Khramchikhin military industrial courier read. Alexander Khramchikhin: An army that has nowhere to fight

Education

Analytical activity

He has been working at the Institute of Political and Military Analysis since its inception in January 1996 on the basis of the information and analytical service of the headquarters of the Our Home is Russia party. Head of the analytical department of the institute, author and host of the institute's database on the political situation in the regions of Russia.

Areas of activity - internal policy of the federal and regional levels, foreign policy, issues of military construction and armed forces in Russia and abroad.

Proceedings

The main author of the books "Elections in the sixth State Duma: Results and Conclusions" and "Elections of the President of the Russian Federation: Results and Conclusions", published by the Institute of Political and Military Analysis in 1996. Author of several hundred publications on political and military topics in print media ("Independent Military Review", "Vremya MN", "Znamya", "Domestic Notes" and others) and on Internet sites (Russian Journal, GlobalRus.ru, ima- press.ru, RBC and others), as well as speaking as an expert in television and radio programs (All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company, REN TV, Radio Russia, Mayak-24).

views

Holds an extremely pessimistic view of the future Russian army, military industry, aircraft industry and shipbuilding.

The civil aviation industry in Russia today can already be considered completely dead. And attempts to create a new aircraft - SuperJet 100 - look pretty ridiculous. "Superjet" by and large no one needs. The military aircraft industry will "twitch" a little more.

- Memorial cemetery of the Russian aircraft industry on May 28, 2011

Criticism

On websites and blogs dedicated to the army and military construction, Khramchikhin's ideas were severely criticized. Basically, Khramchikhin is accused of exaggerating the Chinese threat to Russia. Critics believe that he is not engaged in analyzing the likelihood of Chinese aggression against Russia, but in interpreting any facts in favor of this idea. In addition, in the analysis of Khramchikhin's theses, carried out by the leading researcher of the Center strategic issues Northeast Asia and Shanghai Organization cooperation, candidate of military sciences Yuri Vasilievich Morozov, notes that Alexander Khramchikhin exaggerates the problem of China's overpopulation and lack of minerals, which, in his opinion, can only be solved by the seizure of Russian territories, exaggerates the power Chinese army, and also does not understand modern warfare tactics, building Chinese invasion scenarios based on the experience of World War II and ignoring natural factors.

Alexander Khramchikhin is one of the supporters of the theory of a US disarming strike against Russian nuclear carriers, and gives an original explanation for this strike - to give Russia a reason to invite NATO troops to its territory to protect Russia from China:

A bunch of impotent people from NATO would not risk a military occupation even if Russia lost its strategic nuclear forces. We will still have tactical nuclear weapons anyway. And conventional aircraft, although also rapidly degrading, will still be. This means that the losses of the invaders will still be unacceptably high. But, the fact is that, left without strategic nuclear forces, we can invite NATO troops "peacefully" and voluntarily. Because the alternative is Chinese occupation. As already mentioned in previous articles, for China this is not a whim, but a vital necessity. NATO occupation is the lesser of the evils because it is obviously mentally closer and much softer in terms of the regime. At least theoretically, it will be possible to get rid of it in the future. From the Chinese - under no circumstances.

The former members of the Warsaw Pact had a large number of weapons of Soviet and domestic production. The fate of these weapons and military equipment is a very interesting question.

Countries from the Warsaw Pact Organization (WTO) were admitted to NATO in two stages. Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland - in 1999, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania - in 2004. The GDR dissolved into NATO Germany in 1990. The admission of the Eastern European countries to the alliance pursued two goals: to limit Russia's spheres of influence as much as possible, to emphasize the loss of any significance on the continent, and to provide the NATO bureaucracy with a wide field of activity for a long time. The state of the annexed armies did not matter, since a military goal was never set during the expansion of the bloc. The re-equipment of the Novonatists from Soviet technology to Western ones was their own problem. As a rule, neophytes did not have enough money for this, so even the countries of the first wave, having been in the alliance for 17 years, rearmed only partially, this process almost did not affect the second wave.

Let's leave aside the "dissident" Romanian police department, whose army is almost completely equipped with equipment of its own production (albeit made under strong Soviet influence) and is traditionally brewed in own juice. Let's talk about the rest of the ATS countries, including the late GDR (with its equipment for ground forces).

Armored "losses"

Even an analysis of the official data provided by the Eastern European countries for the CFE Treaty and the UN Register of Conventional Arms shows that a significant part of the equipment withdrawn from their armed forces physically continues to exist and is used either for spare parts or for export. In the second case, the declarations do not always coincide with the realities. At the same time, there is a constant exchange between Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Bulgaria, including the same type of equipment. Part goes for re-export, part "dissolves".

Of course, significant volumes of weapons of Soviet and Eastern European production have been disposed of by now. First of all, this applies to armored personnel carriers - all BTR-40, BTR-50, BTR-152, almost all BTR-60 and OT-64. A certain proportion of these machines is still alive, but, apparently, extremely insignificant, it is almost impossible to establish its value, and it is not necessary, since today their combat value is zero. This also applies to the T-54, T-55 tanks, although they most likely survived in more tangible quantities - up to several hundred. The last case of T-55 export from the countries of the former Warsaw Pact took place in 2005: 120 tanks from Bulgaria were sent to Eritrea. In addition, up to 170 "unrecorded" T-62s may remain at Sofia's disposal.

T-72 tanks, of course, cannot be called new, but today it is the most massive and most belligerent tank in the world. In the ATS, 551 T-72 had the GDR, 759 - Poland, 815 - Czechoslovakia, 138 - Hungary (in the early 90s bought 100 more in Belarus), 333 - Bulgaria (plus 100 acquired in the 90s from Russia). At the moment, the Polish Army has 505 tanks of this type, another 135 have been converted into RT-91. The Armed Forces of the Czech Republic - 120, Slovakia - 30, Hungary - 76, Bulgaria - 314. At least 11 cars in these countries and in Germany have become museum exhibits.

425 T-72s went to the USA and other countries of the "old NATO", as well as to Finland, Georgia, Nigeria, Iraq. The fate of 1,180 tanks (351 from the GDR, 60 from Poland, 450 from the Czech Republic, 200 from Slovakia, 5 from Hungary, 117 from Bulgaria) is unclear. Some of the "lost" cars, obviously, were dismantled (for spare parts, for study, for scrap), sold to museums and private collections, shot at firing ranges as targets. However, all this is unlikely to account for at least half of the missing tanks. Moreover, not everything is clear with 97 T-42s sold from the stocks of the GDR to Finland (although it is believed that all of them, except for one museum, were disposed of).

There were almost 5400 BMP-1s in the former ATS countries (in Poland and Czechoslovakia they were produced under a Soviet license), of which about 1800 are now part of the Armed Forces. About 1500 were sold, and 375, acquired by Sweden from Germany, were returned to ... Czech Republic. As a result, the number of vehicles of this type with an unclear fate exceeds 2,500 units. Of course, there are also unrecorded disposals, executions at landfills, sales to museums and private traders, but for sure at least a thousand cars did not fall under any of these scenarios.

There are no such problems with the BMP-2. Now they are in service only in the armies of the Czech Republic (173) and Slovakia (95). 87 German, Polish and Czech vehicles were sold, two are in museums, the fate of only 8 BMP-2s of the army of the former GDR is unclear.

Only the GDR had 1266 BTR-70s in service, 520 were sold, the remaining 746 disappeared into obscurity. In 2015, 19 BTR-70s came to Slovakia from Belarus (apparently for resale). Today only Hungary has BTR-80 - 406 conventional and 178 units of modification A, as well as 14 engineering vehicles based on them. 74 went to Iraq and Ukraine (even before the ATO), the fate of another 59 is again unclear.

The 2S1 self-propelled guns were produced under license in Poland and Bulgaria, with the latter having large discrepancies in the number of installations produced (from 256 to 686). The Poles produced 533 self-propelled guns, the GDR had 374, Czechoslovakia - 150, Hungary - 153. Now about 300 2S1s remain in service and in storage in Poland and, apparently, 200-250 in Bulgaria, 5-6 self-propelled guns are in museums. Outside the countries under discussion, 252 (according to other sources - 301) installations were sold. Accordingly, the fate from 660 to 1140 2C1 is unclear. Of course, there are recycling options, landfills and museums here, but they are unlikely to cover such a significant number of “losses”.

Of the 95 2S3 self-propelled guns that were in service with the NNA of the GDR, 9 were sold to the United States, where the remaining 86 went is unknown. Bulgaria sold four 2S3s. Of the 16 Hungarian self-propelled guns of this type, from 10 to 13 were sold through the Czech Republic to Ukraine, one became a museum exhibit, the fate of another 2-5 has not been established.

Of the 408 Czechoslovak Dana wheeled self-propelled guns produced for their own army, 86 are in service with the Czech Armed Forces, 24 were sold to Georgia (at least one of them became a Russian trophy in August 2008), at least three are museum exhibits. Where did the remaining 295 go? Another 111 of these self-propelled guns were acquired from Czechoslovakia by Poland, all of them are still in service with its army.

It is extremely difficult to determine the fate of towed guns. Most of them were made before World War II or during it. However, by this time given class technology has practically reached the limit of development, therefore, there are still a lot of American guns of the same period in the world, including the USA. In service with the Eastern European armies, a small amount of towed artillery is now left - 19 D-30 howitzers from Slovakia, 31 D-20 from Hungary and up to 150 from Bulgaria, but she, perhaps, up to 30 M-30. Evaporated up to 1800 M-30, about 270 D-30, up to 100 A-19, up to 280 ML-20, up to 400 D-20. Most of these guns are most likely disposed of, but up to a thousand may well still physically exist.

Of the 72 MLRS BM-21 "Grad" that were available in the army of the GDR, four were sold to the United States, the fate of the rest is unclear. Poland had 232 such MLRS, of which up to 75 were converted according to the WR-40 Langust variant, approximately 135 remain in service in their original form. Of the 66 Hungarian Grads most of, if not all, went to the Czech Republic, and from there 18 of them went to Slovakia, which also received 11 Grads from Belarus. Five BM-21s left the Czech Republic for the United States and up to 36 went to Ukraine (also before the ATO), and 20 from Slovakia went to Saudi Arabia. Of the 225 Bulgarian Grads, about 52 were sold, and one or more became exhibits. Thus, approximately 380 MLRS remain in service in Poland and Bulgaria (including the Langusts), the fate of more than 100 is unknown.

In Czechoslovakia, about 210 of their own Grads were produced for their own army - the RM-70 MLRS. After the country’s divorce, Slovakia produced 26 modernized RM-70 Modular MLRS, which remain in service. At least 181 installations were exported, the fate of about 30 is unclear, as well as 69 former German ones (in the GDR there were 265 MLRS of this type, of which 196 were sold). 30 Polish RM-70s remain in service.

Of the 41 Osa air defense systems that the NNA had, 14 were sold, the fate of 27 is shrouded in darkness. In Poland, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria, all these air defense systems remain in service (64, 24, 24, respectively). All 40 Strela-10 complexes from the arsenals of the GDR were missing, as were 36 similar air defense systems of the Czechoslovak army. Remain in service with the Czech Republic (16), Slovakia (48), Bulgaria (20).

ZSU-23-4 "Shilka" were in service in the GDR (150), Poland (87) and Bulgaria (40). Now there are about 30 of them in Poland and Bulgaria. At least one German and Polish "Shilka" in museums, 120 German were sold. The fate of the rest of the ZSU (about 100) is unclear.

Thus, the Armed Forces of Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria today have over a thousand T-72s, about two thousand infantry fighting vehicles, about 900 self-propelled guns, more than 200 towed guns, about 450 MLRS, about 200 air defense systems of military air defense and about 60 ZSU of Soviet and own (the times of the Warsaw Pact) production. In addition, the fate of about two thousand tanks, 2600 infantry fighting vehicles, 800 armored personnel carriers, 1500 self-propelled guns, 2800 towed guns, more than 200 MLRS and 100 air defense systems, about 100 anti-aircraft guns is unclear. Much more has disappeared than is left.

Bins of instability

In the Czech Republic, it officially exists private company Excalibur Army, offering customers T-72 and T-55 tanks, BMP-1, 2S1 and Dana self-propelled guns, D-20 howitzers, RM-70 MLRS, spare parts for them, engineering and auxiliary vehicles. The company has a wide choice small arms and ammunition, including shells of calibers 100, 120, 122, 125, 152 mm. It is from the stocks of Excalibur that T-72, BMP-1, RM-70 have been delivered to Iraq and Nigeria in recent years. The official supplier is the Czech Republic, but the number of equipment in service with its army does not change. Obviously, Excalibur is the owner of most of all the unaccounted for described here, there is much more equipment than the Czech army. The second largest source, apparently, is Bulgaria.

Disappeared weapons perfectly fuel today's wars. Slovakia has officially sold 20 BM-21s to Saudi Arabia in recent years. Of course, they did not enter the armament of the army of the kingdom, but went to the formations fighting against Assad. How much Soviet equipment the Arabian monarchies unofficially bought in Eastern Europe for their Syrian, Libyan and Yemeni clients can only be guessed at. It should be said for sure that all the numerous oppositional army of Damascus could not have fought for so long at the expense of captured ammunition, with such intense battles they would have ended long ago. That is, the supply of ammunition to the "fighters against tyranny" from of Eastern Europe through Turkey were and are massive. Moreover, today Sofia almost officially admits that supplies for Islamic radicals in Syria with Saudi money have become almost the main item of Bulgaria's export earnings.

Ukraine in 2008-2010 (under Presidents Yushchenko and Yanukovych) received from Hungary 8 BTR-80 and 65-66 self-propelled guns 2S1. 50 BMP-1s arrived from the Czech Republic in 2008, data for 2009–2011 differ. During this period, the Armed Forces of Ukraine received up to 48 self-propelled guns 2S1, up to 13 "Acacia" - self-propelled guns 2S3, up to 44 howitzers D-30, up to 36 MLRS BM-21. Perhaps all this equipment was for resale and / or disposal, nevertheless, deliveries took place and replenished the arsenals. Since 2014, there have been no receipts of heavy equipment from Eastern Europe to Ukraine, since so far there is enough of its own (there are more of them and it is better than in the countries of the former Warsaw Pact), but this possibility certainly remains. Deliveries of ammunition and small arms could well be, it is almost impossible to trace them.

Embedded in these schemes and Belarus. At least some of the Grads that went through Saudi Arabia to the Syrian bandits are from there.

Of course, at present, Soviet technology is very outdated and it is almost useless to use it against a serious enemy. But for local wars that are taking place today in Ukraine and the Middle East, it is very suitable. And, apparently, it will last for a long time.

The non-existent missile defense system is dragging Moscow and Washington into an absolutely senseless confrontation
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev delivered a televised address to the people of Russia in connection with the situation that has developed around the creation of a US and NATO missile defense system in Europe. True, the direction and tone of the short speech of the head of the Russian state testified that it was addressed primarily to a domestic, and by no means a foreign audience.

What allows such a conclusion?

Let me remind you that quite recently my article “Against whom is the European missile defense system?” was published on the pages of the “VPK”. In it, I tried to prove that the threat to Russia from this as yet non-existent missile defense can be considered greatly exaggerated, and the Russian position on this issue is strange, and sometimes simply absurd. Considering the arguments given in that material, let us consider the measures that the Russian president called a response to the deployment of the American missile defense system in Europe.

One is long planned, the other is difficult to implement.

First, Dmitry Medvedev instructed to immediately put into operation the radar station of the missile attack warning system in Kaliningrad region. Obviously, we are talking about a new early warning radar of the Voronezh-DM type. At the moment, it is in the process of being completed; for several months now, its trial inclusions have been carried out. It was supposed to put the radar on combat duty at the end of this year. Thus, this measure is in fact not a measure, but is a long-planned action, which is well known in both Washington and Brussels (and in the capitals close to our Baltic enclave). European states too). Moreover, to the problem of European missile defense, the Kaliningrad station has the highest degree indirect relationship, or rather, almost none.

As a second measure, it was announced to strengthen the cover of objects of strategic nuclear forces as part of the creation of aerospace defense. This is to be welcomed, since this question should have been decided yesterday. The current situation, when five of the eleven missile divisions of the Strategic Missile Forces and one of the two bases strategic aviation not covered by air defense, completely intolerant. However, an important caveat must be made here.

It will be possible to put this measure into practice within a relatively short time (several months) in only one way - by almost completely eliminating the systems air defense Moscow and St. Petersburg, there is simply nowhere else to take air defense systems. Indeed, in addition to the two capitals, today only our main naval bases (two of which are objects of strategic nuclear forces), the headquarters of military districts, the most important military-industrial center in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, the remaining divisions of the Strategic Missile Forces and the main strategic aviation base. Moreover, the funds allocated to repel these strikes are often completely insufficient.

So, the most important strategic aviation base mentioned above in Engels and "at the same time" the largest in the Strategic Missile Forces, the 60th missile division in Tatishchevo, is protected by only one two-divisional regiment of the obsolete S-300PS air defense system. Accordingly, only the air defense systems of Moscow and St. Petersburg can be “ruined”, since they still have several regiments, and not one at a time, as in other regions. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that the redeployment of a bulky regiment of "three hundred" and its deployment in a new place will require a lot of time and money (especially since among the six objects that need cover, one is located in the Altai Territory, and the other in general in the Amur Region ).

We can only welcome

The second option for implementing this measure is to wait for the production of new S-400 air defense systems, which will take three to four years at best, but in reality five to six years. The third option, unfortunately, is not given. In addition, this measure, like the first one, has a rather indirect relation to the problem of the American European missile defense system.

The third measure is the equipping of new land-based and sea-based intercontinental missiles, which are coming into service with the Russian strategic nuclear forces, with promising anti-missile defense penetration systems and highly effective warheads. This measure, unlike the two previous ones, is directly related to the missile defense problem. Although it should be noted here that various means designed to help “break through” missile defense have been installed on domestic ICBMs and SLBMs since the late 80s, that is, this measure has been carried out for almost a quarter of a century. If the need to acquire some fundamentally new systems is implied, then this again will require at least several years and a lot of money.

The fourth measure should be the development of systems that ensure the destruction of the information and control facilities of the European missile defense system. Here, of course, I would like to hear additional explanations from the president, but Dmitry Medvedev did not give them. That is why you have to resort to conjecture. If it means the fire defeat of American radar stations, huge in size and at the same time very fragile and vulnerable, then there is nothing new to invent, there are already many different means for this. If you mean new electronic warfare equipment and/or cyber weapons, this should only be welcomed and supported: their development is necessary in any case, regardless of any European missile defense system.

Attacks on Treaties and Obama

If these measures are not enough (it is not very clear, by the way, not enough for what exactly?), the president promised to deploy strike systems in the west and south of the country to ensure the destruction of European missile defense components. In particular, Iskanders will be transferred to the Kaliningrad region.

This issue was considered in the second part of the article "Against whom is the European missile defense system?" . It was said that this measure is rather meaningless. In addition, let me remind you: yes, the Iskanders will indeed be able to reach the future missile defense deployment area in Poland from the Kaliningrad region, but they will not reach Romania from anywhere, they simply will not have enough range. Unless we assume that this complex has much more space than declared (480 km), that is, by creating the Iskander, we violated the INF Treaty (according to it, we cannot have ballistic and cruise missiles ground-based with a flight range of 500-5500 km).

It is possible (and even more likely) that this treaty has actually lost its meaning for us, but then we must withdraw from it openly. Actually, if this is not done, then it is generally not very clear what kind of “shock systems” we are talking about here. Tu-22M bombers are hardly capable of overcoming even the current NATO air defense, which has been significantly weakened over the past 20 years. If, however, ICBMs are used to destroy European missile defense facilities, then they do not need to be redeployed anywhere, they will reach Europe from Eastern Siberia. In the same way, Tu-160 and Tu-95MS, having taken off from Engels, will be able to strike missile defense targets with the help of Kh-55 ALCMs, without even leaving their airspace, so they also do not need to be transferred anywhere.

The most bizarre response to European missile defense seems to be the threat to withdraw from the START-3 Treaty. After all, any objective expert understands perfectly well: this is an agreement on the unilateral voluntary reduction of American strategic nuclear forces. Russia has essentially already fulfilled its points, since the number of carriers we now have is less than allowed, and the situation in this regard will only get worse. That is, the treaty does not restrict us at all, it restricts only and exclusively the Americans. We are limited by our production capabilities, which do not depend on contracts.

By signing START-3 in this form, Washington made an unprecedented concession to Moscow for the entire relationship between the two powers. That is why the Republicans in the US Congress are increasingly demanding that America withdraw from this treaty, since it is completely unprofitable for her. And if you look at things objectively, they are absolutely right. It is to the overseas "hawks" that Moscow will make a gift by withdrawing from START-3 or even by simply seriously discussing this issue.

In general, all demarches in connection with European missile defense, including the statement of the President of the Russian Federation, Russian leadership weakens the position of Obama, the most convenient and loyal American president to Moscow since Franklin Roosevelt. By doing so, our own most important interests are automatically harmed.

But in Washington, apparently, they understand that Medvedev's statement is purely pre-election in nature, and the response measures he proposed are either irrelevant to the problem (like the Kaliningrad radar station) or are self-evident (like equipping Russian ICBMs and SLBMs with means to overcome missile defense). Therefore, the reaction of the United States - no impact on their speech plans Russian President will not render - it is absolutely natural.

However, on the whole, it must be admitted that, having begun building a European missile defense system for purely political purposes, the United States did not calculate the consequences and did not take into account the degree of Moscow's suspicion. As a result, the system that does not yet exist drags the parties into an absolutely senseless confrontation, completely unnecessary for either the Russian Federation or the United States. At the same time, neither Moscow nor Washington can retreat from their irreconcilable and mutually exclusive positions without losing face. Unfortunately, there are many examples in history when a senseless confrontation from scratch developed into an uncontrollable escalation with extremely unpleasant and sometimes even tragic consequences. Most a prime example such a development of events - the First World War which marked the beginning of the end of European civilization.

However, perhaps United Russia's PR people thought that by putting forward the slogan "The Fatherland is in danger!", they would provide the ruling party with additional votes in the upcoming parliamentary elections. That is why the president of the country voiced "response measures" that have no real meaning. Everything will calm down after the elections. At least two or three months before another election campaign.

about the author | Khramchikhin Alexander Anatolyevich was born in 1967 in the Moscow region. Graduated from the Faculty of Physics of Moscow State University. In 1995-1996, he worked in the analytical structures of the election headquarters of the NDR, then the headquarters of B.N. Yeltsin, in 1999 he participated in the SPS election campaign. Head of the Analytical Department of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis. Fields of activity - internal policy of the federal and regional levels, foreign policy, issues of military development and the armed forces in Russia and abroad. Author of the books Elections to the Sixth State Duma: Results and Conclusions, Elections of the President of the Russian Federation: Results and Conclusions, published by IPVA in 1996. Author and host of a database on the political situation in the regions of the Russian Federation, hundreds of publications on political and military topics in print media (NG, NVO, LG, Vremya MN, Znamya, Domestic Notes, etc.) and on Internet sites (russ.ru, globalrus.ru, ima-press.ru, rbc.ru, etc.). Acts as an expert in TV and radio programs (All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company, REN-TV, Radio of Russia, Mayak-24, Mayak, RBC-TV, Estonian Radio, etc.).

The Second World War has no analogues in world history in terms of the scale of its influence on the fate of human civilization. This war still arouses great interest not only among specialists, but also among “ordinary” people interested in history. In particular: could history have gone differently if the scenario of the Second World War had developed differently?

The gigantic number of combat episodes that made up the Second World War theoretically suggests an infinite number of options for an alternative development of events. At the same time, it is obvious that the overwhelming majority of alternatives would not have affected the overall outcome of the war because of their locality. Nevertheless, during the course of the war, there were certainly several "bifurcation points", that is, moments that actually made it possible to write a different version of history.

Scenario No. 1. Without the “strange war”

The first "fork" took place in the very first days of World War II - in September 1939. It still does not find a reasonable explanation for the behavior of Great Britain and France at this moment. It is clear that they wanted to “canalize” Hitler’s aggression to the East, but why then did they declare war on Germany after its attack on Poland? And since war was declared, it was necessary to fight. In the autumn of 1939, the Wehrmacht was still far from the magnificent form it had achieved by the spring of 1940. The Polish campaign turned out to be very difficult for the Germans. Their victory was ensured by the suddenness of the attack, the qualitative and quantitative superiority in technology (especially in tanks and aircraft), the ability to strike from several directions at once (from the west from Germany itself, from the south from Slovakia, from the northeast from East Prussia) and, directly say, help from the Soviet Union. To defeat Poland, Hitler used most of the armed forces (in particular, 100 percent of the tanks), in the west only not quite combat-ready units (mostly reserve) remained. At the same time, only France, especially the coalition of France and Great Britain, surpassed Germany in terms of the number of personnel and the amount of equipment, not inferior in quality to most types of weapons. The superiority of the Franco-British grouping over the German opposing them on the Franco-German border was overwhelming. As you know, the British and French did absolutely nothing, philosophically watching the agony of Poland. And they waited for Dunkirk and the German march along the Champs Elysees.

And what would happen if the Allies went on the offensive around September 10? In this case, at least Hitler would have been forced to withdraw a significant part of the troops from Poland and hastily transfer them to the west. Thus, Germany would have received a war on two fronts in September 39th, and not in June 44th. It is very likely that Stalin would have been careful not to implement the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in such a development of events, so Poland could have continued to resist. Moreover, it is possible that if this war had dragged on, the Red Army would have struck at Germany after some time. As a result, the war would hardly have acquired the status of a world war, remaining a local European conflict with an incomparably smaller number of victims than actually happened. At the same time, however, it is possible that France, Great Britain and the USSR, having defeated Germany, might have begun to divide the continent among themselves, since these countries would still have enough resources and ambitions to continue the war, in contrast to the situation of May 45 when the USSR and the Western allies were simply unable to start their “showdown” after the defeat of the common enemy.

However, it could also have happened that the Anglo-French offensive against Germany would not have changed the general course of the war. The fact is that the allies then did not understand at all the significance of tank and mechanized troops, capable of making deep breakthroughs that cut and crush the enemy's defenses. France had more tanks than Germany, their quality was no worse than German ones, but they were “smeared” over infantry units, that is, they did not represent a real strike force. It is therefore likely that the Allied offensive would have stalled on the Saar and the Siegfried Line, and almost certainly on the Rhine; the Germans would have had enough to hold this natural frontier with some additional infantry units. In this case, the Germans would have finished off Poland anyway, perhaps only a little later, and then, in the spring or summer of the 40th, they would have implemented the classic version of the “Schlieffen plan”, surrounding the entire Anglo-French grouping through Belgium and Holland. In this case, the Allied catastrophe could have turned out to be even greater in scale than actually happened, not only the entire French army would have died, but also the British, who had gone west so deep that they simply would not have had time to reach Dunkirk and evacuate. However, this would not have added the possibility of forcing the English Channel to the Wehrmacht, as a result, the war would have gone to the same historical line which took place in reality.

Scenario No. 2. “We are going to Africa”

The rallying of the British nation in the face of a deadly threat, the overwhelming superiority of the British fleet over the German one, the heroism of the English pilots and the availability of radars in Great Britain, which made it possible to detect german planes on the approach to the British Isles, made it impossible German landing across the English Channel, although the Germans spent a lot of effort, time and resources preparing for it. Meanwhile, after the capture of France, Hitler had an obvious alternative course of action - the transfer of the main forces of the Wehrmacht to Italian Libya and an attack to the east, to the Suez Canal and further, to Western Asia, up to Iran. The British had no chance at that moment to withstand this blow. Their Middle Eastern army was large, but in terms of the supply of weapons, equipment and ammunition, it was almost completely dependent on the mother country. Communications in the Mediterranean were cut off by the German-Italian Air Force and Navy almost immediately, supplies bypassing Africa became a huge problem for the British because of the vast distance and the actions of German submarines. Even the very small corps of Rommel (no more than three divisions) and the Italian army subordinate to him (another 4-5 divisions with extremely low combat capability) at certain moments in 1941 and 1942 were one step away from defeating the numerically superior British contingent. If, in the summer and autumn of 1940, significant forces of the Wehrmacht (at least those 30 divisions that were intended to invade England and senselessly "pickled" in France) had attacked the Middle Eastern grouping of the British, then there is no doubt that in a few months the Germans would have come to southern borders of the USSR.

Deprived of oil, Great Britain in this case would have with a high probability withdrawn from the war. Even if Churchill continued to resist, the ability of the British to wage war would be close to zero. Almost certainly, India, whose troops formed the backbone of the British contingent in the Middle East, would have declared independence and neutrality. For us, the main thing is that in such a situation the Germans would have the opportunity to strike at the Soviet Union not only from the west, but also from the south. There is no doubt that Turkey would have come out on the side of Germany. Her army was not too strong, but she would have provided the Germans with territory to attack the USSR.

AT real history The Wehrmacht's rush to Baku oil, which did not reach its goal, became the cause of the Stalingrad catastrophe and the general defeat of Germany in the war. But in the autumn of 1942, the Germans had relatively little time left before Baku, most of the way from the western border was covered by them. In the case of the implementation of the African scenario, Baku would have fallen a couple of days after the start of the war. I would like to recall that West Siberian oil was discovered only in the 60s, and in the early 40s more than 40 percent of Soviet oil was produced in Azerbaijan. The USSR would immediately lose it. It is difficult to refuel tanks and planes with party slogans, without oil in the 20th century you won’t win much. In addition, if the Germans invaded the Transcaucasus, and also (with an attack from the territory of Iran) Central Asia, part of the local population would support the invaders.

Here, of course, two variants of German actions were possible: either an attack only from the south, or from the south and from the west. The first made it possible to concentrate big forces in one place, which increased the power of the blow, but fraught with the danger of getting stuck on the passes Caucasian ridge and in the Central Asian deserts. The second option led to the dispersal of the forces of the Germans, but allowed them to take the Red Army in giant "pincers" covering the entire European part of the USSR. If the Wehrmacht had broken through the Caucasus, it would have been able to march along the Volga, provoking additional anti-Soviet uprisings among the peoples living here (albeit with less success than in the Caucasus and Central Asia) and seizing the oil remaining from the USSR. The best option for the Germans would be to occupy the Transcaucasus with part of their forces and stay at the turn of the Caucasus Range, and with the main forces to strike from the west, as happened on June 22, 1941. With this option, we had a “good” chance of not surviving this war.

Probably, our people would have got out of such a situation, but, of course, with even greater losses. Perhaps, even after being defeated and losing part of the territory, the country would still be able to rise through the years and take revenge. However, even a temporary withdrawal of the USSR from the war would practically guarantee control, at least over the Eastern Hemisphere, to three countries - Germany, Italy and Japan, and would give Germany time to create nuclear weapons. Thus, in the best case, our country would have won with even greater losses (and would it have survived them?). I don’t even want to think about the worst case (Orwell’s “1984” would turn out to be a Christmas story compared to such an outcome - the writer’s fantasy is usually poorer than the executioner’s fantasy). Mankind was very lucky that the African version did not occur to Hitler.

Scenario #3. “Axis of Evil”

Oddly enough, the previous version is not the worst. The transformation of the world into a concentration camp could happen with a development of events that seemed in many respects natural: the creation of an alliance of all totalitarian regimes, that is, the inclusion of Moscow in the “Axis” Berlin-Rome-Tokyo. This was all the more likely after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the open division of Poland (by the way, the German leadership in the early days of its aggression against Poland very actively insisted, if not demanded, that Soviet Union occupied the part of this country “placed” for him). Actually, in 1940, Germany directly invited the USSR to become a member of the Axis, but Stalin refused for a number of reasons.

However, Paris and London could well have made Moscow an ally of Berlin. After the outbreak of the Soviet-Finnish war, they not only supported Finland with the supply of weapons, but were preparing to send their troops to this country, as well as to launch air strikes on oil fields in the Baku region from the territory of their Middle Eastern colonies. Moreover, France insisted on holding these events much more actively than Great Britain.

If the USSR had come out on the side of the “Axis”, the Eastern Hemisphere would very quickly have been under the control of a couple of dictators. It is known that? Germany alone, which at that time had no allies at all, did with France, and at the same time with Denmark, Norway, Belgium and Holland. With the help of the Red Army, the Wehrmacht would at least have deprived Britain of all its Middle Eastern and, apparently, African colonies (one can imagine a touching meeting of Soviet and German fighters, for example, in Jerusalem). As a maximum, there would be an opportunity to invade the metropolis. Although, after the loss of the colonies, the metropolis would largely lose its significance (see option No. 2). The main question is whether America could hold on?

Naturally, the navies of the USSR and Germany could not even jointly carry out a landing operation in North America. But the Japanese fleet could theoretically transfer parts of the Wehrmacht and the Red Army, as well as the Japanese army itself to Alaska. Would the Japanese be able to ensure the uninterrupted functioning of communications between the Far East and Alaska for the transfer of reinforcements and supplies? How real was the march of Soviet and German tank columns through the Arctic regions of Canada towards the United States (and before that they still had to be transferred across the whole of Eurasia to Vladivostok)? The operation seems very difficult, but still feasible.

There is no doubt that the USSR, Germany, Japan, sooner or later (rather sooner) would have squabbled among themselves, and regardless of whether America would have resisted or not. Moreover, a war between dictators, or between their coalition and the established States, could well have gone nuclear.

We were saved from all these “pleasures” by the fighters of the Red Army, despite the colossal losses that broke the “Mannerheim Line”, Mannerheim himself, who agreed to sign peace with Moscow in time, as well as Hitler, who launched a full-scale aggression in Western Europe in time.

Scenario No. 4. “Icebreaker”

This version is named the same as the famous book by Rezun-Suvorov, since in general it repeats what he wrote. Today no one argues with the fact that the Red Army grouping on the western border in June 1941 outnumbered the three German army groups intended for the implementation of Barbarossa by almost five times in tanks and twice in aircraft. In tanks, we also had an absolute qualitative superiority, the T-34 and KV, of which there were almost two thousand, had no German analogues at all, and our light tanks were almost in no way inferior to the German T-IIIs and were head and shoulders above the T-II and T-I. "Tigers" and "Panthers" appeared only in 1943. Moreover, our grouping had a purely offensive configuration. If, for example, one of our military airfields was located 1.5 km (!) from the border, was not covered either from the ground or from the air, and on the morning of June 22 was packed with aircraft, then what is there to talk about? At the same time, however, no direct documents testifying to the impending Soviet preemptive strike have yet been found.

And yet, sometimes one gets the impression that the whole “icebreaking” discussion is not about that, more precisely, the accents are incorrectly placed in it. The reason for this was, firstly, the “repentant” preface of Rezun himself to the “Icebreaker”, and secondly, the stupidest reflex reaction to the book of semi-official Soviet historians, who immediately rushed to prove that our wonderful country could not be an aggressor.

To the beginning of the Great Patriotic USSR already been a two-time aggressor. He committed aggression against Poland (together with Hitler) and Finland, and the “peaceful annexation” of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Romanian Bessarabia also resembled aggression, but for some reason our historians do not care about this. On the other hand, Hitler was a twelvefold aggressor (on his account were Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, France, Great Britain, Greece, Yugoslavia). Calling a war against an aggressor aggression is something unprecedented in world practice. Hitler placed himself outside the law, and any action against him was possible and justified. That is why hysterical attempts to prove the purity of our thoughts look strange. For some reason, neither we nor the British are embarrassed by our joint aggression against Iran in September 1941. They seized it - and they did it right, such a situation has developed.

Moreover, we were even purely legally obliged to strike at Germany, since in March 1941 we managed to sign an agreement on friendship and mutual assistance with Yugoslavia. Immediately after that, Germany attacked and occupied our new ally. At this moment, in April 1941, the situation for our strike was extremely favorable. A significant part of the Wehrmacht fought in the Balkans against Yugoslavia and Greece, being in a natural strategic bag. Moreover, a blow to the Germans would be delivered directly through Romania, which was the main supplier of oil for the European countries of the Axis. The Romanian army was absolutely incompetent (in fairness, it should have erected a monument near Stalingrad, it was thanks to the “dissolution of the Romanians in space” that it was possible to surround Paulus so easily), so it was very easy to capture this country, and the Bulgarians would not fight against us. As a result, the Red Army went to the rear of the Balkan grouping of the Wehrmacht, simultaneously depriving Germany of oil. Most importantly, the strategic initiative would be on our side, and not on the side of the enemy.

Of course, in terms of the level of training of personnel from private to general, the Wehrmacht at that time was head and shoulders above the Red Army. Nevertheless, even if we started to lose, having received a blow to the right flank from Poland and Hungary, then this would happen on someone else's territory, and not on our own. The economy would not collapse, the civilian population would not die. The lack of combat experience would be largely compensated by the exceptionally favorable strategic environment. It can be assumed that in the end our losses would not have exceeded one million people, instead of at least 27 million, and the war, apparently, would have ended not in Berlin, but on the English Channel, since the States would have been sidelined from the war, and England at that moment was not capable of a full-fledged landing in Europe. And not in the 45th, but, in the worst case, in the 43rd.

It is now impossible to say where the history of mankind would go after this, but it would obviously not have been worse for us. Perhaps, at the end of the 1980s, anti-communist “velvet revolutions” would have taken place not only in Eastern, but also in Western Europe. Maybe we would eventually come to the same place that we have today. Only without Khatyn, Auschwitz, Buchenwald, the blockade of Leningrad, the ruins of Stalingrad and many other Soviet cities, and, most likely, without the German cities turned into rubble by the British and Americans.

Scenario No. 5. Towards the “Rising Sun”

During the real Second World War, Japan could be considered part of the "Axis" only because it fought with the same opponents as Germany and its European allies. There was practically no coordination between Berlin and Tokyo. Of course, this fact had objective reasons (the extreme remoteness of the European and Pacific theaters of operations), but in the middle of the twentieth century, to absolutize geographic factor shouldn't have. And this lack of coordination was one of the reasons for the collapse of the Axis.

In addition, Japan has made a number of its own mistakes. If it attacked America, which was many times stronger militarily, and most importantly, economically, it was necessary to act with the utmost determination. For all the audacity of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the actions of the Japanese were clearly present in the fear of their own audacity. If the entire Japanese fleet, as well as the landing units, which in reality were sent to the Philippines, Malaya and Indonesia, were involved in this strike, the Japanese would be able to destroy the entire Pacific Fleet USA and take over Hawaii. After that, America would be completely out of the game for several months, and then, after being transferred to Pacific Ocean The Atlantic Fleet, a few more months (if not years) would solve the problem of returning Hawaii. The American Navy could not fight against Japan directly from the US West Coast because of the gigantic Pacific distances, so the issue of returning Hawaii became decisive (not to mention considerations of national prestige). In the extreme case, the Japanese, using captured Hawaii as a base, could destroy the locks of the Panama Canal with aircraft carrier strikes, making it extremely difficult for the Americans to maneuver between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans for a very long period (US Navy ships would have to go around Cape Horn). Thus, for at least a year in Tokyo, they could forget about America and move west much further than they actually managed to do.

Nothing, for example, prevented the Japanese from capturing Madagascar. Moreover, they could do it during the real World War II, even without the capture of Hawaii. The death of the "Prince of Wales" and "Repulse" in December 1941, the battle in the Java Sea in February and the raid of Admiral Nagumo's aircraft carriers in the Bay of Bengal in April 1942 showed that the British Eastern Fleet was at that moment unable to deal with Japanese fleet. The Vichy occupying Madagascar had obvious sympathies for the Axis and would have welcomed the Japanese with open arms. The Japanese had a real chance to get ahead of the British, who occupied the island in May 42, but they again lacked determination and imagination. In addition, Germany needed Madagascar much more than Japan.

The loss of Madagascar would mean a complete interruption of communications between Britain and its forces in the Middle East. Here we return to scenario No. 2 (“African”), however, with the participation of new actors- USSR, USA and Japan.

Theoretically, the British could now supply their Middle Eastern grouping with everything they need through our territory. Convoys to Murmansk and Arkhangelsk would have gone not only and not so much to help the USSR, but for the needs of the British themselves. Would Stalin have allowed such an operation and what payment would he have demanded for its implementation? Would our northern ports, which are under constant German air strikes, cope with the transit of such a quantity of cargo (they also handled deliveries for the Red Army with difficulty)? In addition, even if the operation had been authorized, the transport of supplies and troops from Russia's northern ports to Iran would have been fraught with enormous problems due to the configuration of our rail network, which was also busy transporting our own supplies and troops. It is obvious that Rommel in Africa at least would be much easier to fight. And if America had lost Hawaii, it would definitely not have been up to North Africa, no operation “Torch” (landing of American and British troops in Algiers and Morocco) in November 1942 would have taken place, so the Germans in Africa could not worry about their rear .

In addition, - here we again return to scenario No. 2 - Hitler could realize the significance of the African theater of operations and transfer to Rommel a significant part of the troops intended for the capture of Stalingrad. In the summer of 1942, the Germans chased three birds with one stone, and the priorities were distributed in the following order: Stalingrad, the Caucasus, Africa. As a result, of course, they did not catch up with a single “rabbit”. If Hitler behaved more adequately, the main blow to the Caucasus should have been, Rommel's African corps should have contributed to the main blow, breaking through the Suez Canal to Palestine, and then to Iraq and Iran. The Germans did not need Stalingrad if they took Baku. Of course, an attack on the Caucasus with an open left flank and then a rear was very risky for the Germans, but they would need much less forces to cover the flank and rear than for the senseless battles for the Stalingrad ruins. Thus, with a reasonable distribution of troops and with the help of Japan, Hitler had the opportunity to realize scenario number 2.

Naturally, with such a development of events, many more different “sub-options” arise. Would Japan, for example, enter the war against the USSR? And if so, where: Far East or also in the Middle, sending part of the troops to help Germany? Would the USSR have advanced part of the forces from Central Asia, Transcaucasia and Iran towards Rommel's troops and how successful would such a maneuver have been? Would the Red Army have been able to hold back the Germans in the passes of the Caucasus Range and at the same time strike at their flank and rear, organizing a catastrophe on a larger scale than the Stalingrad one (this possibility will be discussed below)? These questions are not answered today. It is only obvious that in the implementation of this scenario, the role of our country would be even more decisive than in real history.

Scenario No. 6. “Big Saturn”

Without exception, historians, both ours and foreign, recognize the Battle of Stalingrad as the turning point of World War II. After it, the “Axis” had no chance of winning. The previous scenario already talked about how Hitler could “outplay” Stalingrad. But Stalin, too, could "replay" this battle and end it with a much greater triumph.

Hitler's fanatical desire to take Stalingrad is apparently due to psychological rather than military reasons. The Germans, without taking the city, completely interrupted the message along the Volga, which they proclaimed to be their main goal before the start of the operation. However, if they broke through the Caucasus, there would be nothing to carry along the Volga. In any case, Stalingrad for the Wehrmacht was not worth it to destroy its best units here in huge numbers, depriving the reserves of Army Group A, which was advancing into the Caucasus, and Rommel's African Corps. By mid-November 1942, Germany was experiencing a clear shortage of forces in southern Russia. The front line was extremely lengthened, it became more and more difficult for the Germans not only to advance on a wide front, but even to close it with troops. At the same time, communications for the transport of reserves, fuel, ammunition, food, and medicines were greatly lengthened. Rostov-on-Don then became the key hub of German communications.

At the same time, the left bank of the Don in the Voronezh region and south of it remained in our hands. The Soviet troops here more and more hung over the flank and rear of Army Groups "A" and "B" (the second stormed Stalingrad). Moreover, the Italians and Hungarians fought in this area, the fighting qualities of which were already significantly lower than those of the Germans, and the severe frosts of the autumn-winter of 42 made these troops practically incompetent.

Operation Uranus, which led to the encirclement of the 6th German Army in Stalingrad and its environs, began on November 19, 1942. As a result, 22 divisions ended up in the “cauldron” (two of them were Romanian), which were killed almost completely. However, much greater prospects opened up before the Soviet command: with a blow from the Voronezh region to Rostov, cut off the Wehrmacht formations, both in Stalingrad and in the Caucasus. In this case, not 22, but up to 60 divisions of the Wehrmacht and its allies were surrounded, which accounted for almost a third of all German ground forces. Moreover, these were the best parts, led by the best German generals. The death of such a large number of troops would probably have allowed us to end the war at least a year earlier and, of course, with fewer losses.

Actually, Operation Saturn, which began in mid-December, was quickly curtailed and remade into Little Saturn. Our troops did not reach Rostov, all forces were thrown to repel Manstein's counterattack, inflicted with the aim of releasing the Paulus group (these events are described in Yuri Bondarev's story "Hot Snow"). Manstein's blow was repelled, the 6th Army perished in Stalingrad, but twice as large a grouping of Germans managed to "leak" from the Caucasus through Rostov, and hundreds of thousands of our soldiers later died in battles with the lost divisions of the Wehrmacht. Our command, alas, helped this “leakage” even more, furiously and senselessly finishing off Paulus, putting their lives and wasting time on it, although the surrounded Germans would have frozen and died of hunger anyway.

Manstein's tanks had to be let through to Paulus and the “cauldron” closed behind them again. The fact is that Hitler sought to keep Stalingrad, and not save Paulus. As a result, the German grouping in the city would only increase with the same amount of fuel, food and ammunition, and the position of the Germans would only worsen. Moreover, there would be no one to repel the blow of our army on Rostov. Paulus should not have been surrounded at all, and it would be more expedient to direct all the forces thrown at Uranus at Saturn, making it Big. In addition, to strike at Rostov, it was also possible to use those troops who, around the same time, unsuccessfully and with gigantic losses, tried to eliminate the Rzhev-Vyazemsky bridgehead of the Germans (this was called Operation Mars, it involved a group of Soviet troops, according to number comparable with Stalingrad).

From Don to Rostov Soviet troops we had to walk about 300 kilometers across the open steppe, where there were almost no German units. After that, our units should have turned to the west, where the enemy forces were few in number and with low combat capability, continuing the offensive deep into Ukraine, leaving only infantry units near Rostov in order to prevent the Germans from breaking out of the giant “cauldron”. It was here, and not on the Myshkova River, where Manstein's blow was repelled, that the Soviet troops should have fought to the death.

Most likely, the Germans would have reacted to what happened belatedly, especially since Hitler set the task for his army to advance to the south and east, and not turn back. When the need for a breakthrough to the west would become obvious to Hitler, for its implementation, the German tank units would have to “wind on tracks” 400-500 kilometers across the steppes in order to reach Rostov from Stalingrad and from the Caucasus, where they were at that time 1- me and 4th german tank armies. The Germans would have been forced to burn a huge amount of fuel, which they had no way to replenish due to a break in communications. And after that, it was necessary to break through the Soviet defenses and go tens or hundreds of kilometers more to join with their troops in Ukraine. Most likely, the German tanks would not be able to break through. For a counter strike, the Wehrmacht would have to gather forces from everywhere - from Leningrad to Brest (French), which would take more than one month. As a result, the encircled German units would have no chance, there would not even be a need to finish them off, the encircled group was doomed.

"For the sake of fidelity" the Black Sea Fleet should have carried out an amphibious landing in the Crimea, and it should have been reinforced by an airborne assault. However, there are doubts whether this would be within the power of our fleet and the Airborne Forces (all the more so, the Kerch disaster in the spring of 1942 was still alive in the memory).

Unfortunately, by the autumn of 1942, our army had experienced so many grandiose catastrophes that Stalin dreamed of keeping the "titmouse in his hands", although Vasilevsky offered him the above-described "pie in the sky." It cannot be completely ruled out that the Supreme Commander was right in this case: our army would not have had the skill to successfully carry out this operation. And yet it is difficult to come to terms with the fact that at Stalingrad the chance to inflict such a defeat on the Wehrmacht was missed, which could not only turn the war around, but almost end it.

Unlike the previous alternatives, Scenario No. 6, apparently, could not fundamentally change the course of history. The collapse of the southern flank of the German front would have greatly accelerated the retreat of the German army to the west, which would certainly have caused an forced landing of Anglo-American troops in Europe (all the more so since the Germans would have been forced to transfer most of their forces in France to Eastern front). As a result, the allies would have met approximately in the same place where it happened. Only it would have happened much earlier, and, therefore, the war would have claimed fewer lives.

In history, you can find many "forks" that could seriously affect the fate selected countries, even continents. But, perhaps, only the Second World War made it possible to change the history of all mankind at once. Moreover, for the first time such an Absolute Evil became a participant in the war, which was Nazi Germany and, to a slightly lesser extent, its allies. Moreover, this Evil turned out to be so strong that it crushed such countries as France and China. And even the Big Three, which ultimately won the war, with all their colossal economic and demographic superiority over the enemy, could lose it. It must be frankly admitted that geography played on the side of the anti-Hitler coalition. Great Britain and, moreover, the United States turned out to be inaccessible to the invasion of the enemy thanks to the seas and oceans. Our country was greatly helped by its gigantic size (there was room to retreat) and the climate, which greatly contributed to the victories near Moscow and Stalingrad. As can be seen from the above alternative scenarios, Evil really had a chance to win the war by turning, if not the entire planet, then most of it into a giant concentration camp.

Perhaps the greatest historical paradox was the fact that freedom for the whole Earth was defended primarily by the Soviet Union, itself under the rule of the most brutal totalitarian regime. The USSR won at the cost of its own sacrifices unprecedented in history, which cast doubt on the country's further development prospects (such a large loss of the gene pool, and the best, may well become fatal, it's just that this fatality is stretched out in time).

The fact that our country sacrificed itself to save humanity is not a propaganda cliché, but a fact. And no one in the world will even say “thank you” from the bottom of our hearts. On the contrary, the West will breathe a sigh of relief if Russia disappears after the USSR. This is very insulting, but, apparently, we are to blame for this attitude towards ourselves. And this is a completely different topic.

US Army (Land Forces of the country) / Photo: news.qip.ru

The United States is one of the few countries in whose armed forces the ground forces are not the dominant type either in terms of numbers, or in the number of weapons and equipment, or in terms of contribution to combat operations, or in terms of influence. For the Americans, the most important type of aircraft has always been the fleet, then aviation.

But even with the current “war fatigue” and Pentagon budget cuts, the US ground forces retain a huge potential.

“If necessary, the marines, which are part of the Navy, will fight on land, the level of combat training of whose personnel is generally higher than in the ground forces”

Their organization is very complex due to the number and spatial scope. There are field army headquarters (FA), which, as a rule, duplicate the territorial commands and should replace them in case of war. On the territory of the United States itself, there are corps - army (AK) and airborne (VDK). But divisions remain the main type of formations, each of which currently includes two or three line brigades and brigade army aviation. The first are divided into heavy (armored), light (infantry, airborne) and "Stryker" (they can be conditionally considered medium), equipped with the same name combat vehicles.

The Army Command (headquartered at Fort Bragg, North Carolina) has one PA, two AKs, one VDK, two training centers, the 32nd Air Defense Command and the Reserve Command.

3rd AK (Fort Hood, Texas) includes most of the heavy connections. The 1st Armored Division (Fort Bliss, Texas) has the 1st Stryker, 2nd and 3rd heavy (armored), 212th artillery and army aviation brigades. 1st Cavalry (Armoured) Division (Fort Hood): 1st, 2nd, 3rd Armored, 41st Artillery and Army Aviation Brigades. 1st Infantry Division (Fort Riley, Kansas): 1st, 2nd Armored and Army Aviation Brigade. 4th Infantry Division (Fort Carson, Colorado): 1st Stryker, 2nd Infantry, 3rd Armored and Army Aviation Brigade. In addition, the 3rd AC has a number of corps subordination structures. These are the 3rd Cavalry Regiment (equivalent to the Stryker Brigade), 75th Artillery, 36th Engineering, 89th Military Police, 504th Reconnaissance, 1st, 4th, 15th, 43rd Support Brigade.

A hundred thousandth contingent of ground forces as part of the US-led coalition / Photo: m.pikabu.ru

The 18th Airborne Forces (Fort Bragg) includes most of the mobile connections. The 3rd Infantry Division (Fort Stewart, Georgia) includes the 1st Armored, 2nd Infantry, and 3rd Army Aviation Brigade. 10th Light Infantry (Mountain) Division (Fort Drum, New York): 1st, 2nd, 3rd Infantry and Army Aviation Brigades. 82nd Airborne Division (Fort Bragg): 1st, 2nd, 3rd and Army Aviation Brigades. 101st Air Assault Division (Fort Campbell, Kentucky): 1st, 2nd, 3rd Brigade, 101st, 159th Army Aviation Brigade. In addition, the 18th Airborne Forces has a number of corps subordination structures. These are the 20th command of the RKhBZ, the 16th military police, the 18th artillery, the 20th engineering, the 525th reconnaissance brigade, the 108th air defense (simultaneously subordinate to the aforementioned 32nd air defense command), the 44th medical, 7 th transport, 35th communications, 3rd, 10th, 82nd, 101st security brigade.

1st AK (Fort Lewis - McChord, Washington) - an association of a reserve-training nature. The 7th Infantry Division (Fort Lewis) is not considered a combat unit, its headquarters is only responsible for combat training and logistics for attached units. These are the 1st and 2nd Stryker Brigades of the 2nd Infantry Division, the 16th Army Aviation, the 17th Artillery, the 555th Engineer and the 201st Reconnaissance Brigades. In addition, the 1st Army Corps has the 42nd Military Police and the 62nd Medical Brigade as part of the 593rd Support Command.

1st PA (Rock Island, Illinois) includes two training divisions. Vostok (Fort Knox, Kentucky) has the 157th, 158th, 174th, 188th, 205th Infantry, 177th Armored, 4th Cavalry, 72nd Artillery Brigades. West Division (Fort Hood, Texas): 120th, 181st, 189th, and 191st Infantry, 402nd Artillery, 5th Armored Brigades. The Army Reserve Command (Fort Bragg) is primarily responsible for the logistics of the Army. It consists of brigades: 10 medical, aviation, 9 support, 2 engineering, 4 military police.

In addition, the Army Command has two training centers - Fort Irvine and Joint Training. The 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment (equivalent to an armored brigade) is stationed at Fort Irvine, acting as a mock enemy for other units and formations.

commands top level on the territory of the United States there are also training (Fort Eustis, Virginia) and MTO (Redstone, Alabama), their purpose is clear from the names, there are no combat units in the composition.

Combat units stationed in the United States that are not subordinate to the command of the ground forces are part of the SOF, cybernetic and space commands.

The MTR command (Fort Bragg) has 7 MTR groups (1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 19, 20th, the last two in the National Guard), the 1st MTR detachment (Delta group, anti-terrorist unit), 75th Ranger Regiment, 160th MTR Aviation Regiment, 4th and 8th Psychological Operations Groups, 95th Civilian Work and 528th Brigade Support, Training Center MTR.

Cyber ​​Command (Fort Belvoir, Virginia) includes the 1st Information Operations Command and the 780th Military Intelligence Brigade.

Space Command (Redstone, Alabama) has the 1st Space (Peterson, Colorado) and the 100th Anti-Defense Brigade (Shriver, Colorado).

Ground forces outside the United States and in two enclave states (Alaska and Hawaii) are part of two territorial commands and one PA.

The European Command and its backup 7th PA (Wiesbaden, Germany) have the 2nd Cavalry Regiment - equivalent to the Stryker Brigade (Vilsek, Germany), the 173rd Airborne Brigade (Vicenza, Italy), the American NATO Brigade (Sembach, Germany), 12th Army Aviation Brigade (Ansbach, Germany), 10th Air Defense Command (Kaiserslautern, Germany), 21st Support Command (Kaiserslautern, includes 18th Engineer Brigade, 16th Support Brigade, 18th Military Police Brigade, 405th and 409th Support Brigades), 66th Intelligence and 2nd Communications Brigade, as well as the 7th Joint Multinational Training Command (Grafevor).

Pacific Command (Fort Shafter, Hawaii) is responsible for the defense of the enclave states. The 25th Infantry Division (Scofield, Hawaii) has the 1st Stryker, 2nd and 3rd Infantry, 4th Airborne, Army Aviation and 25th Support Brigade. The 1st and 4th brigades are deployed in Alaska, the 2nd, 3rd and aviation brigades are in Hawaii. In addition, the 94th missile defense brigade (Fort Shafter), the 8th support command (Scofield, consisting of the 8th military police brigade, the 10th support group, the 130th engineering brigade), 311- e communications command (1st and 516th communications brigades), 196th infantry and 500th reconnaissance brigades.

The 8th PA (Seoul) is not organizationally part of the Pacific Command, it is responsible for the defense of the Republic of Korea. The 2nd Infantry Division includes the 1st and 2nd Stryker Brigades (Fort Lewis, Washington, as mentioned above, are administratively subordinate to the 7th Infantry Division of the 1st AK), an Army Aviation Brigade (Camp Humphrey , Korea), 210th Artillery Brigade (Camp Kosi, Korea), 2nd Support Brigade (Camp Carroll, Korea). The units of army subordination are the 19th supply command, the 35th air defense brigade, the 501st reconnaissance, the 1st communications, and the 65th medical brigade.

As part of the US ground forces, there are 4 more territorial commands, each of which is duplicated by the headquarters field army. This is Northern Command, 5th PA (San Antonio, Texas, in charge of defense North America), Southern Command, 6th PA (San Antonio, Texas, responsible for latin america, except Mexico), Central Command, 3rd PA (Shaw, South Carolina, responsible for the Near and Middle East region and Central Asia), Africa Command, 9th PA (Vicenza, Italy). AT Peaceful time all of them are purely headquarters structures that do not have units in constant submission.

The National Guard is responsible for the defense of the territory of the United States, its parts in peacetime are subordinate to the governors of the states. In reality, since there is no one to defend the country's territory from, they are regularly involved in operations abroad. As part of the ground forces of the National Guard there are 8 infantry divisions, parts of each of which are scattered over three to five contiguous states.

28th Infantry Division (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland): 2nd Infantry, 55th Heavy, 56th Stryker, 28th Brigade Army Aviation.

29th Infantry Division (Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, Florida): 30th Armored, 53rd and 116th Infantry, 29th Army Aviation Brigade.

34th Infantry Division (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Idaho): 1st Armored, 2nd and 32nd Infantry, 116th Cavalry, 34th Army Aviation Brigade.

35th Infantry Division (Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Georgia, Arkansas): 33rd, 39th, 48th Infantry, 35th Army Aviation Brigade.

36th Infantry Division (Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi): 45th, 56th, 72nd, 256th Infantry, 155th Armored, 36th Army Aviation Brigade.

38th Infantry Division (Indiana, Michigan, Ohio): 37th and 76th Infantry, 38th Army Aviation Brigade, 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment.

40th Infantry Division (California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii): 29th, 41st, 79th Infantry, 81st Armored, 40th Army Aviation Brigade.

42nd Infantry Division (New York, New Jersey, Vermont): 27th, 50th, 86th Infantry, 42nd Army Aviation Brigade.

The only tank in service with the US Army is the M1 Abrams. The regular units have 2397 machines of the most modern modification M1A2 (of which 1814 are even more advanced M1A2SEP). Out of 3326 tanks previous version M1A1 most of it was transferred to storage. The oldest version of the Abrams (with a 105-mm cannon, monolithic armor and outdated equipment) is also there - up to 1281 M1 (possibly less, since some of the old tanks are dismantled for spare parts, some are converted into more modern options and in engineering vehicles without weapons).

Currently, the main combat vehicle of the US ground forces is the Stryker, which was produced in 10 modifications. The total number of these vehicles reaches 4430. It is with them that the Stryker brigades are equipped, they, according to the American command, combine combat power (which light formations lack) and mobility (heavy formations lack it).

Despite the presence of a significant number of reconnaissance UAVs in the troops, significant attention is still paid to ground reconnaissance. Up to 1719 M3 Bradley vehicles and 361 modernized BRMs of the same type M7A3 BFIST are in service. The Stryker family includes from 545 to 577 M1127 BRMs proper, 131 M1128 BMTVs (with a 105 mm cannon), up to 188 M1131 support vehicles, 274 M1135 RHBZ vehicles. In addition, there are 465 light BRM M1200, 1593 M1117 and 128 German Tpz-1 Fuchs.

BMPs are represented only by M2 Bradley vehicles in the amount of up to 4630 units. In total, the ground forces have a maximum of 6231 BMP M2 and BRM M3 "Bradley", of which 4559 are in service, the rest are in storage.

The M113A2/A3 armored personnel carrier remains the most numerous, of which there are 3,727 units (about 10,000 more are in storage, gradually being sold abroad). The Stryker family includes until 1972 the actual M1126 armored personnel carrier, 348 M1130 KShM, up to 168 light engineering M1132, 304 M1133 medical vehicles. The troops have anti-guerrilla armored vehicles built using MRAP technology (with enhanced mine protection). The vast majority of these vehicles do not have weapons, so they are essentially vehicles, not BBM. After the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, 5,651 Oshkosh armored vehicles and 2,934 MaxxPros (including 301 medical vehicles) will remain in service and in storage.

The American troops have 975 self-propelled guns М109А6. Up to 728 old self-propelled guns M109A2 / 3/5 are in storage, from where they are gradually sold abroad or dismantled. The M109 self-propelled guns were put into service back in the 60s, but underwent six upgrades, the M109A6 variant is considered to meet modern requirements. There are 821 M119A2 towed guns, up to 362 M198, 518 M777A1/2. M777s are entering service, M198s are being phased out. There are 990 M252 mortars, 1076 M120/M121 mortars and 441 self-propelled M1129 Strykers.

It is armed with 991 MLRS M270 / A1 MLRS and 375 lightweight versions of the same M142 HIMARS system (227 mm). All MLRS are also launchers for OTP ATACMS.

There are 2032 self-propelled ATGM "Tou" and several thousand portable ATGM "Javelin".

The basis of army air defense is air defense systems long range"Patriot", with which all air defense brigades are equipped. The brigade includes 2-4 battalions, each of which has 3-4 batteries of 6-8 launchers (4 missiles each). A total of 1106 PU SAM "Patriot".

In addition to it, the only active ground-based air defense system is the Stinger MANPADS. Several thousand MANPADS are in service, as well as 703 Avenger short-range air defense systems (4 Stinger MANPADS on a Hammer vehicle).

All U.S. Army Aviation aircraft are in support roles. These are 37 RC-12 reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft, 9 Canadian RER Dash-7 aircraft, as well as transport aircraft: 140 C-12, 28 UC-35, 11 SA-227 (aka C-26E), 2 Gulfstream, 2 C-31, 3 C-37, 6 Italian C-27J.

The basis of the strike power of army aviation is 769 AN-64 Apache helicopters (681 D, 88 E, production continues). In addition, 16 old AN-1S Cobra combat helicopters are in storage.

Combat helicopters can also include multi-purpose and reconnaissance helicopters: up to 525 OH-58 (up to 263 A, up to 157 C, 105 D, another 229 D, 10 A, 6 C in storage), 39 MN-6M, as well as 61 EW helicopters EN-60A and MTR helicopters: 62 MH-47G, 87 MH-60 (31 M, 35 L, 21 K).

The army aviation is also armed with 123 HH-60 rescue helicopters (32 L, 91 M), 157 training TN-67 and transport helicopters: 412 CH-47 (111 D, 301 F), 1534 UH-60 (674 A, 599 L , 261 M, 19 more L in storage), 290 EC145 (European model, licensed as UH-72A), up to 20 UH-1.

The US ground forces are apparently the only ones in the world that have their own fleet. It includes 6 Franck Besson-class landing craft and 118 landing craft of various types.

The new US military strategy has little to no involvement of ground troops in combat, except in the highly unlikely event of a large-scale conflict. If necessary, the marines, which are part of the Navy, will fight on land (the level of combat training of its personnel is generally higher than in the ground forces). The renewal of the equipment of the ground forces is proceeding at a rather slow pace, the purchases of the Stryker armored fighting vehicle, M777 howitzers, Apache and UH-72A Lakota helicopters, as well as reconnaissance UAVs and various communications equipment, electronic warfare, etc., are being completed. the power of the ground forces remains very high, they are guaranteed to surpass in the foreseeable future any army in the world, except for the Chinese and Russian.