Strategic and tactical realities in CMBS

[Battlefront.com]

You live in a country whose state sponsored media says that the CIA was behind the Paris terrorist attacks. Your leaders and your media lied about the invasion of Crimea by Russian forces. So it doe

There is none.

Yeah we have some fotos of 20 years old gear in hands of militants and some upgraided tanks but thats it. Yeah russia give it to the militants just like NATO did it with FSA or Libian rebels.

But there is no clear evedince of regular troops fighting there.

I see no point in trying to debate you since you have absolutely no interest in doing so. You believe the information on your state media, not reality. You probably also believe that the CIA is behind the Paris terrorist attack because you saw it on Life News.

But for the fun of it, what do you make of this "20 year old gear"?

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Steve, I would not count such operations as invasion, no. Otherwise I would have to classify:

- Lybia.

- First Chechen war.

And a number of other conflicts as invasions.

So if an American force, directed and equipped by the American government, started killing Russians on Russian soil you would not view that as an invasion? I find that extremely odd. Would you at least classify it as an act of state sponsored terrorism?

Libya was a civil war with open admission of support for one side by US and European countries. That is no different than many other conflicts.

1st Chechen War was an invasion by the definition of the Chechens. But it is more accurately described as a civil war because the territory was under the legal control of the Russian Federation. Therefore, Russian forces had an inherent legal right to fight in Chechnya.

the 2nd Chechen War is a little less clear since by many definitions Chechnya had gained independence from Russia. But since hardly anybody recognized this separation from Russia, it could still be considered an internal Russian conflict (that is my view).

Steve

[Kieme(ITA)]

Hey is this thread "ukraine military vs russia" n2 the vengeance?

[Battlefront.com]

Hey is this thread "ukraine military vs russia" n2 the vengeance?

It appears to be headed that way It is very, very difficult to have a discussion that doesn't go in that direction because basic facts are in disagreement. Reference to future tends to get dragged into the present and then the fun begins.

Steve

[ikalugin]

If such troops were participating in a Russian Civil war, I would classify it as (foreighn) intervention, on the lines of the one that happened in early 20th century.

2nd Chechen war was justified because Chechen State has attacked Dagestan, which was a part of Russian Federation. This it was not an internal conflict, but an external one.

Important note - I classify current events in Ukraine as a civil war which stemned from Soviet dissolution and Russian actions within it as intervention. The problem here is that we appear to have opposite views on this matter, hence I think that it should not really be discussed, at least in this thread, as the matter is both political in nature and potentially inflammatory.

Edited January 16, 2015 by ikalugin

[antaress73]

I second that .. Gets tiresome for everybody and counterproductive. Steve, once the game is released, we'll be too busy to wander around here *hint*

Edited January 16, 2015 by antaress73

[Battlefront.com]

If such troops were participating in a Russian Civil war, I would classify it as (foreighn) intervention, on the lines of the one that happened in early 20th century.

No, I mean if they just showed up on busses one day and then started taking over local Russian police stations along with criminal underground and forces that have been in the pay of the CIA for many years. Wouldn't that be an invasion in fact, though not through traditional means?

 

2nd Chechen war was justified because Chechen State has attacked Dagestan, which was a part of Russian Federation. This it was not an internal conflict, but an external one.

Again, it depends on how you view the Chechen state. The world generally did not recognize it (Taliban did!) as an independent state, therefore in legal terms it was still a Russian territory. Disputed? Certainly, but not legally separate from Russia. Certainly Russia did not view it as a fully independent state.

 

Important note - I classify current events in Ukraine as a civil war which stemned from Soviet dissolution and Russian actions within it as intervention. The problem here is that we appear to have opposite views on this matter, hence I think that it should not really be discussed, at least in this thread, as the matter is both political in nature and potentially inflammatory.

Yes, we have very different views. The CMBS backstory includes Russia organizing and commanding "uprisings" in the east and south. So when we started seeing Russians with histories of being active in all of Russia's other "dirty wars" it was confirmation that this was indeed happening. For someone looking for the signs of a Russian directed "insurgency" all of the evidence was there right from the start. Including some of the same guys that appeared in Crimea before the Green Men showed up.

Now, would there have been some degree of armed resistance to the change in power in Kiev without Russian support? Maybe in Crimea, yes. But we will never know because Russia invaded Crimea within a few days of Yanucovych fleeing to Russia.

Unfortunately, it is (as I said above) difficult to have a discussion without this sort of conflict of views. Each side presents their own views as fact, the other side feels obligated to challenge it.

Steve

[ikalugin]

Yes, we have very different views. The CMBS backstory includes Russia organizing and commanding "uprisings" in the east and south. So when we started seeing Russians with histories of being active in all of Russia's other "dirty wars" it was confirmation that this was indeed happening. For someone looking for the signs of a Russian directed "insurgency" all of the evidence was there right from the start. Including some of the same guys that appeared in Crimea before the Green Men showed up.

 

This actually shows that you had a pre conceived view of how events were unfolding, which (possibly) affected your views on the matter. I, for example, was expecting a civil war in Ukraine more or less ever since the first Maidan, which in turn has affected my views on the matter, as the evidence that I have perceived also managed to fit the picture. And no, I don't watch state media at all (though I know people who run it).

 

If I may be so direct, to (hopefully) end or atleast limit the further derailment into political/historical side of things. We (as in mine, those of the people who share my views, bilateral relations to the administration of this forum and a number of other forum members) could go around this problem in the following ways:

- you could ignore our input or even prosecute us (ie ban) for expressing our views (for example on the grounds of us supporting terrorism of whatever). I doupt this would happen, as this forum appears to be civil and administration to have high standards.

- we could keep our subjective views, based on our preconceptions and the materials that we have accessed over the time. While discussion is possible, due to the rather extensive differences it would be difficult to contain and keep civil, especially to a number of less patient forum members. Note that the views that are not backed up by proper, academic research (which has to be neutral and reviewed) are ultimately subjective in nature, and your appeals to authority (of yourself) do not help our discussions I think.

- we could try to focus on objective side of things and constructively discuss such matters as the military-strategic balance in various given scenarios, something that I am working on at this moment. As I am not aware of any such efforts being done previously within this community, atleast not on the proper semi academic level.

 

p.s. possibly, should you wish to discuss politico-historic stuff there should be a thread or subforum for such matters, otherwise it is quite possible to do that in private. Please message if you wish to continue in that direction, I would try to avoid such discussions further more, unless specifically asked on those matters.

Edited January 16, 2015 by ikalugin

[Battlefront.com]

That being said, I would like to get back to examining the Russian and Ukrainian Armies.

When determining how many Russian Army forces could be employed against Ukraine, one has to consider that Russia does not have the ability to empty the barracks of the entire country to fight in Ukraine. So how many forces could Russia afford to pull away from other duties and employ in Ukraine out of the total force?

I would guess, at a minimum, Russia would not be able to draw upon:

10k opposite the Baltics

10k "peace keepers"

30k along the Asian borders

30k in Caucuses

=====

60k total

That leaves about 225,000 total forces, of which only a portion are in combat units. What percentage of the Russian Army is engaged in role such as staffing bases, higher command, schools, etc? I know that it used to be huge, but that reforms greatly reduced the numbers. Still, it must be fairly large. 20%? That would be around 60,000 then. This leaves a force of about 175,000 theoretically available for invading Ukraine.

What is the rough ratio of logistics to combat forces within a combat unit these day? What percentage of this force would be contract and what conscript?

OK, so a force of roughly 175,000 is available to attack Ukraine. So what would be in its way?

Ukraine on paper has 20 regular brigades, about 20 National Guard battalions, and the potential for pure volunteer battalions. Fully staffed the regular brigades would be roughly 150,000 for the brigades and another 100,000 or so for other duties (including support, airforce, etc.). The 20 National Guard battalions, if all up to strength, would be another 10,000 or so with almost no logistics. The volunteer units could be anything.

So it looks like on paper Russia's 175,000 would be going up against roughly 160,000.

Anybody want to give these numbers another go?

Steve

[ikalugin]

I think that this approach is faulty and that basing the calculations on the actual OOBs (ie counting the real life units that would either be send to Ukraine theatre or stay else where) is a far superior approach. This is what I am currently doing. When I have a semi finished version I would post it here (and elsewhere if so requested).

 

This would allow us to have not only the manpower numbers, but also the equipment tables, the unit histories (ie how often they go onto the exercises of various kinds) and other pieces of valuable information, which would later be used to write up the scenarios. The very general outline of the envisioned invasion force by me would be:

- 4 CAAs, 1 from the Western MD (Moscow grouping), 2 from the Southern MD (without their BDs deployed abroad), 1 from the Central MD (strategic reserves).

- all of the VDV units.

- Black Sea Fleet and it's organic units.

- Specnas units from the Western, Southern and Central MDs.

- Air Force groupings from the Southern and Central MDs, partially from Western MD.

 

In the full version this would be broken down to the brigade level, with OOBs for those, equipment tables for the brigades and and above, support units, manpower figures, possibly munition and fuel expenditures - you name it.

Edited January 16, 2015 by ikalugin

[Battlefront.com]

This actually shows that you had a pre conceived view of how events were unfolding, which (possibly) affected your views on the matter.

Possibly. But keep in mind I had a pre-conceived view that Russia would invade Crimea the second it was clear pro-Russian support in Kiev was at an end. I certainly wasn't wrong about that, was I? The rest of what happened was expected because Russia has done this before and the Soviet Union did it before Russia. So yes, I was expecting to see certain things because the pattern of behavior had already long been established. I can't help it if I wasn't wrong to think this way

 

The short story, to (hopefully) end or atleast limit the further derailment into political/historical side of things. We (as in mine, those of the people who share my views, bilateral relations to the administration of this forum and a number of other forum members) could go around this problem in the following ways:

- you could ignore our input or even prosecute us (ie ban) for expressing our views (for example on the grounds of us supporting terrorism of whatever). I doupt this would happen, as this forum appears to be civil and administration to have high standards.

- we could keep our subjective views, based on our preconceptions and the materials that we have accessed over the time. While discussion is possible, due to the rather extensive differences it would be difficult to contain and keep civil, especially to a number of less patient forum members. Note that the views that are not backed up by proper, academic research (which has to be neutral and reviewed) are ultimately subjective in nature, and your appeals to authority (of yourself) do not help our discussions I think.

- we could try to focus on objective side of things and constructively discuss such matters as the military-strategic balance in various given scenarios, something that I am working on at this moment. As I am not aware of any such efforts being done previously within this community, atleast not on the proper semi academic level.

I would prefer the last suggestion. But I think the old timers here do know that I do rise to challenges when I feel it is necessary.

 

p.s. possibly, should you wish to discuss politico-historic stuff there should be a thread or subforum for such matters, otherwise it is quite possible to do that in private. Please message if you wish to continue in that direction, I would try to avoid such discussions further more, unless specifically asked on those matters.

This is unworkable. The reason we keep getting off track here would remain. Trying to separate the discussion simply isn't possible.

Steve

[Weer]

You live in a country whose state sponsored media says that the CIA was behind the Paris terrorist attacks

 

What a shame, Steve. US porpaganda mashine said that?

Your leaders and your media lied about the invasion of Crimea by Russian forces

But evryone in russia know what there is actualy our troops there. Now - we dont.

not reality

 

Who give you the right to call some thing "reality" and other "propaganda"?

You probably also believe that the CIA is behind the Paris terrorist attack because you saw it on Life News

 

I didnt watch LF and i dont know anyone of my friends doing so.

Our state controlled media never said what that was CIA operation. That the IS do that but IS creation is the US fault.

But for the fun of it, what do you make of this "20 year old gear"?

 

For example counter-battary gear or UR-77 seen in use by militants.

So if an American force, directed and equipped by the American government, started killing Russians on Russian soil you would not view that as an invasion?

 

If they will wear US unform and recive official orders - that the war. If not - that the terrorism.

Learn law of war.

Libya was a civil war with open admission of support for one side by US and European countries

DNR and LNR asked for help from Russia.

[Krasnoarmeyets]

No, I mean if they just showed up on busses one day and then started taking over local Russian police stations along with criminal underground and forces that have been in the pay of the CIA for many years. Wouldn't that be an invasion in fact, though not through traditional means?

 

If there was a part of Russia that was historically largely inhabited by Americans and pro-American Russians (lets call it, say, Newamerica, for simplicity sake ), and an armed uprising has toppled the Russian government, replacing it with a regime that people of Newamerica felt was unfair and dangerous for them, which led them to protest against it and demand broader regional autonomy, which led to said new regime threatening and intimidating them with nationalist forces and hired thugs, which led to Newamericans and their friends, relatives and sympathisers from American mainland organising into militia squads and arming themselves by capturing local police and SBU FSB stations (actions that were perpetrated with impunity just several weeks ago by their opponents in Lvov and Kiev Saint-Petersburg and Moscow), which resulted in them being pummeled by the new Russian regime's artillery, tanks and airstrikes - then yes, American help with weapons, supplies and advisers would not be an invasion, but aiding in defense of their own people.

 

Sorry for bringing up political questions, but could not just stay quiet.

[Battlefront.com]

I think that this approach is faulty and that basing the calculations on the actual OOBs (ie counting the real life units that would either be send to Ukraine theatre or stay else where) is a far superior approach. This is what I am currently doing. When I have a semi finished version I would post it here (and elsewhere if so requested).

Excellent. Yes, it is definitely a superior way to go about making the calculations. Unfortunately it takes longer

My numbers can be considered "back of the envelope calculations". I do not know how close they will be to your numbers. It will be interesting to see, don't you think?

Preliminarily what I see confirms my earlier assumptions. And that is Russia can not afford to field a force that is overwhelmingly larger than what the Ukrainians can field.

Steve

[ikalugin]

Possibly. But keep in mind I had a pre-conceived view that Russia would invade Crimea the second it was clear pro-Russian support in Kiev was at an end. I certainly wasn't wrong about that, was I? The rest of what happened was expected because Russia has done this before and the Soviet Union did it before Russia. So yes, I was expecting to see certain things because the pattern of behavior had already long been established. I can't help it if I wasn't wrong to think this way

 

Is that a challenge for political discussion?

[ikalugin]

Preliminarily what I see confirms my earlier assumptions. And that is Russia can not afford to field a force that is overwhelmingly larger than what the Ukrainians can field.

Steve

 

16 up to strength BDs (from 4 CAAs) would be ~80k strong force alone. Factor in the VDV, the special forces, the Black Sea Fleet, the support forces (various), the separatist forces (in fully mechanised corps structure, I discount the units that stayed in their militia form as of low combat capability - mainly used for economy of force type operations and rear security) and you would have a numerical superiority against the CTO Forces + non CTO participating VSU Forces.

Edited January 16, 2015 by ikalugin

[Weer]

Is that a challenge for political discussion?

 

I can stop but only if Steve will stop call other points of view "Putin's propaganda".

Edited January 16, 2015 by Weer

[Battlefront.com]

What a shame, Steve. US porpaganda mashine said that?

Not unless Google translator is run by the US government and mistranslated a Life News report that I found on Life News' website.

But evryone in russia know what there is actualy our troops there. Now - we dont.

I don't understand this comment.

Who give you the right to call some thing "reality" and other "propaganda"?

Nobody. And nobody gives you this right either.

I didnt watch LF and i dont know anyone of my friends doing so.

Then you should complain to Putin because a lot of your money is spent on Life News.

Our state controlled media never said what that was CIA operation. That the IS do that but IS creation is the US fault.

A distorted view of reality, which is rooted in the distortion of what is going on in Syria. Russian controlled media may not be reliably accurate, but it is reliably consistent.

For example counter-battary gear or UR-77 seen in use by militants.

Like this?

https://twitter.com/tombreadley/status/555804546841468928

They also had an IS-3 and a T-34, but also BTR-82 and T-72s.

If they will wear US unform and recive official orders - that the war. If not - that the terrorism.

Glad to hear you say this. So when the Green Men appeared you were saying "hey, we have illegally invaded Ukraine"?

And to be clear, you are saying if there is a Russian soldier in Ukraine is either waging an illegal war of aggression or is a terrorist? I just want to be clear about this.

Learn law of war.

I know the law quite well, thank you very much.

DNR and LNR asked for help from Russia.

And Russia still says it isn't helping. Now why is that?

Fact is that the DPR and LPR were created by Russians and was led by Russians. So yes, it is natural that Russians taking over Ukrainian territory would ask Russia for help when Ukraine tried to kick them out. It doesn't make it legal.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Is that a challenge for political discussion?

No, just offering a counter to your suggestion that I saw what I wanted to see instead of what was actually there.

Steve

[ikalugin]

I think is that you have wrong basic assumptions. Which appear to be:
- that Russian Troops pool is limited to the contract holding troops.

- that the Ukrainian units (especially National Guard battalions and Territorial Forces battalions) have fixed, homogeneous OOBs which could be used in top end calculations.

 

What I am currently trying (and it is not an easy task) is to work through the available data to determine if (for example) the specific battalion is of platoon or regiment strength and its type (infantry, mechanized), as well as to determine the equipment tables for the Ukrainians (by looking through pre conflict inventory/losses/gains).

 

Ukrainians are a horrible, horrible mess and working through their stuff (with referencing the numbers I get) is hell work. 

Edited January 16, 2015 by ikalugin

[Battlefront.com]

I can stop but only if Steve will stop call other points of view "Putin's propaganda".

Hmmm... where did I say that? As far as I can tell I have challenged your points of view with what I believe is more accurate information. I am sorry if you find that disagreeable.

Steve

[Codename Duchess]

I agree that the USN would not operate in the Black Sea primarily for the reason that it doesn't have to. The Navy is designed to do three things... project power without the need of land bases, interdict the enemy from doing the same, and nuclear strike capability. As Ikalugin correctly stated, the US/NATO air forces would have plenty of land bases to launch attacks from. Plus, Ukraine would offer its territory to base US/NATO aircraft in the event of such a conflict. There is no reason I can think of why the US would want to park a fleet in a bathtub. There's nothing to be gained from it.

Steve

I agree whole heartedly, the construction of my CMAN:O ceremony is mainly an excuse to introduce an amphibious front, as a bunch of gators in the pond is the only reason for the USN to enter. And I figured down the road we're probably going to get those Marine units, so they have to come from somewhere

I'm also totally biased as a USN member, but thanks to the orbat I was given this should be a proper fight.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Codename Duchess

[Battlefront.com]

I think the key mistake that you make is that you have wrong basic assumptions. Which appear to be:

- that Russian Troops pool is limited to the contract holding troops.

Of course Russia could order an increase in the force size. I am presuming that for political and economic reasons it could not do that prior to an attack. Likewise, I am presuming that Ukraine is not going to increase its force significantly above it's current expansion.

 

- that the Ukrainian units (especially National Guard battalions and Territorial Forces battalions) have fixed, homogeneous OOBs which could be used in top end calculations.

Quite the contrary, I know they do not. Donbas Battalion is about 1000 strong, some of the others are a few hundred. The size of a Mech Brigade is not the same as a Tank Brigade. Like I said, I was just doing quick calculations.

 

What I am currently trying (and it is not an easy task) is to work through the available data to determine if (for example) the specific battalion is of platoon or regiment strength and its type (infantry, mechanized), as well as to determine the equipment tables for the Ukrainians (by looking through pre conflict inventory/losses/gains).

Yup, I understand you perfectly. Your approach is superior. But as you say, it is not easy to do and will be extra ordinarily imperfect for the Ukrainians in particular. The information needed is hard to get even for well documented wars of the past, but for this conflict now? It's impossible to be accurate. Still, an attempt to be more specific will result in better estimates than what I just did.

I will still be quite surprised if your numbers indicate Russia can field a force greater than 1.5:1 or 2:1 against Ukraine.

Steve

[ikalugin]

Well does Russia need a numerical superiority better than that, considering the better quality of the units and huge advantage in terms of force multipliers, if it has limited political objectives?

 

Note, my scenario is not in 2017 (which is far away and quite honestly I can't say with certainty if the conflict would be ongoing at that point), but rather occurs during the spring-summer campaign of 2015 (probably closer to summer due to the obvious need to publish the final scenario before the time line comes up). It also does not include any direct and extensive military intervention by NATO, atleast not in the mobile phase.

Edited January 16, 2015 by ikalugin

[Weer]

I don't understand this comment.

 

My bad, sorry.

When Crimean events were happening everyone knows what there were russian troops in center of them. Even in Russia.

 Like this?

 

Title says what there is OSCE dudes were close. If they said what thats okay - thats okay.

but also BTR-82 and T-72s

 

Well not all of the gear is 20 years old, but still you have no evidence what they manned by russian regulars.

So when the Green Men appeared you were saying "hey, we have illegally invaded Ukraine"?

 

 

Russia used its right to keep about 60K (i dont remember the correct number) in Crimea.

if there is a Russian soldier in Ukraine is either waging an illegal war of aggression or is a terrorist?

 

Only IF there is regulars.

If they dont recive orders from MoD they are terrorists. If they do - Ukraine must declare a war to Russia.

But only if there are regulars.

Now why is that?

Who knows?

Fact is that the DPR and LPR were created by Russians and was led by Russians

 

Still no evedences.

And yes they are russians, Ethnic russains.