all the holes in the wars. And why? Yes, because motorized rifle units and formations are incapable of combat. One might argue: what about the victory in the second Chechen war? No way. There the enemy was defeated not because of the strength of the renewed army, but because of his own extreme weakness. In the first Chechen war, the army was opposed by a well-armed militia with heavy equipment, good communications and a single command, and we know how it ended. In the second Chechen army, the enemy of the army was scattered gangs without a single center and serious weapons, moreover, they fought with each other. How many months of bloody battles it took to defeat them, everyone remembers well. And again it was mainly paratroopers and marines who fought; and where is the base of the army - motorized riflemen? It turns out that the "reform" of the Airborne Forces in the current version will lead to their transformation into ordinary infantry. %%
Thus, all talk about the preservation and strengthening of the airborne troops is nothing more than PR. Does the country's military-political leadership understand this? Surely he understands. But to announce the disbandment of the airborne troops, about their transformation into shock units of the ground forces, means to infuriate the pseudo-patriots, and not only the communists, but everyone who is still convinced that the Soviet army was "invincible and legendary." Therefore, the Airborne Forces provided the opportunity to die a natural death, periodically throwing up some equipment and allowing them to break bricks with their hands and heads in front of the admiring audience.
The country's leadership clearly does not think about the possibility of war. It is good, of course, that not frostbitten hawks are in power in Moscow, but the situation in the world in recent years has only changed for the worse. The army and shock units, the backbone of which could be made up of the current paratroopers, will probably still be needed. But it may turn out that they will not be there at the right time.
