Jump to content
H1nd

Strategic and tactical realities in CMBS

Recommended Posts

Crimea (at this moment anyway) is seen as Russian mainland/home soil by Russia. This was made abundantly clear by Putin on a number of occasions (such as the Address to the Federal Council in Q4 2014). To that end (as we did in 2008) we have found some legal justification (ie that transfer of Crimea to Ukraine was not legitimate in the first place).

Thus going in full force into Crimea is a bad, bad idea, unless you are looking into a total war scenario.

I would post the 2017 Crimean forces a bit later, however I would add that in the scenarios that I envision Crimea plays as one of the primary jump off points for rapid invasion of Ukraine (to isolate the CTO Forces in consort with a north-south push, to secure Odessa area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For gameplay and future module reasons, we'll hand waive a full blown nuclear response (CMAN:O CAN handle that, but I can't). My scenario will task the Blue forces with attempting to (at least temporarily) negate Russian Naval defenses in the Black Sea for a Marine group to follow on and invade somewhere in South Ukraine/Crimea. (Yes these amphibs would negate the Montreux convention combined with the SAG, so why not use a CSG instead. My response is: reasons.)

In an effort to not clutter this thread too much, perhaps PM me the specifics of the orbat. I have located just a single Brigade of K-300 launchers near Anapa, plus a squadron of SU-24s in Crimea.

Edited by Codename Duchess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So please, I am begging here, let us not once again start down the road of denying that this is an invasion already, not a civil war. If you disagree, kindly do not post that you do. It insults both my intelligence and yours.

 

I'm not saying that Russia is not supporting them fully. It does and it is not surprising. I'm just saying that not everything you see in Donbass is russian volunteers and "gifts" from Russia.,. probably a mix of the two. If they were only home-grown volunteers militias, they couldnt have had such a force in the space of 6 months. I'm not insulting anyone's intelligence here at all. My respect for you as a game developer is immense. Just that sometimes the sources are very biased and psychological and media warfare plays a big part. If you read Ukrainian and western sources, Russia has sent three armored corps into Ukraine and failed to take Kiev because they were stopped by the heroic Ukrainian army. If you read pro-russian/novorussian sources, it's an all local volunteer force using Ukrainian equipment captured in combat. The truth is somewhere between the two. The novorussian sources even have a name for the Russian flow of aid and weapons, sorry I cannot remember. SO they dont deny it. Russia has even played with the amount of military aid to keep them in line and the condition for its increase was to change the leadership of the two runaway republics to a more docile one. So Strelkov was out. With that, subject closed. 

Edited by antaress73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that Russia is not supporting them fully. It does and it is not surprising. I'm just saying that not everything you see in Donbass is russian volunteers and "gifts" from Russia.,. probably a mix of the two.

Of course anything captured would be put to use. Ukraine is the same way. Don't you think this "Cyborg" is going use the Russian KSVK (6C8) 12.7mm sniper rifle he captured a few days ago, or do you think he's going to send it back to Russia?

dap20150114.jpg?itok=nY43iU92

What does this matter when it comes to the important things? Like:

1. Any lethal aid support of the separatists exposes the Kremlin leadership as outright liars.

2. There is no way, no how, that the militias could wage a war on this scale without massive Russian support. Not just weaponry but ammo and fuel.

Captured Ukrainian military arms and equipment has always, and I mean since day one, been a small minority of the weapons involved. And every day since it's become even less.

The only reason to quibble over details is if the details matter. Saying something like "not all the tanks the separatists have came from Russia" is no doubt true, but what does it matter when the corollary "not all the tanks the separatists have came from Ukraine" is also true? The only thing that matters is that Russia has effectively invaded Ukraine (besides Crimea).

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The technicalities do matter, thus I would classify the current situation as supporting a proxy war against Ukraine (by using separatists), rather than an invasion of Ukraine. While you may say that there is no difference, I would argue to the contrary, as this for example leads to important geopolitical consequences. Russian leadership understands this, and this is why there are ongoing efforts to create viable separatist Armed Forces, both from the veterans of local militias and new local volunteers, with expensive support.

 

This support includes:

- technical specialists/instructors. Technically they are their under their own free will, but their ability to go there is not restricted (ie they have a quiet approval of their activities).

- advisors to the local commanders at above battalion level.

- equipment and weapons.

- supplies (various, not only combat related).

 

Not only is there a process to create aforementioned Armed Forces (via creation of brigades-corps, with unified command, competent advisors, conducting training exercises with organic arms at various levels and so on), but to improve the local defense related industry (improving operation of AFV repair plants, creating some minor key defence production lines, ect) and to fund it via local money (by selling the local coal to Ukraine for example).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve,

 

What are your thoughts about the video series of the Somali battalion fighting at the Donetsk airport? 

 

 

Their commander is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Tolstykh

 

Kazzura has texted a number of videos covering months of the battle. 

 

Dont just watch the video above, there is alot of other stuff on the channel.

 

Judging from the content it seems that the rebels are actually in control of the airport

Edited by Schmoly War

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when states (any !) dont lie ? Lying through your teeth is part of diplomacy since times immemorial. You are an historian, you should know that. You can't have your ahem.. Yellow cake and eat it too. Russia is behaving according to its own interpretation of its interests like every state do. International law is followed as long as vital interests of powerful nations are not in jeopardy. When it does, its a pile of horse manure and will remain so as long as double standards are applied. I dont necessarily agree with the behavior of any world power but I can understand their thinking.

Edited by antaress73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to get back to talking about the Russian Army's state of readiness for a large scale war. I'm finding it difficult to get current numbers to use for analysis. Here's what I have so far...

Armed Forces:

1,000,000 = target strength for entire armed force

840,000 = about what the actual strength is

300,000 = contract personnel

Army:

285,000 = total force size

35,000 = VDV personnel

17,000 = deployed to "near abroad" (Transnistria, South Ossetia, etc.)

The questions I have are how many of the contract soldiers are in the Army? One source I read stated that percentage was lower than in the other branches. If it was proportional they would have about 100,000 contract soldiers.

Earlier I used a rough figure of 50k is what Russia has ready to fight that would be roughly equivalent to standing US/NATO forces. This force is made up of mostly contract soldiers (I saw one report it's about 80% contract) and has the best equipment. This means the rest of the Russian Army has about 1 contract soldier for every 3 conscripts. But of course this is based on my numbers and I do not know if they are correct.

How are the rest of the contract personnel spread out amongst the non VDV/Spetsnaz type forces? My understanding was the units stationed in the Caucuses were favored with more contract soldiers than other units. If true, by how much? Any quick and easy figure for how many are stationed in the Caucuses in total?

Thanks!

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would recheck this, but I think that we count professional officers separately. Thus those numbers you have would be changed somewhat.

I (and BTR probably) would look into this, and probably provide specific OOBs/numbers soon (I would do this eventually anyway as part of the current scenario work).

Edited by ikalugin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you think this "Cyborg" is going use the Russian KSVK (6C8) 12.7mm sniper rifle he captured a few days ago, or do you think he's going to send it back to Russia?

 

 

That rifle were captured from the Cyborgs in the last airport fight. And it belived what Polish PMC are used them.

 

http://cs623324.vk.me/v623324269/2d14/qqYxiivbGbs.jpg

 

That foto have been made a month ago.

Edited by Weer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The technicalities do matter,

Not in terms of weapons. The force in DPR/LPR could be 0% Russian weapons and 100% control by Kremlin, or 100% Russian weapons and 0% control by Kremlin. Therefore, the quantity of Russian weapons is not relevant to much of anything.

thus I would classify the current situation as supporting a proxy war against Ukraine (by using separatists), rather than an invasion of Ukraine.

There are Russian Army forces in operation within Ukraine. The August counter offensive was largely composed of Russian Army forces in the key areas. Certainly command and control was based in Moscow, not Donetsk and Luhansk. Russia's deliberate attempt to blur the line between outright invasion and proxy war means nothing to me in geopolitical terms.

The test I use is if the fighting would be going on at all if it were not for Russia. I think the answer is a solid no. Therefore, Russia is not lending aid to something that would be happening anyway, but is in fact creating the events. Which is not a surprise to me because Russia has done this before and it is why the CMBS backstory accurately predicted these events years in advance.

This support includes:

- technical specialists/instructors. Technically they are their under their own free will, but their ability to go there is not restricted (ie they have a quiet approval of their activities).

- advisors to the local commanders at above battalion level.

- equipment and weapons.

- supplies (various, not only combat related).

Agreed, but also add "volunteers" and "vacationers". Russian soldiers have been offered financial incentives to fight in Ukraine. That shows the level of involvement of the Russian government.

Besides that, Russia has overtly and covertly supported the raising of tens of thousands of Russian citizens to fight in Ukraine. Recruiting stations exist on Russian soil with 100% knowledge of the Russian government. There are Russian leaders, including Kadyrov, who openly brag about fueling the fighting there.

Put another way, what do you call a nation that sends into another country military personnel, citizens, weapons, ammunition, and other things necessary to fight a war? I call that an invasion in fact.

 

Not only is there a process to create aforementioned Armed Forces (via creation of brigades-corps, with unified command, competent advisors, conducting training exercises with organic arms at various levels and so on), but to improve the local defense related industry (improving operation of AFV repair plants, creating some minor key defence production lines, ect) and to fund it via local money (by selling the local coal to Ukraine for example).

Yes, this is what Russia has done in other places and is doing again in Donbas. It is still not a local based movement, but an extension of Russian foreign policy explicitly for the benefit of Russia.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve,

 

What are your thoughts about the video series of the Somali battalion fighting at the Donetsk airport?

I have not heard of a Somali "battalion" fighting. It would be extremely surprised to learn that there is. Individual Somalis? Sure, there are individuals from probably two dozen countries fighting in small numbers on the DPR/LPR side of things.

 

Judging from the content it seems that the rebels are actually in control of the airport

Last I heard they managed to take control of the 1st and 3rd floors of the New Terminal, but were beaten back with heavy losses. As of this morning Ukraine is said to be back in control of 100% of the New Terminal. This has happened before, in fact, so it doesn't surprise me. The separatists have claimed control of the airport a few times since the first disastrous attack.

 

 

Since when states (any !) dont lie ? Lying through your teeth is part of diplomacy since times immemorial. You are an historian, you should know that. You can't have your ahem.. Yellow cake and eat it too. Russia is behaving according to its own interpretation of its interests like every state do. International law is followed as long as vital interests of powerful nations are not in jeopardy. When it does, its a pile of horse manure and will remain so as long as double standards are applied. I dont necessarily agree with the behavior of any world power but I can understand their thinking.

What is your point? Mine is that Russia is saying that it isn't involved in warfare in Ukraine, it is and the balance of weapons doesn't have anything to do with it. The fact that all nations lie when the see fit has no bearing on these facts.

 

I would recheck this, but I think that we count professional officers separately. Thus those numbers you have would be changed somewhat.

I (and BTR probably) would look into this, and probably provide specific OOBs/numbers soon (I would do this eventually anyway as part of the current scenario work).

Thanks very much! The report I read that stated the Army had received a lower proportion of contract personnel made sense to me. If it were your decision, would you rather have a contract rifleman or a contract aircraft mechanic? :D As a citizen of this world, I much prefer that the guys handling nuclear weapons are also professional soldiers!

 

That rifle were captured from the Cyborgs in the last airport fight. And it belived what Polish PMC are used them.

What is "Polish PMC"?

Anyway, my point is that of course soldiers use captured weapons when there is benefit. It has no bearing on much of anything except a point of curiosity. And that is this is a weapon that is only in use with Russia and not Ukraine, therefore it can only be in Ukraine if it came from Russia.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Don't you think this "Cyborg" is going use the Russian KSVK (6C8) 12.7mm sniper rifle he captured a few days ago, or do you think he's going to send it back to Russia?

 

On livejournal.com? This ASVK was captured in august.

Edited by Bydax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is "Polish PMC"?

Mercs from Poland. Militants says much about them during the whole airoport events.

And that is this is a weapon that is only in use with Russia and not Ukraine, therefore it can only be in Ukraine if it came from Russia.

Second foto is the Ukrainian solder.

I belive UA have some of them for theyr SF units.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well then we have to agree to disagree on our evaluation of the geopolitical consequences.

About the separatists - the point that you miss is that currently the bulk of troops (the new brigades/corps) comes from local population, not foreign volonteers/specialists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In glorious "raid" on livejournal.com?

This ASVK was captured in august.

Argh. This is why I usually don't post pictures. My bad on this one.

Still, it does not invalidate the point of me posting this picture in the first place. Whether the weapon was captured in August or yesterday makes no difference to that specific point. If I was making a point that was based on the Airport battle, then that would be different :D

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fun thing what there is no evedence of this raid.

sarcasm.jpg

 

 "Northern Wind"

AFAIK 4 Battalion Tactical Groups.

Edited by Bydax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mercs from Poland. Militants says much about them during the whole airoport events.

Oh good LORD! Are the separatists STILL going on and on and on about "Polish snipers"? I thought they stopped bothering. Well, I guess they feel that if a lie is repeated enough times then it becomes fact.

BTW, I have a similar dim view of Ukrainian reports that constantly mention fighting with Russian Spetsnaz. The difference is that there is plenty of evidence that Russian Spetsnaz are in Ukraine, but to date I have seen zero evidence that there are Polish mercenaries fighting for Ukraine.

 

Second foto is the Ukrainian solder.

I belive UA have some of them for theyr SF units.

 

The sources I consulted says that Russia never exported these to Ukraine or anybody else other than Vietnam. If you have evidence to the contrary, that's fine, but it isn't really important to this discussion is it?

 

Well then we have to agree to disagree on our evaluation of the geopolitical consequences.

Can you at least answer my question? Let me rephrase... if a bunch of Americans showed up on Russian soil, armed by the US government, supplied by the US government, and directed by the US government... would you call this a proxy war or an invasion?

 

About the separatists - the point that you miss is that currently the bulk of troops (the new brigades/corps) comes from local population, not foreign volonteers/specialists.

Last I saw it was estimated to be about 50/50 locals/foreigners (mostly Russians). If you have evidence to the contrary, I welcome to see it. There is no hard numbers, of course, because the separatists aren't exactly providing them.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I guess they feel that if a lie is repeated enough times then it becomes fact.

 

So you are tryng to say what there were no russian regulars?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are tryng to say what there were no russian regulars?

Please, do not go there with me. You might as well argue that the world is flat. The evidence of regular Russian military having fought in Ukraine is overwhelming. Putin even had to answer questions about the 10 captured engineers that got "lost" during the August counter offensive.

As far as I can tell the Ukrainian blogger insistence that there are large numbers of regular Russian army units in Ukraine, today, are fantasy. However, there is plenty of evidence of VDV and Spetsnaz, "advisors", artillery, command and control, and some support personnel in Ukraine today. I just linked to a video that clearly shows the "hit squad" that is going around whacking problematic militia leaders. Although I suppose they could be ordinary Russians on vacation in special forces vehicles. American tourists go to Canada like this all the time. It's perfectly normal.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The evidence of regular Russian military having fought in Ukraine is overwhelming

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

In general I think that you have a very strong pro loyalist (and anti Russian) bias, but I could be wrong, as I do not know your selection of sources.

Edited by ikalugin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...