Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Gollevainen

For me the moving of the main naval base from Vladivostok to Petroplavosk is bit odd, I would like to ask what is the source for this?

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone was saying it quite like that. I think it was only suggested that there was some movement from Vladivostok to Petropavlovsk.

There are few reasons why its extremely odd choise. Its mainly tied to the location. If you haven't noticed, Kamkathca is a penisula that has narrow landconncetion to the main continent deep in the north and no railroad nor highway connects it to the more habitable parts of russian fareast. Its bit strange to imagine your primary naval base is in such remote location.

Click to expand...

At the time Pearl Harbor was probably treated in a similar way. It was far from the mainland of the United States and the harbor was very shallow, considered unsuitable as a naval base by some. Position on the Ocean is generally more relevant, however, for a naval base.

Another is this? Whats wrong with Vladivostok? Its old and tradditional naval base to russians, there is existing infrastructure to support the base alongside with the Komsomolensk-na-amurs naval shipyard and other associated facilities.

Click to expand...

I think the problem is similar to the problem with the Black Sea. It doesn't really provide a nice open passage to the Ocean or a larger sea. The only exit points are between Sakhalin and Hokkaido, another between Sakhalin and the Russian mainland that is much more narrow and involves a long round trip, and passage through disputed Korean/Japanese waters. In a time of war Russia may find the two most open passages blocked, requiring the fleet to take a lengthy round trip to get out to open sea.

I also suggested Sakhalin's eastern coast and any position on the coast of the Sea of Okhotsk. A base on the Pacific end of the Kuril islands would also be possible.

Pointblank

I would have to agree. The existing infrastructure for Petroplavosk just isn't there to support a major naval base. Basing a couple of ships, yes. But not the entire Russian Pacific Fleet.

Click to expand...

No one was claiming that at all. I think it was only suggested that the Russian fleet's concentration at Vladivostok limits its ability to act in the Pacific Ocean so alternatives, preferably on the coast of the Pacific should be sought for a major naval buildup.

I think the problem is similar to the problem with the Black Sea. It doesn't really provide a nice open passage to the Ocean or a larger sea. The only exit points are between Sakhalin and Hokkaido, another between Sakhalin and the Russian mainland that is much more narrow and involves a long round trip, and passage through disputed Korean/Japanese waters. In a time of war Russia may find the two most open passages blocked, requiring the fleet to take a lengthy round trip to get out to open sea.

Click to expand...

well The above one has been Russian Navy's hedeace since all of its existance, and thats the intial reason why Russians build naval base to Kamkatska (and why the northern fleet exists)....but in other hand, Soviet navy was "brake trougth" fleet of some sort and thus reflected in their inventory, so no shortage tactical needs doesent require movment to literally behind god's back...

well The above one has been Russian Navy's hedeace since all of its existance, and thats the intial reason why Russians build naval base to Kamkatska (and why the northern fleet exists)....but in other hand, Soviet navy was "brake trougth" fleet of some sort and thus reflected in their inventory, so no shortage tactical needs doesent require movment to literally behind god's back...

Click to expand...

Ok I have a really hard time understanding you so I figure I'll try to paraphrase and see if this is right.

You're saying that the Russian Navy has the Northern Fleet because of how closed off Vladivostok is from the Ocean, but they were designed to break through any blockade of those passages so it's not needed.

If that's what you're saying then my point is simply that, instead of having to break a blockading action, being able to have a base open to the Pacific will give Russia a stronger military presence beyond Russia's shores and greatly free up its operating ability.

You're saying that the Russian Navy has the Northern Fleet because of how closed off Vladivostok is from the Ocean, but they were designed to break through any blockade of those passages so it's not needed.

Click to expand...

No. I said the poor location of shores have tradditionally caused alot of trouple to Russian naval thinking. There's four major seas intruding the russian soil and all are effectly isolated from each others in the sea and in the land also due long distances.
Northern fleet, or artick squardon as it was known in the early days was greated as the Baltic and Black sea fleets had no free and secure accses to atlantic and as Murmansk was the only open harbour in the northern parts of russia. It had hardly anythnig to do with Pasific fleet. The base in Petroplavosk in later years were however and was build due the reasons you mentioned earlier. But as this poor location has been the proplem for russia troughout its navy's little bit over 300 years history, they aknowlidge this and have adopted the practical implications of this to all their naval thinking.

Altough Pasific fleet is in solely sea-accses point of view one of the best in Russia, the fact that it is located in the periferia of the nation still gives it handicap in the overall scale. But however the proplems of Black sea and Baltic doesen't apply here and Pasific fleet is basicly the sole fleet which doesen't need to change its ports for gaining any significant benefits. Thus there is no logical reasoning for this alledged shift.

Gollevainen said:

Thus there is no logical reasoning for this alledged shift.

Click to expand...

The reason is to allow the Russian Navy instant access to the open ocean without having to pass through any straits of channels. I offer you the example of the Battle of Tsushima in 1905. Of course the Russian Fleet was attempting to reach Vladivostock instead of break out of it, but the situation was the same; the Japanese were able to block the route to Vladivostock and force the Russians to fight when they were not ready (they had just completed the voyage from St. Petersburg).

The straights in the pasific which would interupt the russian navy moving away from Vladivostok are noway as narrow as the Danish straights or Bosborous that inflicts the Baltic and Black Sea fleets. The passageway between Kurils and the Korean straights are more wider. In fact the Korean straight is much wider than the Gulf of Finland and yet it doesen't make Russians to centre their baltic fleet to Kaliningrad, which is basicly as reachable as Petrosplavosk. The scale of advantages and disadvantages is heavily leaning on the later in this moving the main base in Pacific issue making it worthwhile.

This in no way means Vladivostok is the best place for a base when the Russian Fleet has traditionally had a problem reaching open ocean. Petropavlovsk could be just one of many bases. No one was talking about making it their main base. As I said, the coast of the Sea of Okhotsk and Sakhalin are also places where major naval bases could be placed.

Sergie Ironotov said:

Last week the Russians have resumed Bomber patrols near the U.S. on a normal basis, the last time the Russian maid rutine bomber patrols was in 1992. I also read the the Russian military will restore its military might like the of the Soviet Union. This could be the start of a new Cold War between the U.S. and Russia.

Click to expand...

I dont think the Russian military could be as good as the Soviet Unions...today it is just a shadow of what it once was.
These steps the govt is taking (like expanding the navy, long range bomber patrols, flying fighters off their aircraft carrier again) will certainly restore some credibility, confidence, morale and ability back into their military.
Not to mention boost Russia's image as a great power once again...

21820 tanks and over 25000 APCs????? Are you sure?
It is extremely difficult to keep that many tanks in working order...im no tank expert but i know this much.
Plus, ive read something about the Russian way of counting how many tanks they have is quite...whats the word, dodgy. Like example, when US counts how many tanks they have, they only count the ones that are in absolute working/fighting/operational condition. When Russia counts, they counts all the ones that are operational, all the ones that are not and all the ones that are in scrap yards as well.
Not sure if thats entirely true tho...

Sergie Ironotov said:

I am from Russia and yes all 21,820 tanks and over 25,000 APCs are in active service. I had trouble beleaving it too when I first got into military type stuff. It does not take that much money to maintain that many tanks and APCs after all, even in the 1990s Russia was still able to maintain that many, tanks and APCs are a lot cheaper to maintain than jets or ships to tell you the truth.

Click to expand...

I do remember that during the Cold War, Soviet units maintained two sets of equipment, one that they actually used for training and manoeuvres, and the other which they kept stored. Some in NATO used to chuckle that the Soviets treated their best equipment (the stuff they kept stored) as too good to use.

That was until after the end of the Cold War, and former Warsaw Pact info came into the hands of NATO. When NATO discovered what the other set of better equipment that each Soviet units kept in storage was for, the laughs stopped. The supposedly "too good to use" second set of equipment that the Soviets had for each unit was kept fully maintained, fueled, and loaded for war and ready to move out within 15-30 minutes of the order to move being received. Because during the Cold War, Soviet soldiers were confined to their bases (those in Eastern Europe, not Soviet Union) and only rarely allowed off-base (officers were allowed more leeway), Soviet units could recieve the order to move out and do so practically instaneously.

For most NATO units, even in Germany, the highest alert status (for those units whose turn it was to be on ready-alert status) was four hours to move.

I don't know if that is the case with much of the equipment that the Russian Army presently has. But there is a precedent for it.