Jump to content

Talk:Spetsnaz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Claims of being best

[edit]

Can we please leave these claims of "the best special forces unit" to the appropriate web sites and playgrounds?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.30.162 (talk) 05:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I googled the supposed Rangers/Spetsnaz competition and every site that lists it references "an article from the ninties" but does not list which periodical or actual time. Mostly, it looks like the story was lifted from a Spetsnaz fan website.

Why are Spetsnaz compared with Delta Force? Spetsnaz are a special forces unit best compared with the SAS. Delta Force is a newer, and still unproven, unit modelled directly on the SAS.124.197.15.138 (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "training" section is uninformative, biased and poorly wrote. I advise that it either be re-written or removed completely.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.125.57.241 (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like a link to this competition in Alaska between the American Rangers and Spetsnaz. I doubt it happened. If such a competition were to occur, it would happen at Fort Benning in Georgia,Fort Lewis in Washington or Fort Bragg in North Carolina. Also, there should be a mention of the rumored involvement of Spetsnaz in Vietnam. Victor Suvorov, an ex-Spetsnaz man, mentions in his book how the performance of the American Special Forces in Vietnam was viewed by the Russians and how the US SF's success spurred the further development of the Russian Special Forces.

  • We should leave rumors out because they're primary sources and difficult to verify. There are always rumors of different things.Comatose51 06:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Especially since Victor Suvorov didn't/couldn't cite his sources and is widely considered to have at least some "innacuracies" (to put it nicely) in the stories he told. Read that as: He may have made the "competition" thing up. We need another/reliable source. -- Sy / (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have strong reservations about the claims of these units being the best infantry and the story about the Rangers' competition seems hard to verify. The first issue is subjective. I bet an article on the SAS or the US Navy SEALs would claim that they're the best. Thus, I'm incline to remove such statements. The story about the competition rings of urban legend or rumors. Where's the primary source for that? Unless verified, I'm also inclined to remove it. Comatose51 06:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your reservations, you're right that the personalness and opinion should be removed from the article. =) -- Sy / (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt some non-crucial names and facts listed, althogh not ready to edit. For instance, my knowledge is that some Soviet non-SOF units, such as radiocommunication batallion, were called "-OSNAZ". However the general idea of the article is right. But it may need restructuring to avoid term-domination. AlexPU 13:18, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OSNAZ already exists, which see.--Tomtom 05:56, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

84.66.161.26 20:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think all claims of being the best have to be treated especially catiously for Spetsnaz. Clearly some units are very, very good, but the combat record of others is extremely poor. Many Spetsnaz are simply light infantry, with all the weaknesses of the rest of the Soviet army. In one bungled operation in Afghanistan an entire brigade was wiped out after it was landed so far off target some elements were actually in Pakistan. The famous attack on the Presidential palace which started the invasion was also hardly of SAS style subtlety - the Spetsnaz drove up to the front gate in a convoy of vehicles and just started shooting. Not only did they kill the man they were trying to 'rescue', but in accounts of the fighting broadcast on TV one of the Spetsnaz decribes how in the heat of the fighting one of his comrades accidently threw a hand grenade the wrong way. Not exactly the actions of one of the world's best. Martin Porter

I think claims of being world's best should not be brought into ANY play. Spetsnaz has different jobs, and different assignments then Delta or KSK or any other special forces. Each of these Special Forces have their own purposes and you cant go and say "oh well SAS is better than Spetsnaz". It doesnt matter, this isnt a boxing match. Different jobs for different countries. You can show fumbles, and large accomplishments from ALL special forces, and it doesnt make any difference. Mistakes happen, situations change. Also, if you're talking about the attack on the Presidential Palace, I never heard of them trying to rescue anyone. I seem to recall they were there to assasinate the President, not rescue him. -anon

84.66.161.26 20:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It hardly matters what claims they make. It's all POV anyway.


Which spez force unit is the best? The one who is better prepeared. As for the palace assault - their task was realy not to save someone, but to terminate president. And executing this operation was more difficult, because soviets were outnumbered by the palace guard and were not having heavy weapon to fight tanks plus to this palace itself was placed to give great advantage to its defenders, so I don't think, that it is correct to say "was also hardly of SAS style subtlety - the Spetsnaz drove up to the front gate in a convoy of vehicles and just started shooting" There also was task to capture some other governmental buildings and to cut city from the countrys information link - which was done. Are there many others who can do this? --Oleg Str 10:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are some rather objective ratings out there actually, though I don't know where to find them. That being said it is obviously subjective to a point, so wouldn't have a place in Wikipedia. For example that was brought up during the last presidential campaign, politicians were arguing about how our special forces aren't the best, even in the top 5 or something like that. What gives us our edge is our technology. Of course it is all still subjective, unless you stuck all the special forces of the world into a cage match and wait to see who comes out on top. That being said, the spetsnaz are supposedly renowned for their pain tolerance! --67.185.245.221 (talk) 06:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pointless to argue over which is best. I'm american, and of Russian ancestory, and my Father was a Ranger, and he got to meet a spetznaz, and from what he told me they had similar jobs, they kill the bad guys, Rangers are often not very subtle, and spetznaz usually aren't either. that doesn't matter. Besides with the attack on the palace, it doesn't matter what special force you're in, or how much pain tolerance you have, bullets will still kill you, and if you're severly out numbered, by people in a easily defendable area with tanks and mg nest, you're going to lose. and with the spetznaz training, killing rabbits, dogs and pregnate cats? w/e men fight back, and men with guns trained or untrained kill you. A random marine has a just as good chance of killing a sas or spetznaz or a ranger, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.65.46.122 (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spetsnaz martial training

[edit]

I have removed the "See also" reference:

Systema: The Martial Art Used by Spetsnaz

Because Systema is not "the" martial art which they use.

Systema is only known to relatively few units, and even to the few it is not taught in a complete form. Individuals are of course free to persue further training for themselves.

Spetsnaz martial training in general has been a relative unknown, however there are a few people who have mentioned a little of their own martial training. Of course there is Sambo but also mixes of Karate and other arts.

I'd liken Systema to a mix of traditional and obscure Russian martial arts as well as a more recent Spetsnaz influence both by some training programs and some individuals. I think the Spetsnaz link is most prominant because the immediate chain of teachers are Spets.

-- Sy / (talk) 14:25, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would like to say something about this. I have heard a stand-alone word "Sistema" as a name of a hand-to-hand combat system from the TV program "Военная тайна" (Voennaya tajna, eng. - "War secret"). There it was described as a computer generated system. Where specialy designed software calculated the most effective movements for a big variety of the situations basing on the data about humans body abilities, fights of the hand-to-hand masters and so on that program analyzed. When in russian language you mean some another H2H system you should say "система рукопашного боя" (sistema rukopashnogo boya, eng. - H2H combat system), not just "Sistema". When it is said, that spetsnaz use system - it can mean, that threre is a use of some other H2H combat system, like Kadochnikovs system, military sambo and so on. It is also possible, that "Sistema" is journalists fake - keep it in mind.--Oleg Str 12:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"nazranie"

[edit]

There are many websites(including the SOC website linked to from the article) which claim that Spetsnaz is an abbreviation of "Spetsialnoe nazranie", although "nazranie" is not even a Russian word. It would be interesting to know the origin of this error. A search for the word "назрание" comes up with a few sites where it is clearly a misspelling of "название", and one Macedonian site which makes the "spetsialnoe nazranie" claim. However, a search for "nazranie"(with Latin letters) turns up non-Russian Spetsnaz-related sites.


Pronunciation

[edit]

The article says /ʃpecnaz/. Shoudn't it be /specnaz/? —Michael Z. 2005-09-6 19:57 Z

I think it is better to write spetsnaz because in case of specnaz that "c" can be wrongly readed as K.--Oleg Str 13:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first comment above is about the pronunciation ... it is rather out of date anyway as the article now reads /spʲɛʦnaz/ — Stumps 13:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OSNAZ is the obsolete term

[edit]

It was used to refer to special forces of the USSR during the Great Patriotic War and first post-war years. Then it was obsoleted by spetsnaz. It is not (or almost not) used to refer to special forces of Russia presently. Cmapm 01:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect--Tombombadil 02:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Why? Is there a source where this is explained?
"Obsoleted" is not a real word. Try "made obsolete".
  • Actually, as a Russian speaker, I have to agree that "spetsnaz" is regularly used to refer to special forces, while "osnaz" is much more rarely used and refers to other specific things. The English article on "Osnaz" is language-linked to the Russian article on OMSDON, which is something completely different, although parts of OMSDON were reorganized as the official Osnaz. There is no Russian-language article on Osnaz, which shows that it is very rarely used as a term. The english Osnaz article has no references and personally I doubt a great bit of the information in it.

Incorrect Parallel Made

[edit]

The following quote is incorrect, or at least I think so: "The parallel of U.S. Army Rangers and 1st SFOD-D (aka "Delta Force") is apparent." No, the US Army Rangers aren't even on the same level as the Delta. I'm not talking about their level of quality, they're among the best the US military has to offer, no doubt, but their purpose as a combat unit is totally different than that of Delta's. So, I don't think the comparison between Alfa and the Rangers is correct. In fact, the whole size of the unit isn't even alike, the Rangers can fight in batallion strength, therefor numbering in the thousands, whereas Delta does not and their particular purpose and training does not allow for such a large size. With the description of the Russian Alfa unit being such, I would imagine the same conditions exist for Russian special-op forces. Just an observation. 12.220.83.63 05:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Addition

[edit]

[1] could someone add http://www5c.biglobe.ne.jp/~recon/SOG-SPETSNAZ-6.jpg as a picture, i dont know how... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GregLoutsenko (talk • contribs) 20:09, 6 June 2005 (UTC)

Please create new sections for new conversation. Also, no.. it's not correct to just take pictures from the net. Also that link is now broken. =) -- Sy / (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Changed Sentence

[edit]

Changed the sentence: Generally, English-language media refer to them as "Russian special forces" and, in fact, usually [use this term for other countries' special forces]. To: Generally, English-language media refer to them as "Russian special forces."

I did this for two reasons: First, the sentence immediately preceding this one starts with an "in fact," making the paragraph sound repetitive (i.e., In fact...in fact). Second, the last part of the original sentence is superfluous to the topic. This is about Russian Special Forces, not about the Special Forces of the rest of the world. Sorry about not logging in but I'm kinda lazy today. 66.75.242.105 17:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Lucky[reply]

About the Very Term itself

[edit]

[11.11.2006 14:14] McBak

I'm a Russian myself and was surprised at learnig that Western People use the word Spetsnaz so imprecisely.

First of all, it's pronounced [spets'na:z], with [ts] being a single sound, pronounced the same way as the letter Z in German.

Then, Spetsnaz is not about Special Forces at all; it's a VERY general term used to describe all sorts of military and police units engaged into some special activities, but this is not what we call Special Forces in the Western meaning of that word.

The best, though bitter definition of Spetsnaz would be 'Special groups among regular troops that are used in a queer way or at least not quite the way they are supposed to be used'

For example, extremely heavily armed policemen in Chechenia that are employed to fight insurgency, or to protect civilians, actually being 'police soldiers' rather than policemen, are Spetsnaz. Regular soldiers trained as mountain rangers, skilled in recon service and survival, which are employed to hunt the boeviks (insurgents, gunmen), are Spetsnaz. Some heavily armed bullies with RPGs and flamethrowers used to wipe away insurgents infesting some building in a town in Chechenia are also called Spetsnaz.

Speaking of SAS and Navy Seals, the only parralel to them is FSB Spetsnaz, namely teams Alpha, Pennant and Knight (Alfa, Vympel, Vityaz). And the only surviving abbreviation to Otryady Osobogo Naznacheniya is now Spetsnaz, Osnaz being an obsolete word.

And yes, teams Alpha and the rest are deemed to be the best in the world as it comes to their wilderness survival skills, physical training and mobility but there's no reason to believe that they're much better than SAS and SEALs in stealth and combat.

Also those teams use a limited amount of weaponry that is superior even to USA's best guns, but that still doesn't make them 'the best'

As for the physical and psychological training of Alpha, Pennant and other FSB Spets teams, it's extremely enduring and is aimed at eliminating almost everything human, making a human into a ruthless killer. One of the excercises consists of bashing a living rabbit against a wall so it's killed in a single blow and then crushing its spinal cord with soldier's own teeth so that the head is separated from the body (didn't dare typing 'biting off the rabbit's head'), then drinking most of the rabbit's blood before it's spilt on the ground from the rabbit's neck. This excersise is designed both to teach the novices to kill living things without hesitation and clench their thirst if there's no clear water supply around but they happen to trap a rabbit or a dog. This is not bulls**t, and doesn't come from tabloids. It's a very well-known Spetsnaz training practice in our country. They are taught 'You are not a human now but a military unit designed to kill things, and if a military unit has to be destroyed in combat there's no way round.'

~~11.11.2006 14:14 McBak~~

I can agree with you in some terms. In some couldn't.First/ you re right for shure that Spetsnaz are not actualy "the best". But should we talk, and compare any special forces at all? The are SPECIAL FORSES. The couldn't be compared! It's a profession.Second. When you say: "bashing aliving rabbit against a wall so it's killed in a single blow and then crushing its spinal cord with soldier's own teeth so that the head is separated from the body" and other words I want to ask you: what are your sources. For example I have read books of V. Suvorov too and there were words about that GRU spetsnaz for example killed a dog for that. But HOW DO YOU KNOW? What are the sources. And you shouldn't say that they are more cruel than other special forces. for example nobody knows somehow what are trainings of special forses of Franch Legion for exanmple, or USA rangers or SEALs. How do ou know that they are "not so cruel" as Specnaz for example. In my opinion every Special forces have extremly hard trainings. Not more or les harder or easier.~~19.04.2007 00:06 Yegor Chernyshev~~
Vityaz it`s a VV spetsnaz (internal affairs) not FSB. And also - IMHO the best spetsnaz (and the SF) units were Vympel of Soviet era (the elite diversants with excellent espionage training, not that CT unit "among others") and Spetnaz GRU GSh.

Special purpose regiments

[edit]

Due to the multy-significance of that term I'd like to offer some changes in the article.

First. As it seems the term "Spetsnaz" used for every special purposed unit in russia, and its a populized term. Therefore we should write here about different types and kinds of russian special forces, that are exist on Russian terretory. And the main accent of the article should mark the collective meaning of that word. Than we should separate on special regiment from another in the article. The suggestion is to wite a typology of special units.

Second. In my mind the most exact head of the article sounds like "Rusian special purpose units" or "Russian special purpose regiments" or "Russian special force regiments". And the artices "Specnaz" and "Spetsnaz" should redirect users here.

If nobody minds. I'll do that changes. And, please, type your opinion, it's very interesting.

~~Yegor Chernyshev 19:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Information about specific Spetsnaz units

[edit]

Although it was unrefernced, I do not think it was proper to delete all this information. Why not mark this as [citation needed] and wait a little?Biophys (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incoming material from Soldat.ru; to be translated

[edit]

http://www.soldat.ru/forum/?gb=3&id=70744, 30 June 2008

Российская Федерация

[edit]

( 1992 - ... )

В 1993-1994гг - менялись штатные расписания, появлялись учебные роты, менялось вооружение,

Часть данных приведена в сводном списке на конец 1991 года из предыдущей части. Боевой состав на 2007:

  • 2nd Independent Spetsnaz Brigade (обрСпН) (ППД: п.Черехи, Промежицкй р-н, Псковская обл. ЛенВО) - 70 и 700 (Псковская обл, п Печора-1) , 177 (Кольский п-ов, п Пушной) - 329-й отряд, ШМС, Школа прапорщиков. 177-й был скадрирован в 1997-м. Однако к сентябрю 2000-го во 2-й бригаде было заново сформировано 2 отряда, в т.ч. и 177-й.
  • 3rd Independent Guards Варшавско-Берлинская Краснознаменная ордена Кутузова 3-ей степени Spetsnaz Brigade "тяжелого состава" (ППД: п.Рощинский, р-н Черноречье Самарская обл. ПУрВО) - 330, 509, 510,512 ооСпН, 501,503.
  • 10th Spetsnaz Brigade (обрСпН) "тяжелого состава" (образована в 2002 году п Мальково, Краснодарский край) - 107 оСпН, 4оуб СпН (сф в 2003), 85,95(сф в 2002),104,551 ооСпН (при СССР в Феодосии - 13 был развернут 325ооСпН) (Всего 7 отрядов).
  • 12th Spetsnaz Brigade (обрСпН) (ППД: г.Асбест Свердловск обл. ПурВО, с 2004 года Челябинск) - 33 ооСпН. Известен также 374 отряд СпН (ППД - Н/Д).
  • 14th Spetsnaz Brigade (обрСпН) "тяжелого состава" (ППД: г.Уссурийск, ДВО) – 282 ооСпН (Хабаровск), 294 ооСпН (Белогорск), отряд СРС, учебный отряд, и минимум 2 оСпН. Известен также 308 отряд СпН (Уссурийск-9).
  • 16th Spetsnaz Brigade (обрСпН) (ППД: г.Тамбов МВО Переведена из Чучково в 2004 году.) - 370, 664, 669 (неотд). . Известен также 379 отряд СпН (ППД – Н./Д.).
  • 22nd Independent Guards Spetsnaz Brigade (брСпН) "тяжелого состава" (п. Степной, Ростовская обл, СКВО) - 173, 411, 108 (сф в 2003 в г Батайск, далее ППД п. Ковалевка, Аксайский р-н, Ростовская обл, СКВО) ооСпН, 305оСпН (или наоборот 305 ооСпН, 108(неотд)), 54-й (56-й(?)) оуц СпН (п. Красная Поляна, Краснодарский край). На 2006 год 173, 411 и вновь сформированный 108-й отряды переведены в г Батайск.
  • 24th Spetsnaz Brigade (обрСпН) "легкого состава" (пгт Кяхта (Улан-Удэ), СибВО) - 281 (всего:отряд СРС, 2 оСпН, 2 ооСпН, орСпМ, учебная рота)
  • 67th Spetsnaz Brigade (обрСпН) (г.Бердск Новосибирская обл., СибВО) - 691 (Всего 2 отдельных и 3 "линейных" и отряд СРС). Известен также 690 отряд СпН (ППД-Н.Д.).

2-ая ОБрСпН в Чечне (2-ая чеченская) представлена сводным отрядом: одна рота 70-го, одна рота 700-го, одна рота 329-го, а управление, автовзвод, вмо и связь от каждого по очереди. Отряды СпН в Чечне соответствуют "неотдельным". В чечне воевал также отряд из 22-ой обрСпН (бригада стала гвардейской в 2001 году) Во всех бригадах созданы учебные подразделения (это связано с тем, что печерский учебный полк перестал существовать). Отдельный учебный батальон только в 10-ой бригаде, в остальных ШМС (Школа младших специалистов - состоит из двух рот в одной три взвода в другой два и управления).

Остальные отряды скорее всего не развернуты, но на бумаге существуют.

О современной (1-ое десятилетие 21-го века) организации войск СпН (не включая морской СпН)

Взвод тяжелого вооружения (в отдельных ротах этот взвод назвался специального минирования) как отдельная структура только в отдельных ротах. В отряде это рота тяжелого вооружения.

орСпН: • управление роты; • три взвода СпН (группы в ВВ); • взвод СпМ (группа в ВВ); • взвод СРС; • взвод хозяйственного и десантного обеспечения. Всего 115 человек.

На 1993-1995 годы 462-я орСпН 30-го гв АК ЛенВО имела по штату 128 человек (включала до 15 воинов-спортсменов, фактически в части не служивших).

Дополнительмый вариант ОШС орСпН на 2001 год - Штатный состав 120 человек, реально в 2 раза меньше.: • Управление роты: o Ком. Роты, п/п-к. o Зам. по ВДС, майор. o Зам. по инженерной подготовке, майор o Зам. по воспитательной работе, капитан. o Старшина роты, ст. пр-к. o Секретчик, ст. Пр-к o Кодировщик (срочник) o Фельдшер ст.пр-к. • Взвод разведки (*4), включая: o Командиры взводов, капитаны / ст. лейтенанты, o ЗКВ, пр-ки / ст.пр-ки. o Комадиров отделений o снайперов, o гранатометчиков, o пулеметчиков. • Взвод спецрадиосвязи, включая: o Ком. Взвода, ст. Лейтенант / ст.пр-к o радистов РГ, o Ком. радиостанций на машине, ст. пр-ки. o радиотелеграфистов, o водителей автомобилей с радиостанцией, o аккумуляторщика. • Взвод ТХО, включая: o Ком. Взвода, ст. пр-к. o Нач склада ПДИ, ст. пр-к. o Нач склада РАВ, ст.пр-к. o водители, o повара.

РГ из взводов формировались примерно так (относится только к ТСП в мирное время) ком.группы офицер -ком. взвода (в зависимости от поставленной задачи мог быть и пр-к-ЗКВ и сержант из разведчиков), снайпер, гранатометчик, пулеметчик, 1-2 радиста с переносными р/с, аккумуляторами и ПЗУ, 1-2 разведчика дополнительно с АКС-74, по необходимости.

отряд СпН управления бригады: • управление отряда; • три роты СпН; • рота СпМ (тяжелого вооружения). Всего около 180-200 человек.

отдельный отряд СпН: • штаб отряда; • три роты СпН; • рота тяжелого вооружения; • учебная рота; • рота СРС; • взвод обеспечения. Всего около 400 человек.

На базе взвода для выполнения боевой задачи создается группа, штатная численность которой 16 человек - это расклад: командир, замок, старший разведчик, 1-2 радиста, снайпер и т.д.

Свой штат ооСпН был в 3-й гв обрСпн, когда она была в ГСВГ.

Источники

[edit]
  1. . Форум Военная разведка (vrazvedka.ru). Автор: 1071, 00:54:00 01/05/2002:
  2. . Сайт http://www.desantura.ru/
  3. . Сайт (ОШС оСпН): http://desantura.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=6005
  4. . Суконкин Алексей, "Лиса в курятнике. Вдв и Спн."; http://artofwar.ru/s/sukonkin_a_s/text_0500.shtml
  5. . http://www.bratishka.ru/specnaz/gru/history.php
  6. . А. Волков – «Спецназ на тропе войны», http://www.rsva-ural.ru/library/mbook.php?id=386.


Pictures

hi do you mind if i add some spetnaz pics from the ussr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie8282 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was support for move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

Russian special purpose regiments → Spetsnaz — The article was moved to current name without discussion, therefore I propose moving it back to "Spetsnaz", as it is internationally the most widely used designation. — Eurocopter (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support this makes sense 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per WP:UE, we are supposed to use English for article titles. "Spetsnaz" is simply a romanization of the Russian word "спецназ"; it is not listed in any of the English-language dictionaries and is thus not English, failing WP:UE's requirements.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:13, February 26, 2009 (UTC) Changed to support (see below)
    The Spetsnaz term, even if it's a simple romanization of the Russian word, it is used most widely in English. The current term, "Russian special purpose regiments", is a wiki invention and I've never seen it anywhere before. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hundreds, if not thousands, of transliterations of Russian words are "used most widely in English", especially in specialized English texts. This practice does not make these transliterations English words. A transliteration becomes a loanword when it is listed in at least one major English dictionary, such as, for example Oxford English Dictionary. Until that happens, we should be using a reasonable English translation as a title, with the transliterations serving as redirects. If the current translation is, in your view, unreasonable, please propose another one that works better/is seen more often. For example, what term would a newspaper aimed at general audience use if it needs to make a reference to spetsnaz? I very much doubt it would actually be "spetsnaz".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:49, February 26, 2009 (UTC)
It would simply be Russian special forces, which is not suitable for this article, while Spetsnaz is quite common throughout the world when referring to these special forces in a more accurate way (not in basic news articles). --Eurocopter (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A simple search shows Spetsnaz is widely used in non-specialized English language publications often with no explanation/translation. e.g Guardian, Times, Washington Post and Time. It is a June 2003 entry in the OED ("In Russia and the former Soviet Union: a highly trained, elite armed force used in top-security international operations.") with citations dating back to the NY Times, 1982. Tassedethe (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. An idiot that is me mistyped the word when looking it up in OED (yes, I am a native speaker of Russian, thanks for asking). Since it is indeed listed, I am withdrawing my oppose vote and changing it to support. Thanks to Tassedethe for the link.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:45, February 27, 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, as "common name." --Tavrian 01:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with reservations I'm not sure if the term Spetsnaz should be used, but I would expect them to be called Russian special forces in English rather than Russian special purpose regiments; I get about 2000 Google News hits for "Russian special forces", 1000 for Spetsnaz and none for the current title. Either Spetsnaz or Russian special forces would be better than the current title for me. --Rogerb67 (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pronunciation

[edit]

Is it really pronounced [spʲetsnaz] as the article says? I thought the word-final <з> was always pronounced as [s] in Russian (so it would be [spʲetsnas]). Jafeluv (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to Wikipedia:IPA for Russian: "Voiced obstruents (/b/, /bʲ/, /d/, /dʲ/ /ɡ/, /v/, /vʲ/, /z/, /zʲ/, /ʐ/, and /ʑʑ/) are devoiced word-finally unless the next word begins with a voiced obstruent. (Halle, Morris (1959), Sound Pattern of Russian, MIT Press)." Being the bold person I am, I'm changing the article accordingly. Jafeluv (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am Russian and i can tell you that the pronunciation is pretty straightforward - "спецназ" - с = s, п = p, е = like german ä, ц = one sound ts (not two separate "t" and "s" how english speakers pronounce it), н = n, а = a, з = z, so you get "spetsnaz"

reason for computer game reference

[edit]

It's not clear to me why there's a reference to the usage of these troops in a video game at the beginning of the page. In my opinion the part "In the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, they are depicted as an invasion/terrorist group in several missions." should be removed without replacement. (217.255.233.220 (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Clearly, this article's writer has taken sides

[edit]

I just began reading it, and I somehow notice the writer (whoever he/she may be) has oversold that rumor of the 85% failling. Such numbers are astronomical and completely innacurate. For instance, when he (the author) says "Their hand to hand fighting is extremely well implemented as they require special physical requirements to even get into training", he does not specify what type of CQC (or more common, CQB) style do they use nor what physical requirements are required. My opinion? This is someone who loves gaming and has read a few books on the Spetsnaz. I suggest an expert, or perhaps an active Spetsnaz to correct and write about this subject, for it is not quite correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.153.161.24 (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I feel we should delete this biased information until we have a reliable source.Martin (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend to looking at some Spetsnaz documentaries that are sometimes shown in Russia. Just youtube спецназ and you'll probably find something worth translating — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.107.241 (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted, like, half of the article while cleaning it up. --Niemti (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good effort! These subjects are neglected. But I think you removed a little too much with edits like this. If one tells "spetsnaz" in Russian, this usually means by default "GRU spetsnaz" (other similar forces are more secretive and less known), but there is no even separate section "GRU spetsnaz" right now. It should be there with link to GRU spetsnaz sub-article . Probably the best available source about Soviet spetsnaz is the book "Spetsnaz" by Suvorov (available online). It starts from description of spade as their favorite weapon. Indeed, that is what they used in Tbilisi, probably the second most highly publicized engagement after Afganistan. This should be mentioned. My very best wishes (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is, it's Spetsnaz GRU. It's also pretty secretive (its very existance used to be the state top secret). The MVD special forces are an opposite of that, showing off A LOT, with Vityaz (having even a private security company and a private training center) and OMON (clowning a lot in the circus-like public shows, but that's not unlike the VDV) being the worst offenders. As of Tbilisi 1989, it could have been the Spetsnaz GRU, only dressed up as paratroopers, but I think it was never proved. The MVD are not playing with spades, in Moscow the Vityaz just did that. Niemti (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a Wikipedia article on the OSNAZ. It's concentrating on the KGB/FSB and MVD stuff, but actually the first OSNAZ forces were created already during Stalin era (before any SPETSNAZ groups). Such as OMSBON, which contrary to the Wikipedia article didn't really "fight on the frontlines" (but behind the lines, trying to disrupt the German railway supply system, and also beyond own lines, like they were sent with the Dzerzhinsky Division to stop the mass panic and looting in Moscow in 1941). --Niemti (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would go back to Soviet Internal Troops (that was hardly a justifiable edit) and SMERSH. One needs good books as sources to write about this. My very best wishes (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OMSBON was just a special operations unit of the NKVD, but SMERSH was a whole completely separate service. --Niemti (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I do not have time to improve these articles. As a side note, if someone follows you in various articles, but does not do anything contentious (like reverting your edits or making claims about you personally), this is not wikistalking. This is something you should learn to tolerate. I had someone (M.) who followed and occasionally reverted my edits for years. No problem.My very best wishes (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite complete

[edit]

Now it "only" needs references. --Niemti (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Starinov

[edit]

If you're soooo interested about this guy, whoever he was (his totally unreferenced article isn't even very clear - was he GRU? The partisans were controlled rather by the NKVD, also they were partisans and not special forces), go and edit his article. And bring some (any) reliable sources when you're at it. --Niemti (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

exactly. the only proper sources are in russian. that's why it's a translated page. unless you want me to cite russian sourcesLugnuthemvar (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bring whatever you want, cite this title of Grandpa o' Spetsnaz of his to whoever invented it and we'll see how strong it is. Also, besides being a complete gibberish, "RIN.ru" doesn't sound like a reliable source. I just did a check on this guy myself. He was a GRU specialist on sabotage and explosives, was in Spain to advise the Reps in guerrilla / mine warfare, particpated in Stalin's stay-behind sabotage network program and WWII sabotage efforts, ended with the rank of a colonel. OK, he existed. But that's all about it.

But the only book I came upon linking him to "spetsnaz" was a novel. In the sample non-fiction book The Russian Elite: Inside Spetsnaz and the Airborne Forces there's no mention of him at all. Green Berets, SEALs and Spetsnaz: U.S. and Soviet Special Military Operations - nothing. Steven Zaloga's Soviet Bloc Elite Forces - nothing, too. Suvorov's Spetsnaz mentions him but only briefly, on a single page (p.131) when he's talking about the use of IEDs (I'll cite it whole: "A veteran of this business, Colonel Starinov, recalls in his memoirs making a detonator out of one matchbox." By businees he meant the IEDs and not "spetsnaz".).

And no, if you'd try to substitute mine / partisan warfare articles with his mug you're going to be reverted too. --Niemti (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

God, what now again

[edit]

Your illustrations are entirely random, and almost all of them (5/7) are Internal Troops! Which is in a way kind of throwback to the original shitty article that only had army guys plus a crappy photo of Belarusian OMON of all things.

While my is perfect in every way, including due representation (2 VV (one for the red beret thing), 2 army (Soviet and Russian), 2 police (riot and rapid-response), 1 FSB (would add the KGB if there was any), and also 1 Kremlin Regiment (but now identified as such instead of "honor guard")), captioned in not confusing way, and even being visually well composed (just look at the GRU pics, at the the SOBR guy and the priest in the one below him). [2] Also, no random bolding. So revert yourself --Niemti (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What now and why always his name afterwords? Shortdawginc (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using the talk page

[edit]

Rather than POV tugs of war over the content in the actual article, please use this talk page for its purpose: to discuss what is pertinent to the article and what is not. It is the best way to create an informative article through consensus, and well as to constructively discuss perceived problems. Arguing on your own talk pages doesn't assist in informing editors other than the ones currently making dramatic changes to understand what issues are being disputed or why. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

speaking of POV thugs. aren't you the one pushing CONSENSUS CONSENSUS on controversial topics. the manner in which he edited the 2 very carefully selected missions violates the NPOV. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 09:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does it violate WP:NPOV? These are internationally known and well documented incidents. NPOV is not WP:GEVAL. Neutrality is not based on your arguments of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also, please watch your tone. Keep calm and read what is written. You've just managed to take this from my asking editors not to engage in tugs of war to calling me a POV thug.
I see the manner it was edited as a POV issue through WP:RSUW. His views are definitely not neutral. He selected 2 off the most infamous(not most well known) missions out of a multitude of missions and edited in a way that it paints the Russians and spetznas a vicious and incompetent. I'm not even Russian and i realize that the editor, being Ukrainian, has a secondary agenda and that is to paint Russians in a negative light. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know the editor is Ukrainian? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Training?

[edit]

Can we get any information on here about training and selection? Most other articles of a similar information. Is such info available? Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Spetsnaz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Spetsnaz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Spetsnaz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal

[edit]

The section Spetsnaz#Russian Spetsnaz is disproportionately long and detailed, and should be split off into a separate main article Russian Spetsnaz Russian spetsnaz, leaving behind a summary comparable to the other national sections. Hopefully anticipating the addition of sections about other relevant countries. —Michael Z. 16:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

doesn't the article Spetsnaz GRU already cover this? VideōEtCorrigō (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That article only covers part of it. Special-forces units of the FSB, SVR, Russian National Guard, and justice ministry are separate, I believe. —Michael Z. 22:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Z. What do you think of these links as suitable for a Russian Spetsnaz article? [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Dwanyewest (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Russian Spetsnaz is redundant. It's like saying American CIA, American FBI, or Russian FSB. 98.96.16.162 (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense.
  1. CIA, FBI, and FSB are proper names of agencies. Spetsnaz, “specially designated forces,” is a synonym for special forces or special operations forces. It’s a type of force, like light infantry or artillery.
  2. This article has sections on Soviet, Belarusian, Kazakh, Russian, and Ukrainian spetsnaz, and is still incomplete. Most of them are categorically spetsnaz that is not Russian spetsnaz.
 —Michael Z. 17:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Updated capitalization in the proposal because in this title spetsnaz is used generically, meaning “special forces,” and not as a proper name. —Michael Z. 15:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Antiseptic Needs

[edit]

One snake shot me in legs few days ago and today i think i feel some difference on body... 93.86.237.195 (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spetsnaz&oldid=1220434065"