Talk:Military of Georgia
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Talk:Military_of_Georgia".

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): National militaries task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): Russian and Soviet military history task force

This article contains material from the CIA World Factbook which, as a U.S. government publication, is in the public domain.

the flag is wrong. it is the Battle flag. Geagea 22:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gea. You're correct. This is the Battle Flag officially reffered to as the Main Military Flag. --Kober 04:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Georgian military increasing 3000%

Or 30x.

Any mention of this?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.112.110 (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Active troops

I thought the land forces will be increased up to 100.000 men ??

Graphic of the Army Structure

I'm currently working on a project to create graphics of the structure of the most important Armies. i.e. French Army; German Army; Italian Army I also want to make a graphic of the structure of the Georgian Land Forces, but the information at this point is not sufficient, as there is no information how the units are structured (i.e. which Regiments/Batallions belong to which Command/Brigade, what type of units they are…) Does anyone have this information- and also the Regiments/Battalions names and/or numbers and where they are based? Thanks noclador

I added todmmmmmay the graphic of the Structure of the Land Forces, which contains all the information that I could find, BUT the units of all 5 brigades are missing and if someone has information regarding these units, please share them, so that the graphic can be updated and finished. thanks, --noclador 23:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

6% of GDP

Where is this from? International Crisis Group report on Abkhazia] gives 15.9% (see page 21) for the year 2006). Alæxis_¿question? 11:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats correct, the georgian Ministry of Defence spent about 1.2 billion dollars for military euipment in a single year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.104.132 (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Istanbul agreements

Were any deadlines for the withdrawal of Russian forces from Georgia set in these agreements? Alæxis_¿question? 06:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No, but the agreements obliged Russians to define the deadline within three years (i.e. within the period of 1999-2002). The Kremlin did not agree to the schedule until 2005-2006. --Kober^Talk 06:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a source which describes the 1999 agreement? If not, saying without explainings that Russia violated some international agreement, is POV. --Eurocopter tigre 07:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

These are the very first hits yielded by a quick search through Google and Google Books:

• In a recent seminar at the Kennan Institute, a panel of experts discussed the prospects for implementation of the 1999 OSCE Istanbul summit decisions committing Russia to withdrawing its military forces from Moldova and Georgia by December 31, 2002. The consensus of the panel was that Russia would not succeed in fulfilling its obligations by the deadline, but progress has been made and, given Russia’s continued commitment to the goals of the 1999 decision, the prospects for further progress are good. Nevertheless, Russia’s failure to meet the deadline is of serious concern, and not only to Moldova and Georgia.[1].

• NATO continues to insist on full implementation of the political commitments (which are not legally binding) that Russia undertook at the 1999 Istanbul OSCE Summit to resolve the questions related to compliance with treaty host-state consent requirements in Georgia and Moldova. The following are among the remaining unfulfilled "Istanbul commitments":

[...] in Georgia: the conclusion of a Russo-Georgian basing agreement that defines the terms and duration of the Russian military presence in Georgia. Engaging Russia As Partner And Participant: The Next Stage of Nato-russia Relations By Robert Edwards Hunter, Sergeĭ Mikhaĭlovich Rogov, pp. 13-14. ISBN 0833037056. --Kober^Talk 08:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've linked the actual agreement text between Russia and Georgia in '99 as note 3 of the current text. Cheers Buckshot06 21:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

M87 Orkan

There are no M87 Orkan MLRs in Geiorgian Army. Bosnea wanted to sell their Orkans to Georgia, but Georgia didn't bought them. Kos93 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kos93 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Bosnia has no Orkans, only Croatia and Serbia do, Croatia has 4 and Serbia 3 or 4, Bosnian Serbs had 2 but these were originally Serb Army Orkans and were returned back to Serbia in 1995.

Only 8 Orkans were built in 1987-1990 period, originally JNA requirements were around 24 and Iraq around 48.

Tbilisi headquarters

Are they really to be withdrawn in 2008? I had an impression they've already been evacuated. Alæxis_¿question? 21:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Numbers in Equipment section

The numbers in the Equipment section have been added by vandals, ultranationalists or unknown IPs and are by no means accurate. For example, the number of tanks is clearly highly exagerated (370, while the UK operates 360 MBTs). Also, the numbers of IFVs, APCs and MLRSs cannot reflect the real numbers existent in the Georgian Land Forces inventory. If no proper sources are found in short notice, these numbers should be deleted. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about Georgia, but UK reduced its MBT fleet as UK defense strategy changed, we I mean UK has 780 Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 tanks way back in 1993, but with the 1997 defense white paper 400 tank where sold to Jordan as upgrading Challenger 1 tanks to 2 was deemed to expensive. UK kept 374 Challenger 2 tanks but this figure could change in future.

From what I understand (prewar) Georgia had 230 T-72 tanks, all upgraded with the help of Israel, how many tanks Georgians have now, it's anyone's guess. Mic of orion (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

230 is the total number and not all tanks have been upgraded to T-72 SIM1, only (some of) the former Ukrainian T-72AV and former Czech T-72M. The T-72B/B1's are the original models that are also used by the Russians.dendirrek (talk) 16:57, 17

August 2008 (UTC)

Plse change the number of Georgian T-72 MBT's. That there exist only 85 taken from the source which the author didn't really read like it seems, is pure nonsince. The source states the number of georgian tanks which took part in the Battle of Tskhinvali amd operations around the capitol of South Ossetia. Officialy Georgia has up to 240 T-72 tanks with different variants.

There is an info about 65 tanks lost/captured by Russia. So there are 165 (230 - 65) left. Even if the 65 loss counts only T-72, there must be more than 85 T-72 anyway: ~120. The Russian army eye witnesses (I do not know how much they should be trusted) tell there was quite few of Georgian heavy equipment lost in the battle itself and 30-44 tanks have captured in Gori. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.81.14.89 (talk) 08:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Need Better Info

I think this latest war shows why we need to have accurate information on this article.

Last year, I made changes to this article in regards to the Air Force. My reference was Air Forces Monthly magazine. The article was written about the Georgian Air Force and showed many pictures, and had an interview with numerous commanders and the AF Chief of Staff. Many of the rumors of the Georgians having Mig-21s and Mig-25 were dispelled. However, it kept getting reverted back to the same old, unreliable, ten-year out of date information probably from a Jane’s 1995 reference. It was in this article up to a few days ago.

Also Georgia does not posses the large amount of SAMs (surface-to-air missiles) stated. Many of these missiles are out of service or were never in service. Only a few Russian aircraft were shot down, and all of them in the first day or two of the War.

I have given up trying to clean these things up. I had the same problem with the article of the Mig-29 and Mig-23. There are people on there who want to make out these aircraft to be the best interceptors of all times, even though they have been dismal failures in combat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panzertank (talk • contribs) 12:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Uniform question

In some recent videos, I've seen Georgian army officers with a patch on the front of their uniform saying "MC" (in Latin letters). What does this mean? Richwales (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The patch on the russian soldiers "MC" means Peacekeeping Forces.(Yamitahuvaka (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)).

Current Status of military

We need to find a way to address that the Gerogian military has ceased to be an effective fighting force. There are numerous sources that state the Army is basically defunct at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panzertank (talk • contribs) 15:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that is the case, I think 5 professional brigades are back in Georgian capitol defending the city in case of w/e, but as situation stands now, Georgian army is very much demoralized due to poor performance in Sout Osetia.

I think this has more to do with poor leadership of Georgian Army and State than anything else. Mic of orion (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

At this point, Georgian police are putting up more resistance than the Army. Yesterday they set up a roadblock with police cars, which was destroyed by the Russians. The Army at this point is defunct. While there might be some brigades defending the captial, I doubt there are five and I doubt they are that professional. Maybe what is left of the 2,000 troops that came back from Iraq can put up a fight against the Russians. However the large amount of reserve (non-existant) troops are not combat trained, equiped, or ready to fight the Russians. If the Russians wanted to they could take the captial in a few days.

Panzertank (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well we do have information that veteran Iraq brigade was able to withdraw from Gori mostly intact (although they abandoned some heavy equiptment after a Russian air strike) ^[1] However the rest of the Georgian army is worse shape. Recent news seems to indicate that the majority of Georgian Armor assets were either destroyed or abandoned in the disorganized retreat from Ossetia and logistical headquarters at Gori, The airforce itself also seems to have been destroyed on the ground and a key airbase at Senaki fell. Most of the Remaining brigades are likely functioning as light infantry at the moment. ) ^{[2] [3] [4] [5]} Freepsbane (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgian "irregulars"?

According to FOX News reporters, they were shot at by "Georgian forces" that were "irregular". This is the only instance I've been able to find that "Georgian irregulars" exist as of 2008. I wonder if they could possibly have been near a Russian checkpoint and confused arriving Ossetian irregulars with "Georgian forces". They say they were "in Gori" at the time, and while it's been confirmed Russians and Ossetians were there at the time, I'm not aware of sources saying "Georgian forces" were "in Gori" then. I wonder if we should mention that an unspecified number of irregular forces exist, or is this source dubious given its isolation?Bdell555 (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

They were Osetian irregulars. There's some confusion. Read "Georgian irregulars" as "irregulars in Georgia." There are no irregulars in the Georgian military.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, but the reporter clearly describes them as "Georgian forces". But I think you are right that it is highly likely FOX misidentified them. Compare the FOX reporter's account "one minute you're talking to Russian soldiers, then next minute Georgian forces show up" and start shooting with this AP description of events at a Gori checkpoint:

... Georgian officers with binoculars watched as dozens of journalists gathered near the Russians tanks, taping and photographing them up close and attempting to talk to the soldiers. ...

But the situation turned ugly. South Ossetian militiamen, who are allied with the more disciplined Russian troops, appeared and began shouting at people to leave the area. They were highly aggressive, pointing weapons and shoving civilians. One older fighter with a beard fired a pistol in the air.

Note the similarity in accounts, right down to the "pistol" and "undisciplined". Apparently these FOX reporters would have us believe that "Georgian forces" would show up at a Russian checkpoint and start firing. This possibly before the binoculars of Georgian officers. And not just "Georgian forces" but "Georgian irregulars", by all available evidence the first sighting of such a creature in the 21st century.Bdell555 (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

They are possibly speaking of the ethnic Georgian volunteers from Azerbaijan when they speak of irregulars. (Yamitahuvaka (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

Forest Brothers (Upper Abkhazia) for example. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait, the article is about anti-Soviet Baltic partisan movement. The Forest Brothers (Georgia) then. (If they disbanded meanwhile, they would have easily get together at the time of the new open war.) --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, please don't cite FOX News anywhere on Wikipedia. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the FOX news video looked like a poorly produced Blair Witch Project with the camera conveniently pointing at the reporters face as he finished scrambling into the minivan showing him breathing hard from his escape, but not making any report. Perhaps he was too tired to talk but not to correctly aim the camera to show his breathlessness.--Jmedinacorona (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There are no Georgian "irregulars". The only mentions of irregulars talk of Ossetian armed groups; like here: http://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/2008/08/19/choses-vues-dans-la-georgie-en-guerre-par-bernard- henri-levy_1085547_0.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.81.14.89 (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The Su-25

Actually the number 10 is definitly wrong. In a documantary a high military official of the Georgian Army statet that the Georgian Air Force consists of 35 Su-25 close support aircrafts including different variants, mostly the upgradet version Su-25KM. TAM didn't stop working until it was bombed by the russian Air Force in 2008

I highly doubt that the GAF still has 35 Su-25s. I doubt they have ten that still are flying.Panzertank (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What means "still". The Russian Air Force didn't ( couldn't ) destroy any of them. Russia has at least 20 air crafts less in it's inventory, but not georgia. I highly doubt that you have informations, but it seems that you are some kind of angry about that .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by ComanL (talk • contribs) 05:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am upset that you took out my comments from this page. What gave you the right to do that? I am also upset that people post things they have no idea about. Do you still believe that Georgia hasn't lost any Su-25s? Where are they? Georgia is being overrun and they decide not to use their attack aircraft? Give me a break!

Here is a story for you:

Blown away: Georgian troops say air superiority won war

Published: Monday, 18 August, 2008, 08:24 AM Doha Time

By Adam Plowright

AS HE lies in a Tbilisi hospital, his leg missing from the knee down, Lieutenant Roman Abashidze reflects on the reason for Georgia’s crushing defeat to Russian forces.

“I think that if there had not been Russian air forces, then yes, we had a chance,” he says as he shifts his body by grabbing a steel bar running above his bed.

Like others recovering in the Georgian capital after their army’s failed offensive in South Ossetia last week, he sees Russian air power as the key factor.

Many recounted terrifying ordeals under aerial bombardment around the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali, where fighting was concentrated and many fellow soldiers were said to have been lost.

“We couldn’t handle it. The troops were very well prepared, but the air forces of Russia destroyed everything,” 29-year-old Dato, a captain who declined to give his surname, told AFP as he lay covered in shrapnel injuries, his arm in a steel brace.

Russian planes including SU-25s bomber jets and MiGs had been in the area, he said, and like other soldiers he claimed cluster bombs had been used.

Maintaining an icy stare as he recalled his experiences, he was visibly moved when he talked of the mangled bodies left after a Russian plane attacked an area where the injured were being collected.

An official post-mortem on Georgia’s military action in South Ossetia has not yet begun and it is unclear what the political consequences will be after the humiliating defeat and near destruction of Georgia’s army.

Despite help from the world’s biggest military power, the US, and a sharp increase in defence spending in recent years under President Mikheil Saakashvili, the Georgian forces were no match for Russia’s hugely superior firepower.

The US has spent millions on military training, equipment and weaponry for Georgia, which provided 2,000 troops for the US-led force in Iraq.

Levan Tsereteli, 20, a corporal, is another air raid victim found on the wards of Tbilisi’s hospitals, where stories abound about planes swooping down to 30m from ground level before unleashing a fearsome assault.

“The first time the plane missed, then suddenly we saw it again and it was shooting and dropping bombs. I was wounded from the shrapnel,” he said, a heavy, blood-stained bandage visible around his thigh.

Giorgi Gvelesiahl, a 19-year-old corporal, recounts a similar tale as he sits on his bed, eyes downcast. “I was wounded by a plane. It was a bomb I think, the shrapnel went in my shoulder and in my back,” he says, turning slightly to show a bandage surrounded by scabs.

After being evacuated to a hospital in the nearby city of Gori, he now hopes to make a full recovery and return to the army, but admits to having lost some of his faith.

“It would be better if my friends were here who have died,” he sighs. “Before going we were very proud, but now we are not so proud.”

Vakhtang Maisaia, a military analyst and defence adviser to the Georgian government from 1999-2001, told AFP the country’s leadership was unprepared for the Russian onslaught and had no answer to Moscow’s air force.

“Russian air superiority was crucial. The Georgians were unable to cope with their air defence system,” he said. “Georgia had only tactical air defence (anti-aircraft guns, ground-to-air missiles) which was insufficient. For a short period the ground troops were being protected, but in the long-term it was not enough.”

He said Russia had deployed SU-24 and SU-25 bombers, Soviet planes designed to support ground forces, to target infrastructure and troops, as well as TU-22 long-range strategic bombers. “If we had had fighter jets, maybe the Russians would not have had such superiority,” he said.

In response, Georgia could call on only 10-15 SU-25 bombers, some of which were destroyed and the rest were immobilised after Russia attacked Georgia’s military airports, he said.

“Without a doubt, there was absolutely nothing we could do against them (the Russians) once the planes were sent in,” says Temur Chachanidze, a former analyst at Georgia’s defence ministry and a journalist at the bi-weekly Arsenal military magazine.

“Aviation played the main role. The soldiers told me that everything went wrong as soon as the planes moved in.

“The operation was well organised but the conception of our army, the type of weapons bought by our army and the type of priorities we had was not that well thought out.

“We concentrated on infantry and tanks, which are of no use if they don’t have proper cover from the air.” – AFP

Panzertank (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The last phrase as some other phrases are just pure desinformation and war propaganda like allways mixed with good fantasy, you know what Propaganda means, the whole world knows it. The rest is also not fully acceptable. Georgia did not had any interceptors to clean the sky from russian close support air crafts, that's right. Of cource Russia had this advantige right at the beginning. Georgia didn't lost any air craft during the fights

because the georgian air force definitly Could Not risk and also don't wanted to risk loosing any of it's air crafts. Even if they had Interceptors, noone thinks that Russia would have been unable to handle this. That """"georgian statement"""" above is rubish and pure fantasy. That is just silly. It is the same propaganda ly like the """"DEFEAT"""" of the georgian army. Which defeat ??. Retreat does not mean DEFEAT. It was a political chess turn made by a political genius. The georgian army let's the RF forces deeper into the country which is followed by very very very very big consequences for Russia!

Are you stable? You really think the Georgian strategy was to let their country get overrun, and their military destroyed. Georgia doesn't want to lose their aircraft? Please! There lost. I want the Georgians to kick the Russians butt! I feel bad for the Georgians. But this article is about fact, not what I wish were true like you do. And what were the big consequences for Russia, the fact they won! Panzertank (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

he has a point. Saakashvili sacrificed hundreds of his countrymen lives just to portray Russia as an aggressor. And partly succeded. But this is forum-like discussion and Wikipedia is not a forum and it ends here.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, 'It ends here.'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panzertank (talk • contribs) 21:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

the Soapboxing --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The only one soapboxing is you. I am making points about the article and its content. If you don't have nothing useful to add, please don't respond.--Panzertank (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You can argue as hard as you can and present tons of false facts, but my friend there visited a nearby military airbase and reported more than 18 Su-25 aircrafts only in that place. That's why I'm so angry about your statements. Where can you find any proof for a georgian military defeat during conflict ??

The 2000 men of the seperate infantry batallions and the 2500 men from the 4th Brigade returned home, but leaving 113 dead corpses in Tskhinvali, Gori, Roki and Kodori .... Sorry for their mothers. The retreat was planned before the conflict took place. But Saakashvili didn't know that the Russians would steel and burn nearly every georgian equipment in the Senaki Base, Gori air base and Poti Navy base. The aim of this action was not the defeat of the Russian army, but the political, propaganda and economic defeat of the corrupt aggressive russian Imperium, which will follow in the next years. No big bloodsheed, but tons of billions of dollars lost by Russia. No big sarcrifice, but the destruction of Russia as country and big Gas/Oil Empire. Saakashvili ordered 2000 regulars to retake Tskhinvali for the moment, but not to face the russian army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.113.146 (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the proof that the Georgian military was defeated was the fact that the Russians destroyed the Georgian Navy, occupied several towns, and roamed around the countryside destroying Georgian weapon caches and occupying several towns. Also, Russian troops at this moment are still in Georgia. I am not sure what you would classify as a defeat, but when a military is not able to resist an invasion, I think that would classify as a defeat.

As far as your friend visiting a base, I believe that is not enough proof to add that the GAF has 18 Su-25 into this article. If you have a picture of him holding up today’s newspaper with the SU-25s flying behind him, I think that would be solid proof.

I'm all for the Georgians kicking the Russian's butt, but this is an article based on fact.Panzertank (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a opinion quite spread in Russia that most of Georgian Su-25 are neither destroyed nor disabled. Undoubtedly, that is no proof to anything. But these kind of rumours proved to be more or less valid before, so personally, I more or less believe them. Surely it does give little idea what a responsible wikipedia.org editor should fill in the article. So I think the sentence "The factual accuracy of part of this article is disputed." is the only thing one can do by now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.81.14.89 (talk) 09:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)