I have to wonder at what line either the Russians push the war outside of Ukraine and at what line does Putin's inner circle say "enough"?
The same questions apply to the US and NATO as well.
ALERT RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE - Consolidated Thread
- Thread starter danielboon
- Start date
The same questions apply to the US and NATO as well.
We are drawing down forward deployed war stocks of ammunition and arms all over the world. These stocks are dedicated to specific units which are planned to be deployed to specific locations and supplied from these specific stocks.
And these idiots in deecee are giving them away.
The answer to you question is classified "Top Secret - FAFO"
vector7
Dot Collector
"Ukraine now expects long-range missiles and jets from West after the confirmation of tanks" - Zelensky
View: https://twitter.com/TheBelaaz/status/1618349417576402945?s=20&t=ddqyYJR5_kBet_aJLMsf6g
View: https://twitter.com/TheBelaaz/status/1618349417576402945?s=20&t=ddqyYJR5_kBet_aJLMsf6g
Of course he/they do....
True - there is an export version with different armor - but the bottom line is this is likely just a cover story as to why they will never be sent!
Note: Morocco (of all places) has some
M1A1 222 M1A1SA "Special Armor" (export?).
M1A2 156 M1A2
So getting them to provide 31 - being replaced with new production should not be a problem (they are not likely to go to war anytime soon.)
Just a few weeks ago the US "pressured" them to send some 90 T-72B tanks they have to Ukraine
So no problem with them sending tanks - So if the US REALLY - REALLY wanted to get M1A's to Ukraine this could be done - in a few weeks - not in a year or so.
Link:
US Pushes Morocco To Deliver Military Aid To Ukraine, Breaks African Neutrality In War
Even as Morocco has tried to maintain a neutral stance, the latest decision comes as a setback to Russia's attempts to foster African neutrality.
www.ibtimes.com
In addition other nations have the export version such as -
Saudi Arabia has 442 of the M1A2 - with export armor (yes some rebel "goat herders" have taken out a few) - but likely they could spare a few of the remaining ?
Iraq has some 146+ of the M1A1 - with export armor (but given current relations - not likely to help us)
It is also very likely the US could convert / downgrade current M1's faster than new builds?
So if this was truly a LIFE or DEATH for Ukraine - the only way they could survive - the US could get 31 "export versions" to them in a few weeks - a YEAR from now - it will be a toss up if Ukraine even exist - with Russia owning the East and Poland likely owning the West.
No this announcement was 100% only to force Germany to approve German Tanks - so once again we have the optics:
German Tanks / Armor being used to attack Russians.
Tristan
Has No Life - Lives on TB
wait-n-see
Veteran Member
Another patriotic supporter off to provide cannon fodder for Ukraine, Zippy and the deep state.
How many more lives will the deep state and Zippy end up demanding to be scarified for their powers and enrichment?
@@@
How many more lives will the deep state and Zippy end up demanding to be scarified for their powers and enrichment?
@@@
Last I heard, Germany themselves are going to agree to provide, hold on, a whopping 20 Leopard II to Ukraine.
Whoopie. I would give it one or two months until they are down to only 10 or so "runners". That is not counting any combat losses. Just mechanical attrition.
Same thing already happened to the Russians. Their tanks were not stored in pristine condition. Their tanks were poorly maintained in storage, the conscript crews were poorly trained in daily maintenance, tank recovery efforts poorly organized and heavy repair depots few and far between.
Thus many, many Russian tanks are lost to non-combat issues. Just ask any Ukraine farmer.
----------
The Ukraine Army is composed of a bewildering collection of armored vehicles from foreign countries.
I would guess that they will be lucky to have 50% of their armored vehicles available at any given time.
Whoopie. I would give it one or two months until they are down to only 10 or so "runners". That is not counting any combat losses. Just mechanical attrition.
Same thing already happened to the Russians. Their tanks were not stored in pristine condition. Their tanks were poorly maintained in storage, the conscript crews were poorly trained in daily maintenance, tank recovery efforts poorly organized and heavy repair depots few and far between.
Thus many, many Russian tanks are lost to non-combat issues. Just ask any Ukraine farmer.
----------
The Ukraine Army is composed of a bewildering collection of armored vehicles from foreign countries.
I would guess that they will be lucky to have 50% of their armored vehicles available at any given time.
LightEcho
Has No Life - Lives on TB
More like tampered elections. The actual voting part has almost no consequence.
LightEcho
Has No Life - Lives on TB
At first I thought you were being too generous, then you said... and that is just maintenance issues. Absolutely. I don't know if you have had experience with armored vehicles.... even just in garrison, you could have a tank or track working fine today and the next day during inspection it is deadlined for a critical part... and it never left the motor pool! Then you get the news- part will take 6 weeks to get.
WTSR
Veteran Member
View: https://twitter.com/RWApodcast/status/1618265627336278016
Moscow will consider deliveries of Western-made munitions which contain uranium to Kiev as equivalent to the use of dirty nuclear bombs, says Konstantin Gavrilov, head of the Russian Delegation to the Negotiations on Military Security and Arms Control in Vienna.
Moscow will consider deliveries of Western-made munitions which contain uranium to Kiev as equivalent to the use of dirty nuclear bombs, says Konstantin Gavrilov, head of the Russian Delegation to the Negotiations on Military Security and Arms Control in Vienna.
LightEcho
Has No Life - Lives on TB
from tweet-
Imagine #Russia and #China trained and Armed a 250k man Army in #Mexico on the US border, used that Army to terrorise and bomb Americans living there, then said they would be assisting Mexico to “take back” #Texas by giving them battalions of Battle tanks. What would the US do?
=====================================================
We would certainly be planning the best way to sink any Russian or Chinese ocean-going vessels, knock out their satellites, disrupt their supply lines, plan full scale rapid attack of their factories, ports & military bases, and shortly before then, activate sleeper cells to disrupt their infrastructure.
John Deere Girl
Veteran Member
He's a glorified welfare queen. I feel for the people of Ukraine, but this guy is a clown, and that's the nicest thing I can say.
vector7
Dot Collector
The sooner this war is over the better.
The sooner Putin is defeated the more stable the world will be.
#Ukraine #Abrams #Leopard2 #Germany #Poland
RT 1min
View: https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1618305492362878976?s=20&t=9SkiSYYSdpMKEe4Ayrf7bw
The sooner Putin is defeated the more stable the world will be.
#Ukraine #Abrams #Leopard2 #Germany #Poland
RT 1min
View: https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1618305492362878976?s=20&t=9SkiSYYSdpMKEe4Ayrf7bw
vector7
Dot Collector
ZELENSKIY: WE MUST FORM A "TANK FORCE" AFTER WHICH TYRANNY WILL NEVER RISE AGAIN
RT 1min
View: https://twitter.com/Kriska516/status/1618341691416797185?s=20&t=9SkiSYYSdpMKEe4Ayrf7bw
RT 1min
View: https://twitter.com/Kriska516/status/1618341691416797185?s=20&t=9SkiSYYSdpMKEe4Ayrf7bw
vector7
Dot Collector
According to @JoeBiden WW3 starts with the shipment of “offensive equipment” like “tanks”to Ukraine.
Welcome to WW3!
RT 30secs
View: https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/1618373528998514709?s=20&t=L4Ey-vmpWNZz7kwk7LsZ6w
Welcome to WW3!
RT 30secs
View: https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/1618373528998514709?s=20&t=L4Ey-vmpWNZz7kwk7LsZ6w
I'm wondering if the reason the chief of staff left was he lost the argument with the rest of the puppeteers to keep Biden away from live pressers and left now to get at least a little sunlight between himself and the impending hearings?.....
Warm Wisconsin
Easy as 3.141592653589..
jed turtle
a brother in the Lord
Too late. The damage is done. 90 seconds...
wait-n-see
Veteran Member
So, I figured I would take a quick google search on any issues the Abrams had when fighting in the ME and came across this Quora link, which seems to be a very well written answer for that question from what I have heard in the past. Will be interesting to see if the results are the same in a European country fighting a 1st world army with non-export version arms.
Just like the Russians, and other weapons sellers, we don't not sell any other country the version that we sell to our military. The F16 and Abrams our forces are equipped with are not the same ones that are provided to any other country. Additional electronics and added components are installed on our units.
@@@@
How many M1 Abrams have been destroyed in combat?
"Robin Sparkes
Military and World History enthusiastAuthor has 568 answers and 1.8M answer views4y
I cant quote any sources, but I think more Abrams, (M1-M1A2 etc) have been taken out with IEDs & anti-tank weapons than actual enemy tanks. Saudi Arabia has lost quite a few to Houthi anti-tank tactics and there are plenty of Youtube videos to support this- they are M1A2 variants so not older models. Just type in ‘Saudi Abrams Yemen’ and youll find them.
I mean, the Abrams line has only really faced poor opposition in Iraq, Afghanistan & Yemen- the U.S. hasnt faced a near-peer opponent with their MBTs, but their client states, e.g. Saudi Arabia have. The Abrams has faced only old and basic Soviet tanks such as T-55s, T-62s, T-64s & T-72s. I dont think theyve ever faced a T-80 or T-90. The Iraqi forces didnt have modern or recently-upgraded tanks, and the Americans didnt face enemies with Depleted-Uranium armour or ammunition, nor did they have modern electronics or optics. The main point is that they didnt face well-trained or professional crews.
The irregular tactics of enemies in the countries the Abrams has fought- using IEDs & ambush weapons such as the RPG, Strela, Kornet and TOW anti-tank weapons were so effective that it forced the U.S. to up-armour their tanks with the aforementioned DU armour which is awesome in its own right.
Lets be clear, the M1 series of tanks is superb, and the American tankers are themselves incredibly professional and well-trained. But the Abrams has only fought poor and basic export variants of Soviet tanks manned by poor crews-the instances of friendly fire are interesting, but whilst proving the lethality of the tank it actually demonstrates its weakness against a near-peer rival. The Saudi use of the Abrams in Yemen has showed what a poorly-trained crew against effective tactics can yield, much in the way that Desert Storm in 1991 proved."
Just like the Russians, and other weapons sellers, we don't not sell any other country the version that we sell to our military. The F16 and Abrams our forces are equipped with are not the same ones that are provided to any other country. Additional electronics and added components are installed on our units.
@@@@
How many M1 Abrams have been destroyed in combat?
"Robin Sparkes
Military and World History enthusiastAuthor has 568 answers and 1.8M answer views4y
I cant quote any sources, but I think more Abrams, (M1-M1A2 etc) have been taken out with IEDs & anti-tank weapons than actual enemy tanks. Saudi Arabia has lost quite a few to Houthi anti-tank tactics and there are plenty of Youtube videos to support this- they are M1A2 variants so not older models. Just type in ‘Saudi Abrams Yemen’ and youll find them.
I mean, the Abrams line has only really faced poor opposition in Iraq, Afghanistan & Yemen- the U.S. hasnt faced a near-peer opponent with their MBTs, but their client states, e.g. Saudi Arabia have. The Abrams has faced only old and basic Soviet tanks such as T-55s, T-62s, T-64s & T-72s. I dont think theyve ever faced a T-80 or T-90. The Iraqi forces didnt have modern or recently-upgraded tanks, and the Americans didnt face enemies with Depleted-Uranium armour or ammunition, nor did they have modern electronics or optics. The main point is that they didnt face well-trained or professional crews.
The irregular tactics of enemies in the countries the Abrams has fought- using IEDs & ambush weapons such as the RPG, Strela, Kornet and TOW anti-tank weapons were so effective that it forced the U.S. to up-armour their tanks with the aforementioned DU armour which is awesome in its own right.
Lets be clear, the M1 series of tanks is superb, and the American tankers are themselves incredibly professional and well-trained. But the Abrams has only fought poor and basic export variants of Soviet tanks manned by poor crews-the instances of friendly fire are interesting, but whilst proving the lethality of the tank it actually demonstrates its weakness against a near-peer rival. The Saudi use of the Abrams in Yemen has showed what a poorly-trained crew against effective tactics can yield, much in the way that Desert Storm in 1991 proved."
colonel holman
Veteran Member
Absolutely.
mistaken1
Has No Life - Lives on TB
Last edited:
WOW.....
good use of the word "hope"
And If/When NATO (US) gets into this directly - the Russians will have had months of real life combat experience - fine tuned the best ways to use their Tanks and after haven taken out around 3000+ Ukrainian tanks - will have the process down to a science. As noted Russia is not Iraq
Doc1
Has No Life - Lives on TB
Let me be clear from the outset: I F**KING hate communism. In fact, if I can engage in a bit of historical revisionism, I think the world would've been better off if the Germans had beaten the Soviets in the '40s. This is not to say that I'm a Nazi. Anyone who's read my posts over the decades will know that my libertarian and contrarian inclinations would doubtless have seen me executed by either the Nazis or the Stalinist Communists, but I do believe that decades of Communism resulted in far more deaths than the Nazis would have perpetrated.
With that out of the way, I fear that many - many, not all - of our members don't understand something very important about the Russians. Well, perhaps several somethings. First, Russia isn't a communist country and hasn't been for decades now. I have long wished the (non-communist) Russians every success in overcoming their communist past and seeing individual liberty blossom there. We in the United States have not helped in this process and really have taken advantage of the Russians at every turn.
In 1941 when the Germans invaded Russia, they initiated a war that eventually consumed 27 million Soviet lives. Readers have to understand something about WWII from the Russian perspective: They don't draw a strict line between the Communist USSR and the modern Russian Federation. They only see that Germany killed 27 million Russians. Period. To the Russians, 1941 - 1945 almost seems like yesterday. Remember that Russia still holds a grudge against France for Napoleon's invasion of Russia over 200 years ago.
The idea of the Germans supplying German tanks to be used against Russia will, to the Russian psyche, seem like December 7th, 1941 is to Americans, but multiplied many thousands of times. I can think of very few things which would infuriate the Russians as much Germany sending tanks to Ukraine.
Western leaders are playing a very dangerous - and potentially thermonuclear - game with Russia and there is every possibility of it having tragic consequences.
Best
Doc
With that out of the way, I fear that many - many, not all - of our members don't understand something very important about the Russians. Well, perhaps several somethings. First, Russia isn't a communist country and hasn't been for decades now. I have long wished the (non-communist) Russians every success in overcoming their communist past and seeing individual liberty blossom there. We in the United States have not helped in this process and really have taken advantage of the Russians at every turn.
In 1941 when the Germans invaded Russia, they initiated a war that eventually consumed 27 million Soviet lives. Readers have to understand something about WWII from the Russian perspective: They don't draw a strict line between the Communist USSR and the modern Russian Federation. They only see that Germany killed 27 million Russians. Period. To the Russians, 1941 - 1945 almost seems like yesterday. Remember that Russia still holds a grudge against France for Napoleon's invasion of Russia over 200 years ago.
The idea of the Germans supplying German tanks to be used against Russia will, to the Russian psyche, seem like December 7th, 1941 is to Americans, but multiplied many thousands of times. I can think of very few things which would infuriate the Russians as much Germany sending tanks to Ukraine.
Western leaders are playing a very dangerous - and potentially thermonuclear - game with Russia and there is every possibility of it having tragic consequences.
Best
Doc
Last edited:
wait-n-see
Veteran Member
And adding to the distrust that Russia would have for the US is the fact the while Russia has never invaded the US, the US invaded Russia in support of White Russian forces during the Russian Civil War.
Wonder how many US citizens have even heard of this?
The American Expeditionary Force, North Russia (AEF in North Russia) (also known as the Polar Bear Expedition), and the American Expeditionary Force, Siberia (AEF in Siberia)
@@@@@@@@@@@
American Expeditionary Force, North Russia
The American Expeditionary Force, North Russia (AEF in North Russia) (also known as the Polar Bear Expedition) was a contingent of about 5,000 United States Army troops[1] that landed in Arkhangelsk, Russia as part of the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. It fought the Red Army in the surrounding region during the period of September 1918 through to July 1919.
History
State historical Marker at White Chapel Cemetery in Troy, Michigan
Background
U.S. President Woodrow Wilson sent the Polar Bear Expedition to Russia in response to requests from the governments of Great Britain and France to join the Allied Intervention in North Russia (also known as the North Russia Campaign). The British and French had two objectives for this intervention:[2]- Preventing Allied war material stockpiles in Arkhangelsk (originally intended for the recently collapsed Eastern Front) from falling into German or Bolshevik hands
- Mounting an offensive to rescue the Czechoslovak Legion, which was stranded along the Trans-Siberian Railroad
See American Expeditionary Force, Siberia for information on the 7,950 American soldiers and officers sent to Vladivostok, Russia at the same time.[3]
Expedition
When the British commanders of the Allied Intervention arrived in Arkhangelsk on August 2, 1918, they discovered that the Allied war material had already been moved up the Dvina River by the retreating Bolshevik forces. Therefore, when the American troops arrived one month later, they were immediately used in offensive operations to aid in the rescue of the Czech Legion. The British commanders sent the First Battalion of the 339th Infantry up the Dvina River and the Third Battalion of the 339th up the Vologda Railroad where they engaged and pushed back the Bolshevik forces for the next six weeks.[4]However, these two fronts each became hundreds of miles (kilometers) long and were extremely narrow and difficult to supply, maintain, and protect. By the end of October 1918, they were no longer able to maintain the offensive and acknowledging their fragile situation and the rapid onset of winter, the Allies began to adopt a defensive posture. The Allied commanders also soon realized they would be unable to raise an effective local force of anti-Bolshevik soldiers. Thus they gave up the goal of linking up with the Czech Legion and settled in to hold their gains over the coming winter. During that winter, the Bolshevik army went on the offensive, especially along the Vaga River portion of the Dvina River Front, where they inflicted numerous casualties and caused the Allies to retreat a considerable distance.
During their time in North Russia, the American forces suffered more than 210 casualties, including at least 110 deaths from battle, about 30 missing in action, and 70 deaths from disease, 90% of which were caused by the Spanish flu.[citation needed] An October 1919 report gives the casualties as 553: 109 killed in battle; 35 died of wounds; 81 from disease; 19 from accidents/other causes; 305 wounded and 4 POWS (released).[5]
Withdrawal
Following the Allied Armistice with Germany on November 11, 1918, family members and friends of soldiers in the AEF began writing letters to newspapers and circulating petitions to their representatives in the U.S. Congress, asking for the immediate return of the force from North Russia. In turn, the newspapers editorialized for their withdrawal and their congressmen raised the issue in Washington, D.C. Meanwhile, aware of not only the change in their mission, but also of the Armistice on the Western Front and the fact that the port of Arkhangelsk was now frozen and closed to shipping, the morale of the American soldiers plummeted. They asked their officers why they were fighting Bolshevik soldiers in Russia and did not receive a clear answer, other than that they had to fight to survive and avoid the Bolshevik army pushing them into the Arctic Ocean.
A Bolshevik soldier shot by an American guard 8 January 1919
A Bolshevik soldier killed in an attempted flank attack on Allied troops at Bolshie Ozerki, Russia 8 April 1919
Early in 1919, instances of rumored and actual mutinies in the Allied ranks became frequent. On July 15, 1919, it was reported by the Alaska Daily Empire that rumors of mutiny were "bunk" and that commander Major Nichols reported “What gave rise to the story that Company I, of the regiment, had mutinied was an Incident (sic.) to which an order was misunderstood by a soldier who could not understand English well.”[6] President Wilson directed the War Department on February 16, 1919, to begin planning the withdrawal of AEF in North Russia from Northern Russia. In March 1919, four American soldiers in Company B of the 339th Infantry drew up a petition protesting their continued presence in Russia and were threatened with court-martial proceedings.
U.S. Army Brigadier General Wilds P. Richardson arrived in Arkhangelsk aboard the icebreaker Canada on April 17, 1919, with orders from General Pershing to organize a coordinated withdrawal of American troops "...at the earliest possible moment." On May 26, 1919, the first half of 8,000 volunteer members of the British North Russian Relief Force arrived in Arkhangelsk to relieve the American troops. In early June, the bulk of the AEF in North Russia sailed for Brest, France and then for New York City and home—which for two-thirds of them was in the state of Michigan. During the withdrawal, the men of the AEF in North Russia decided to call themselves "Polar Bears" and were authorized to wear the Polar Bear insignia on their left sleeve. On July 15, 1919, it was reported by the Alaska Daily Empire that forty-six officers and 1,495 men of the Polar Bear Expedition, were the first American troops to return home from service in Northern Russia, arrived in Hoboken, New Jersey aboard the Von Steuben.[6] The AEF in North Russia officially disbanded on August 5, 1919.During their time in North Russia, the American forces suffered more than 210 casualties, including at least 110 deaths from battle, about 30 missing in action, and 70 deaths from disease, 90% of which were caused by the Spanish flu.[citation needed] An October 1919 report gives the casualties as 553: 109 killed in battle; 35 died of wounds; 81 from disease; 19 from accidents/other causes; 305 wounded and 4 POWS (released).[7]
Several years after the American troops were withdrawn from Russia, President Warren G. Harding called the expedition a mistake and blamed the previous administration.[8]
Aftermath
A year after all of the expedition members had returned home, in 1920 Polar Bear veterans began lobbying their state and Federal governments to obtain funds and the necessary approvals to retrieve the bodies of at least 125 of their fellow American soldiers which were then believed to have been buried in Russia and left behind. By that time, 112 sets of remains had already been transferred to the United States.[9] By 1929, additional research found that 226 fallen "polar bears" had originally been buried in North Russia,[10] with a total of approximately 130 sets of U.S. soldier remains then estimated to still be buried in North Russia. Hampered by the lack of diplomatic recognition between the United States and the Soviet Union, it took many years before they finally received permission. An expedition under the auspices of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) was successful in organizing and conducting a recovery mission in the autumn of 1929 that found, identified and brought out the remains of 86 U.S. soldiers.[11] 14 remains of AEF in North Russia soldiers were shipped by the Soviet Union to the U.S. in 1934,[12] which reduced the number of U.S soldiers still buried in North Russia to about 30.The remains of 56 AEF soldiers were eventually re-buried in plots surrounding the Polar Bear Memorial by sculptor Leon Hermant in White Chapel Memorial Cemetery, Troy, Michigan in a ceremony on May 30, 1930.[13][14]
Harold Gunnes, who was born in 1899, died on March 11, 2003. Gunnes was believed to have been the last living American to have fought in the Allied Intervention near the port of Arkhangelsk on the White Sea.[15]
wait-n-see
Veteran Member
@@@@@@@@@@@
American Expeditionary Force, Siberia
The American Expeditionary Force, Siberia (AEF in Siberia) was a formation of the United States Army involved in the Russian Civil War in Vladivostok, Russia, after the October Revolution, from 1918 to 1920. The force was part of the larger Allied North Russia intervention. As a result of this expedition, early relations between the United States and the Soviet Union were poor.
U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's claimed objectives for sending troops to Siberia were as much diplomatic as they were military. One major reason was to rescue the 40,000 men of the Czechoslovak Legion, who were being held up by Bolshevik forces as they attempted to make their way along the Trans-Siberian Railroad to Vladivostok, and it was hoped, eventually to the Western Front. Another major reason was to protect the large quantities of military supplies and railroad rolling stock that the United States had sent to the Russian Far East in support of the Russian Empire's war efforts on the Eastern Front of World War I. Equally stressed by Wilson was the need to "steady any efforts at self-government or self defense in which the Russians themselves may be willing to accept assistance." At the time, Bolshevik forces in Siberia controlled only small pockets, and President Wilson wanted to make sure that neither Cossack marauders nor the Japanese military would take advantage of the unstable political environment along the strategic railroad line and in the resource-rich Siberian regions that straddled it.[1] Anticommunism was also a strong factor.
Concurrently and for similar reasons, about 5,000 American soldiers were sent to Arkhangelsk (Archangel), Russia by Wilson as part of the separate Polar Bear Expedition.
The U.S. troops were equipped with M1918 Browning Automatic Rifles (BAR), Auto-5 shotguns/trench clearers, M1903 Springfield rifles, M1911 .45 caliber pistols, and M1917 Browning machine guns depending on their duties. Mosin–Nagant rifles were also used.[1]
Although General Graves did not arrive in Siberia until September 4, 1918, the first 3,000 American troops disembarked in Vladivostok between August 15 and August 21, 1918. They were quickly assigned guard duty along segments of the railway between Vladivostok and Nikolsk-Ussuriski in the north.[3] Units were placed along the railway as far west as Irkutsk and Ulan-Ude.[4]
Unlike his Allied counterparts, General Graves believed their mission in Siberia was to provide protection for American-supplied property and to help the Czechoslovak Legion evacuate Russia, and that it did not include fighting against the Bolsheviks. Repeatedly calling for restraint, Graves often clashed with commanders of British, French, and Japanese forces, who also had troops in the region and who wanted him to take a more active part in the military intervention in Siberia.
AEF Hospital Car Number 1 at Khabarovsk, Russia
To operate the Trans-Siberian Railroad, the Russian Railway Service Corps was formed of US personnel.[2]
The experience in Siberia for the soldiers was miserable. Problems with fuel, ammunition, supplies, and food were widespread. Horses accustomed to temperate climates were unable to function in sub-zero Russia. Water-cooled machine guns froze and became useless. The last American soldiers left Siberia on April 1, 1920. During their 19 months in Siberia, 189 soldiers of the force died from all causes. As a comparison, the smaller American North Russia Expeditionary Force experienced 235 deaths from all causes during their nine months of fighting near Arkhangelsk.[5]
American socialist author Upton Sinclair,[3] in his novel Oil!, references the AEF in Siberia and ascribes capitalist motives as the primary driver of the Allied intervention.
American Expeditionary Force, Siberia
The American Expeditionary Force, Siberia (AEF in Siberia) was a formation of the United States Army involved in the Russian Civil War in Vladivostok, Russia, after the October Revolution, from 1918 to 1920. The force was part of the larger Allied North Russia intervention. As a result of this expedition, early relations between the United States and the Soviet Union were poor.
U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's claimed objectives for sending troops to Siberia were as much diplomatic as they were military. One major reason was to rescue the 40,000 men of the Czechoslovak Legion, who were being held up by Bolshevik forces as they attempted to make their way along the Trans-Siberian Railroad to Vladivostok, and it was hoped, eventually to the Western Front. Another major reason was to protect the large quantities of military supplies and railroad rolling stock that the United States had sent to the Russian Far East in support of the Russian Empire's war efforts on the Eastern Front of World War I. Equally stressed by Wilson was the need to "steady any efforts at self-government or self defense in which the Russians themselves may be willing to accept assistance." At the time, Bolshevik forces in Siberia controlled only small pockets, and President Wilson wanted to make sure that neither Cossack marauders nor the Japanese military would take advantage of the unstable political environment along the strategic railroad line and in the resource-rich Siberian regions that straddled it.[1] Anticommunism was also a strong factor.
Concurrently and for similar reasons, about 5,000 American soldiers were sent to Arkhangelsk (Archangel), Russia by Wilson as part of the separate Polar Bear Expedition.
History
The AEF in Siberia was commanded by Major General William S. Graves and eventually totaled 7,950 officers and enlisted men. The force included the U.S. Army's 27th and 31st Infantry Regiments, plus large numbers of volunteers from the 12th, 13th, and 62nd Infantry Regiments of the 8th Division, Graves' former division command.[2]The U.S. troops were equipped with M1918 Browning Automatic Rifles (BAR), Auto-5 shotguns/trench clearers, M1903 Springfield rifles, M1911 .45 caliber pistols, and M1917 Browning machine guns depending on their duties. Mosin–Nagant rifles were also used.[1]
Although General Graves did not arrive in Siberia until September 4, 1918, the first 3,000 American troops disembarked in Vladivostok between August 15 and August 21, 1918. They were quickly assigned guard duty along segments of the railway between Vladivostok and Nikolsk-Ussuriski in the north.[3] Units were placed along the railway as far west as Irkutsk and Ulan-Ude.[4]
Unlike his Allied counterparts, General Graves believed their mission in Siberia was to provide protection for American-supplied property and to help the Czechoslovak Legion evacuate Russia, and that it did not include fighting against the Bolsheviks. Repeatedly calling for restraint, Graves often clashed with commanders of British, French, and Japanese forces, who also had troops in the region and who wanted him to take a more active part in the military intervention in Siberia.
.jpg)
AEF Hospital Car Number 1 at Khabarovsk, Russia
To operate the Trans-Siberian Railroad, the Russian Railway Service Corps was formed of US personnel.[2]
The experience in Siberia for the soldiers was miserable. Problems with fuel, ammunition, supplies, and food were widespread. Horses accustomed to temperate climates were unable to function in sub-zero Russia. Water-cooled machine guns froze and became useless. The last American soldiers left Siberia on April 1, 1920. During their 19 months in Siberia, 189 soldiers of the force died from all causes. As a comparison, the smaller American North Russia Expeditionary Force experienced 235 deaths from all causes during their nine months of fighting near Arkhangelsk.[5]
American socialist author Upton Sinclair,[3] in his novel Oil!, references the AEF in Siberia and ascribes capitalist motives as the primary driver of the Allied intervention.
Results
By every measure, President Wilson's interventions in Russia failed.[6] The Eastern Front had not been reestablished, the war supplies stockpiled in Russian ports had not been saved, and no popular, progressive, non-Communist government had been established. The Japanese continued to meddle in Siberian affairs for another two years in a futile effort to carve out a puppet state. Even the successful extrication of the Czech Legion had little to do with Graves' small expedition. In the words of Chief of Staff Peyton C. March, the expeditions in Russia had been little more than “a military crime”.[4]
LightEcho
Has No Life - Lives on TB
Some of these are biased Ukraine-related folks looking for deus ex machina. We are not Deus and our machina should be for protecting our interests.
The hordes of others are showing us how easily programmed the people are. The devils in the "agencies" and special news room production centers have tweaked this branch of war to high effectiveness.
Thank you Doc.