Jump to content
lordhedgwich

Russian army under equipped?

Recommended Posts

If Russia wanted to annex Crimea why not do it before? If you remember the reason it secured its own interest is because some people sponsored by some foreign country protested a president for choosing to abandon the EU. (rightly doing so) And electing their own president. Furthermore the people of the East being Russian do not agree to being taken under control by western puppets. Of course, Russia will secure the interest of its own people.

Since none of what you say is factually correct, including the last statement (unless by "own people" you mean "oligarchs and corrupt officials", I don't see the point in responding.

Much of that cant be said for NATO, Example being Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan. Which are not of its own peoples' interests. Before looking at the mistakes of others I believe the US government should also look at its own mistakes. 

Oh, I do.  The difference is I don't deny them or use the mistakes of other governments to excuse them.  Russia is not the puppet of the US, therefore it is responsible for its own actions.

And you might as well be right about our economy, I am no expert in economy and will not agree or disagree with you, Respectfully of course.

You do not have to understand economics, just simple math.  50% of Russia's net income is based on the sale of oil and gas products.  In 2014 oil was $100+ a barrel and the Russian economy was just about breaking even.  Now oil is under $30 a barrel, the Ruble is worth 50% less (and dropping fast), Russia's biggest gas/oil customers are not doing business with Russia any more, foreign investment has dried up, capital flight out of Russia has spiked, young people leaving Russia has increased by something like 400%, national financial reserves are pretty much all spent, Russian banks have a liquidity problem (i.e. they have no money to lend), massive expenses for Crimea are under way, and there are two small wars being fought. 

If you do not see the point of this, you need to because you are already being affected by it (average Russian income of 2015 is the same as 2005 and declining).  I know that Kremlin controlled media doesn't allow independent voices to criticize national policy decision making, but there are articles in Russian which talk honestly (at least more so then the government) about things from a Russian perspective.  And of course there are plenty of things in English for you to read.  For example this article from today:

 

While the ruble has fallen more than any other emerging market in 2016 with a depreciation of almost 10 percent, Brent crude has slumped by a steeper 26 percent. That’s driven Russia’s earnings from each barrel of oil it sells to the lowest since 2010 and forced the government to start considering austerity measures to avoid draining its rainy-day fund used to cover shortfalls in the budget.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-20/ruble-trades-at-record-low-as-oil-impact-worse-than-sanctions

Sanctions are perhaps making some parts of this worse for Russia, but it's like someone saying mean things to a man with a gunshot wound to the chest.  It's not helpful, but it is doubtful the man will die from insults.

I'll now bring this back around to relevance to the thread :D

Russia is already in the most serious economic crisis since 2008 and, by many accounts, 1997.  The thought that Russian defense spending is somehow going to remain a the same level as it is now is out of touch with reality.  Defense spending will be cut one way or another, for certain.  The questions we don't have answers to are how much, how soon, and from which parts of the defense budget.  Since the current answers from the Kremlin are none, never, and noplace we don't have a real answer to any of these questions yet.

Steve

Edited by Battlefront.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lordhedgwich,

Quite the attention-getting video, replete with all manner of interesting and disturbing (if UKR/US/NATO) information. What exactly will actually be fielded by the CMBS June 2017 time frame is another matter entirely, and I'm way out of my depth here. That's more or less synonymous with "clueless." If the Russians can really get the "stick the gun out and shoot using the camera to ai" sorted out, that would have a considerable impact, but I have no idea whether the game could model it. The continuing inability to properly model mast-mounted sights and weapons doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Firehead,

Welcome aboard!

As for the MiG-25/FOXBAT, regret to inform you that you don't understand that this plane was a strategic interceptor, i.e. not a fighter plane, which was designed to go out, under strict GCI, and engage and kill the very large RCS and IR signature Mach 3 B-70 supersonic bomber, whose flight path, given huge turn radius at that speed, was easy to predict. Unfortunately for the Russians, the B-70 program was canceled. As a strategic interceptor, the MiG-25/FOXBAT was nasty indeed, being armed with four huge nuclear capable AA-6/ACRID air-to-air missiles, with one pair IR and the other SARH. The radar, built from supposedly "backward" old technology vacuum tubes, was exceedingly powerful (able to burn through jamming) and inherently, by virtue of the tubes, EMP hardened. This system was designed to operate in the midst of a nuclear war! Additionally, there was a previously unsuspected radar on another frequency. Both radars had frequencies previously unknown to the US (War Reserve Frequencies), which wouldn't have registered on our computerized threat warning systems, since they wouldn't have been in the threat lists. I read the SECRET/NOFORN/WNINTEL technical exploitation report, and that tome was scary, at times terrifying, reading. Bluntly put, almost everything we though we knew about this plane was fundamentally wrong across the board, and it could do things we never imagined. The monstrous engines alone freaked out our people, since we'd believed the plane was relatively lightweight, like our supersonic fighter aircraft, with power plants to match, but instead, it was mostly steel, which is why it had gigantic jet engines, the likes of which our people never dreamed. Overall, the effect on the defense establishment was traumatic. 

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

A most impressive post. Judging from bits and pieces I've seen here and there, it appears the US has some sort of ground presence in every NATO country bordering Russia. This considerably raises the ante for Putin and sets the stage for POMCUS type sets in places like Poland. Given these, I think many here seriously underestimate how long it would take to have a significant US mechanized force in theater and ready to go. This history of the POMCUS system in USAREUR says an entire division's personnel could be deployed in 240 aircraft, but I suspect that with significant upgrades via the C-17 and C-5B, far fewer would be needed. I used to have the REFORGER schedules pretty much memorized, but offhand I don't recall how long it would take to move all those soldiers. The full division set was already in place. These days, I'd expect brigade sets. 

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless the odds of any American president taking a softer stance towards Russia is somewhere around zero.  The right thinks the present administration has been much too weak on Russia, and the left finds Putin simply abhorrent so until he's for real gone (and not hibernating ala Mevedev doesn't count) a more open policy is unlikely.

I decided to highlight this for the benefit of our Russian readers.  Though it doesn't really matter since the primary challenges for Russia are the price of oil and the corrupt nature of the Russian political/economic hybrid system.  Even if the next US President got down on all fours and happily sniffed Putin's backside while excitedly yipping for joy... oil is still below $30 a barrel and Russia continually ranks as one of the most corrupt countries on Earth (even Nigeria is slightly less corrupt).  Since Russia's economy is based on oil and graft, nothing else really matters.

Steve

 

 

Edited by Battlefront.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know Putin has said there will be no reductions, but that may change.  When this mess started the budget was set to balance at $110 p/bbl oil. 

Correction Steve, ever since 2014, budget was balanced at 40USD p/bll, everything else was a surplus that went to Stabilization fund and/or Oil companies social programs. Not that this has anything to do with this particular thread, but oh well. I'm not proclaiming "everything is covered", but low oil prices are not the dragon everyone's painting them to be. 

 

Edited by BTR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The REFORGER concept reborn. I don't think in a day of satellite reconnaissance, google maps and drones that the location of hook up points can't be kept a secret. I'm sure the Russians have them all targeted, but then again they could be stashed away in the same locations like the reputed Nazi gold train which is deep inside some abandoned mine shaft buried in a mountain.

Russia is not in a position to take all NATO on.  Right now what Russia is likely to do is try to stave off other non-NATO former Soviet states (or client states) from becoming too western leaning.  An overt attack on a NATO country basically is going to be a war the Russians hope not to lose vs are likely to win.  This is not 1989.  If Russian missiles start landing in Germany or Poland, whatever military advantage is gained in destroyed hardware will be offset by the inevitable third and fourth order effects.

Also realistically the US plan isn't land waves of planes under fire as the war kicks off, but instead already have some, or all of the prepositioned stocks manned and in the field as part of whatever "we are f'ing serious about this" deterrence operation that hopefully would prevent anyone from shooting at anybody.

That said it's a well known fact the USMC preposition stocks for Norway are actually pretty much Nazi gold level bunkers built into a literal mountainside.  

They could bring far more forces to bear overall, and the Russian bear loves artillery which would be most unpleasant. Russian missile technology is nothing to sneeze at either and I don't think the US has gone forward with the ABM shield in Europe.

In terms of strategic missiles, yeah, the European ABM locations were not even designed to shoot down ICBMs coming out of Russia.  In terms of tactical missiles or TBMs, the PATRIOT PAC 3 and similar sea based systems are up to the challenge.

While the US has an edge in airpower, I can't see the Russian Air Force just rolling over playing dead like the Arabs and Russian SAM tech is up there. The Serbs managed to shoot down a F-117 and there has been plenty of time to research more into countering US stealth technology.

1. The US has more than an edge.  There's more F-16s in active USAF service than there are Russian fighter planes of all types in service.  In simple terms (and I crunched the numbers some time ago for a different thread) there's something like a possible 3,300 US/Western European NATO fighters available (I didn't bother to count minor players like Denmark or marginal ones like Spain) vs something like 800 Russian fighters.

Granted not every NATO plane will be on station, but nor will every Russian one.  Russian air force would be playing hard to survive in what amounts to the finest jets of the 1980's vs vintage 2000-2015 airframes, with a positively gross imbalance in sensor and command and control platforms.  It's going to be harder than Iraq/Serbia, but certainly not a close call.

Also the Russians have been nice enough to leave S-300s about/sell them to people who do not pay their military forces enough.  

Which again, is not to say "cakewalk" but is to say it is more likely the Russian air force will not be playing especially aggressive.

2. The Serbians shot down one F-117.  How many other times did the air frame entirely penetrate Serbian airspace and hit targets?  Further how many F-117s are still in service?

While I don't doubt for a second the combat experience of US forces, much was forged in the Middle East. I saw videos of a joint US/Ukrainian and the comments from the Ukrainians was the US soldiers constantly saying "when I/we were in Iraq/Afghanistan" for the Ukrainians, who have been fighting the Russians the combat experience form the Middle East against insurgents was not really relevant to fighting the Russians. For the Ukrainians, defending and preparing against the massive Russian artillery was job one as was tank hunting. 

There's something to be said for dudes who know what to do when bullets are pinging off of things.  Having seen some of the green men in action, and some of the reports coming out of the Ukraine seem to indicate a certain lack of battleworthiness.  It's not really a question of "have we faced tanks?" but of "is there an institutional experience with doing military operations in the real world, with people shooting back at them?" 

Aside from downsizing the US Army is to some degree facing an identity crisis? The US is pivoting to the Pacific and that is a theater of operation centered around air and naval power. Ground forces have to be structured differently. A force structure geared to operation in the Pacific theater, may not be what you would ideally like for engaging the Russian Bear in Europe.

There are some questions to if the Pacific pivot will be real.  There's been some changes, or at least studies to how the USMC plans to fight, but the Army will still largely be called upon to deliver various Brigade Combat Teams to support US interests.  There's a lot of ABCTs that are starting to send detachments to do training rotations in Europe though.  Seems Pacific Pivot or no, there's still a European element to the overall picture that is growing.

Re Tank Thermals

This is a bit confusing.  The Russian tanks in game don't really have Russian thermals.  They have French thermals.  Same ones that are in some Western AFVs (but not MBTs).  Armata supposedly has a new generation of Russian thermals, so any thing there is pure speculation.

True, but from my understanding of the French export models, the key downgrades are:

Reduced processing power (resulting in the blurry images)
Reduced sensor fidelity (resulting in reduced detection of hot on hot or cold on cold objects).

Either way the Catherine FC sales pamphlet says it can start identifying AFVs by type at 2500m, and that doesn't seem to indicate we are dealing with present generation equipment.

 

Re: Kettler

You know what moves troops better and faster than cargo planes?  Chartered airliners.  Cargo planes would likely remain tasked with moving supplies into theater.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correction Steve, ever since 2014, budget was balanced at 40USD p/bll, everything else was a surplus that went to Stabilization fund and/or Oil companies social programs. Not that this has anything to do with this particular thread, but oh well. I'm not proclaiming "everything is covered", but low oil prices are not the dragon everyone's painting them to be. 

 

This is not correct or it is, at best, very dated information (perhaps from earlier 2000s).  Russia has had to reconfigure its budget several times now, it has already made cuts to non-defense spending, it has nearly emptied the Stabilization Fund, and the current budget ($40 p/bbl) has a 2% deficit spending amount to come from the remains of the Stabilization Fund.  These figures come right from the Russian government.  Western annalists think it is much worse than this.  I'd link to articles, but what you could instead do is do your own searches in Russian to find out that what I've said is accurate.

Here's a Russian language article that is from the perspective of a non-Kremlin approved (i.e. more trustworthy) economist.  It discusses the challenges and failures of Putin's government to effectively manage Russia's economy.  It has a lot of numbers in it.

http://m.business-gazeta.ru/article/298565/

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the topic of a conventional war with Russia, I've covered this many times.  The basic conclusion is that Russia has 0.00% chance of winning a war against NATO where there is anything meaningful remaining of the Russian armed forces at the end of the conflict.  Any territory it tried to take would be lost.  It would be very messy, but that is how it would wind up.  Since NATO would never voluntarily attack Russia, and therefore no territorial ambitions to expand into existing Russian territory (including Crimea), it is a stretch to think of a scenario where NATO would have to do anything other than destroy Russia's armed forces to win.  That is a certainty.

It is a simple numbers crunching exercise.  Even if Russia's military forces were 100% equal to the average NATO force, it would lose because it lacks the numbers to take losses.  But Russia's military forces are qualitatively inferior to NATO's average force.  This means the cost to NATO to defeat Russia's military forces, the speed in which they can do it, and the thoroughness are further weighted in NATO's favor.

This is important because the West's willingness to fight a protracted war is questionable at best.  If the conflict were to last years, Russia could hope to "sue for peace", but that isn't the case here.  Militarily the war would effectively be over within a few weeks, though Russia might be able to keep it going for a few more weeks.  This is all well within the timeframe of Western population "attention span".

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not correct or it is, at best, very dated information (perhaps from earlier 2000s).  Russia has had to reconfigure its budget several times now, it has already made cuts to non-defense spending, it has nearly emptied the Stabilization Fund, and the current budget ($40 p/bbl) has a 2% deficit spending amount to come from the remains of the Stabilization Fund.  These figures come right from the Russian government.  Western annalists think it is much worse than this.  I'd link to articles, but what you could instead do is do your own searches in Russian to find out that what I've said is accurate.

Here's a Russian language article that is from the perspective of a non-Kremlin approved (i.e. more trustworthy) economist.  It discusses the challenges and failures of Putin's government to effectively manage Russia's economy.  It has a lot of numbers in it.

http://m.business-gazeta.ru/article/298565/

Steve

That is last year's December information Steve. Best case scenarios was $50 p/bbl, worse case scenario was $40 p/bbl with a deficit of 2.8-3% as of 2015 and 2016 (planned). I'd link the articles, but what you could do instead is do your own searches with google translate to find out what I've said is accurate (how rude of me, oh wait...). 

Thank you for the article you linked, a good perspective and almost a canonical example of what the liberal opposition media here views of good analysis and journalism. I must be living a different reality here though, but I suppose I am just a part of (paratranslating the article) "The lowers that are zombified and that are in lethargic sleep and don't understand that they've been put under the knife".  The meat would be in the numbers though had they any referencing at all of where they got them from. Crisis in Russia? Sure, but check the Baltic dry index, everyone's in the same boat  (or lack of boat really).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry if I came over as hostile, but its just your manner of typing that ticks me :). I can live with Panzer's, I suppose I'm not as used to you yet. To switch the subject (on which we'll never agree), Russian helicopter support in CM:BS is both over and under represented. 

Mi-24PN was a test variant which never saw service, yet Mi-24VM (Mi-35M as referred by Ru media) isn't there along its older Mi-24V(P)/P variants are not around. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is last year's December information Steve. Best case scenarios was $50 p/bbl, worse case scenario was $40 p/bbl with a deficit of 2.8-3% as of 2015 and 2016 (planned). I'd link the articles, but what you could do instead is do your own searches with google translate to find out what I've said is accurate (how rude of me, oh wait...). 

I could post links to articles in English very easily, but not Russian.  Since I've found that posting anything written by non-Russians is usually dismissed as "Western propaganda" I figured it wasn't worth it.  It is also my experience that posting anything in Russian gets the same treatment unless it came straight out of Russian state controlled media.  Which is why I didn't bother except for the one link I did post and you promptly reminded me why I shouldn't bother.

I'm sorry if I came over as hostile, but its just your manner of typing that ticks me :).

Meh, I'm used to me saying things that people don't want or like to hear and getting miffed about it.  Usually it is about the game, but sometimes not ;)  Russia's economy will do whatever it is going to do no matter what either of us say.  When we have a conversation about this in a year's time, let's make sure to remember what our respective positions at this point in time.  I am very certain I will not have to "eat my words".

To switch the subject (on which we'll never agree), Russian helicopter support in CM:BS is both over and under represented. 

Mi-24PN was a test variant which never saw service, yet Mi-24VM (Mi-35M as referred by Ru media) isn't there along its older Mi-24V(P)/P variants are not around. 

We can take a look into that.  I do not know the specifics of why certain models were chosen and others not.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I appreciate the discussion, in the broader sense who would "win" at some strategic or political level is kind of irrelevant.

To quote the CMRT manual:

While the strategic initiative was totally in favor of the Soviets from this point on, Axis success at the tactical level was still possible. In fact, tactical and even operational successes were common right up until the final months of the war; they just had no chance of influencing the larger course of events.

By 1944 the German forces were, on paper, better than they had ever been at any point in the war. Better equipment, better tactics, and better manpower distribution meant that tactically the Soviets still had a lot to worry about. Fortunately for the Soviets, by this point in the war shortages of men and material meant that German forces were rarely as potent as they theoretically could be. German commanders rarely had all the resources they were supposed to have, not to mention everything they needed to have. As a player you will likely feel the same way.

 I see a parallel here. Even though NATO would undoubtedly "win" for economic, political, industrial and (yes) military reasons - the fact is that an overconfident US Rifle Platoon can still have a very bad day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what moves troops better and faster than cargo planes?  Chartered airliners.  Cargo planes would likely remain tasked with moving supplies into theater.

Yup, the only thing you really need to move huge amounts of personnel anywhere on the planet within 24 hours is a bunch of 747 Airliners.

Well, anywhere on the planet that has a functional airport...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I see a parallel here. Even though NATO would undoubtedly "win" for economic, political, industrial and (yes) military reasons - the fact is that an overconfident US Rifle Platoon can still have a very bad day.

Absolutely.  My guess is that an all out conventional war with Russia would give European countries the most number of casualties any have seen since WW2, except for France (Algeria and Indochina were bloody affairs).  The US wouldn't be reminded of Vietnam casualty rates, but I don't think it would be reminded of Desert Storm either.  For sure NATO would lose more hardware in a shorter period of time than in the memories of anybody currently serving in the military.

Oh, and lets not forget that a side effect of a ground war would be a naval war.  That would go even worse than the land war IMHO.  Worse, for Russia, it would likely never again have the resources to build a large navy.  Not that I think that would be a terrible thing as I believe it's not really something Russia needs even today.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm failing to see how NATO in reality would be able to service 3000 fighter jets, That sounds absurdly wrong considering France, Germany, And the U.K. are having maintenance issues, Considering budget cuts they have been working with. And also lets not forget that the air bases on which these aircrafts take off from can be targeted 1000 miles away from Kalibr cruise missiles(and by alot of numbers), And also from Iskandar-M complexes and so forth. S-400 systems, And S-300 systems being shifted towards the combat zone to ensure locking of airspace over the Area of Operations. And one can argue that NATO squadrons can overrun these systems with SEAD, Sure they can if they get into range, And if their missiles survive over the TOR defense systems and Pantsirs which are made to defend against such weapons. Of course all it takes is one missile to hit the radar system taking out the capabilities of such systems. Lets remember there are other radar posts as well. NATO has the budget advantage by a lot times over if you put US into the equation. But Russia has invested into important strategic systems such as these.

The Russian air force in my opinion in such a conflict would provide security to gaps in air defense rather then taking on NATO squadrons. It would definitley not go well if a 1 on 1 confrontation with NATO airforce were to happen. NATO IMO would start naval operations through the black sea to try to get into cruise missile ranges, As well as Aircraft carrier ranges so they can overwhelm Russian defenses. If this works then all hopes for team RU is lost. What I have been wondering over a scenario like this is what would happen in the east of Russia, In regards to the situation with the U.S. I mean we are practically next to each other. 

And with all these things I've said, I am certainly not saying that Russia would achieve victory against NATO at all. I'm saying it isn't has hopeless as put it out to be. There are many other factors which can lead to ones loss in this war. And saying one side would win without a doubt is not right. But if speaking in sheer numbers, NATO does indeed have the superiority, And organization to be a formidable force in such a scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm failing to see how NATO in reality would be able to service 3000 fighter jets, That sounds absurdly wrong considering France, Germany, And the U.K. are having maintenance issues, Considering budget cuts they have been working with. And also lets not forget that the air bases on which these aircrafts take off from can be targeted 1000 miles away from Kalibr cruise missiles(and by alot of numbers), And also from Iskandar-M complexes and so forth.


I said this some months ago in reference to comparing NATO vs Russian air force assets:

 

Which gets to relative strength.

 

Here's what the Russian Air Force can muster circa around now:

 

830 "fighter" type planes (includes multi-roles and assumes the Russians would potentially commit MIG-31s offensively)+60 additional PAK-FAs maybe+100 claimed MIG-35 starting initial small number service claimed 2016

535 "Strike" type planes (planes with unambigiously strike-only role, chiefly SU-25 and SU-24)+89 claimed SU-34s

For amusement:

16 A-50 AWACS type planes

19 IL-78 aerial refueling planes+31 on order

 

Here's what the USAF brings to the fight:

1,473 "fighter" type planes (F-16, F-15s minus Es, F-22, F-35s in inventory)+1763 F-35 on order)

534 "Strike" type planes (F-15E, A-10C)

32 E-3 Sentry (AWACS)

16 JSTARs (Sort of AWACS for ground)

417 refueling planes (KC-135, not bored enough to look up KC-46 procurement)

 

USMC could bring if invited

229 Fighters (F/A-18s, to be replaced by F-35s)

99 Strike (AV-8, also to be replaced by F-35s)

 

USN if they get sick of the ocean

998  fighters (F/A-18A/B/C/D, and F/A-18E/Fs) 

117 Dedicated SEAD (EF-18G) 

 

Here's what our special relationship would show up with should Her Majesty deem fit:

 

125 Fighters (Typhoon)

102 Strike (Tornado)

6 AWACS (E-3 Sentry as operated by RAF)

 

Deutchland

 

109 Fighters (Typhoons, to eventually become fleet of 143)

116 Strike (Tornadoes) 

 

Merde. It is time for zee French:

135 Fighters (Rafales, remaining Mirage 2000s in fighter role)+37 additional Rafales if the Navy shows up.

84 Strike (Mirage 2000s in strike units)

4 AWACs (French owned E-3s)

 

Za naszą i waszą wolność!

 

80 Fighters (MIG-29, F-16)

23 Strike (SU-22)

 

"I swear guys!  THIS time we're going to pick a side and stick with it!"

 

76 Fighters (Typhoons)

134 Strike (Tornadoes, AMX International)

 

Ukraine:

50 Fighters (operational and on hand, others broken/in storage)

15 Strike (remaining operational SU-25s)

 

NATO

18 AWACS (E-3s "owned" by NATO)

 

These numbers:

 

Total commitment by all parties involved. Obviously not the case in event of war, each of these parties to include Russia will be forced to commit platforms to protecting other fronts  It's safe to assume this will equally effect all countries involved, and NATO is much better able to spread forces around at this point.

The only numbers that include F-35s are the USAF simply because I got bored of adding those in quickly

Russian "new" planes only count confirmed orders.

Only USAF tankers are counted, again this is a boredom thing on my end.

Russian and USAF strategic bombers are excluded.  It's doubtful any of those assets would be used for CAS, and very likely, at all for fear of causing some sort of "is this B-1 heading towards the Russian border dropping bombs on a bridge, or is it carrying nukes?" situations.

This excludes a large number of NATO countries.  I simply stuck to countries we've gotten some indication might show up in CMBS.

You will note, interestingly enough that the US Navy alone has more fighter than Russia, and even if literally every French plane was grounded it only plays into a small part of the overall force structure.  Equally so in the Russian far east, the US can much more readily mass forces (along with the JSDF, ROKAF, and other regional allies not listed) in a degree that would not frankly undercut the ability to greatly outnumber Russian air forces elsewhere.  

In regards to TBMs, the PATRIOT PAC 3 is pretty well set to keep those somewhat under wraps, and dumping ballistic missiles into what would likely be Poland, Germany etc would rather cement Russia's pariah state for a very long time, and risk testing Russian deterrence options (as if you're dumping missiles into Warsaw, I doubt the Poles will be so willing to not return the favor, which then gives Russia the choice of losing all credibility of nuclear deterrence against conventional strikes, or starting the end of the world as we know it over some burned up MIGs).

In regards to SAMs, they're neat, but subject to being overwhelmed, and only serve to prevent NATO from bombing as freely.  It's a rational choice, and the Russian focus on surface based system is the only reasonable given the aviation imbalance.  But it is limited to say the least.  

Re: 747s

Well, anywhere on the planet that has a functional airport...

Yeah but if Russia is dropping missiles into Germany we're already looking at something entirely different.  This isn't the Soviet Union, and we're not reasonably looking at World War Three unless the Russians start looking for a reason to be no longer a functional country at best, nuclear weapons release at worst.  

Re: Bad Days

 

 I see a parallel here. Even though NATO would undoubtedly "win" for economic, political, industrial and (yes) military reasons - the fact is that an overconfident US Rifle Platoon can still have a very bad day.

Which is why CMBS is still interesting to play.  Just there's not a lot going for Russia in terms of a wider war.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is last year's December information Steve. Best case scenarios was $50 p/bbl, worse case scenario was $40 p/bbl with a deficit of 2.8-3% as of 2015 and 2016 (planned). I'd link the articles, but what you could do instead is do your own searches with google translate to find out what I've said is accurate (how rude of me, oh wait...). 

Thank you for the article you linked, a good perspective and almost a canonical example of what the liberal opposition media here views of good analysis and journalism. I must be living a different reality here though, but I suppose I am just a part of (paratranslating the article) "The lowers that are zombified and that are in lethargic sleep and don't understand that they've been put under the knife".  The meat would be in the numbers though had they any referencing at all of where they got them from. Crisis in Russia? Sure, but check the Baltic dry index, everyone's in the same boat  (or lack of boat really).  

The statements coming from the Russian gov't seem to directly counter what you are stating here. Saying "I wouldn't use the word 'collapse'." is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the state of the economy.  The Baltic states are not oil exporters.  If anything energy just keeps getting cheaper for them.

http://news.yahoo.com/russian-ruble-continues-falling-hits-081757605.html

Thursday's slip means the ruble is at its lowest level since the currency was redenominated in 1998, during Russia's worst post-Soviet economic crisis. President Vladimir Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov insisted, however, that the situation was not critical.

"I wouldn't use the word 'collapse.' The rate is really changing, the rate is volatile, but it's far from a collapse," he said Thursday in comments reported by Russian news agencies. Putin had no plans for any emergency meetings, he added.

http://news.yahoo.com/russian-central-bank-meets-bank-heads-ruble-plunges-193019069.html

Moscow (AFP) - The Russian ruble slumped to an all-time low against the dollar Thursday, prompting the central bank to convene an evening meeting as chief Elvira Nabiullina cancelled her trip to the World Economic Forum in Davos.

The government has already admitted that cheap oil prices will push it to slash spending as it struggles to keep the deficit to under 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panzer, Fair enough on the numbers, East coast would be fulled of such operations I'm guessing. This is where our submarines, And Anti ship missiles, SAMs would have to do their part, Offensive operations onto the US navy in open waters is suicide. As far as I have read from articles, PAC haven't been successful in Saudi Arabia with Houthis being able to hit saudi bases with older capability missiles. http://www.thesaudi.info/en/2015/10/15/saudi-airbase-hit-by-houthi-missile/

Keep in mind, Iskandar-Ms are way faster, And more accurate. And we have dozens of these complexes in Europe. Not to mention Kalibr cruise missiles in the hundreds in range. These missiles would only be thrown against military installations of course. (just in case some one thinks the evil Russkii on the forum means destroying cities) And if these missiles are fired in salvos against the closest NATO bases, This will provide enough time for Russia to head over to Kiev. Of course, There are other threats as mentioned, the U.S. fleet. It appears in this case the Russian navy must play defensive or face totally overwhelming numbers, On any naval front In open waters.

Edited by VladimirTarasov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's not a very good idea to rely upon missiles taking out airports in order to survive as a nation state.  The last time there was widespread warfare against airforce infrastructure was WW2 and the lesson there was you need to hit the airfields several times a day to keep them non-functional.  Russia does not have that capability.

Russia's navy is a dead weight on the Russian economy and defense budget IMHO.  In a full war it would be divided up and sunk very quickly.  Anything that wasn't sunk would not have much, if any, impact on the course of the ground war.  Russia doesn't have a need to project power with its navy.  Even Syria.  Russia and Turkey are on very bad terms right now, but the Bosporus remains open to Russian shipping including warships.  Russia is acting against NATO and European interests in Syria, yet nobody has blockaded Russian shipping.  That is because screwing around with someone's shipping amounts to an act of war, which is not anything the West is going to do short of a real war.

Russia's navy, therefore, is more political than practical.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Russian navy is practical for its doctrine (defense) It is suffering from lack of military spending and funding. Russia is going for a less tonnage but effective navy, Compared to the US whom has a huge navy with a variety of capabilities. And repairing a air base, Or any base in modern times is impossible in a count of days, Especially if your logistic lines or military infrastructure is being hit hard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Russian navy is practical for its doctrine (defense) It is suffering from lack of military spending and funding. Russia is going for a less tonnage but effective navy, Compared to the US whom has a huge navy with a variety of capabilities.

What practical defensive capability does Russia's navy provide?  I can understand the logic of having a few small, fast, well armed vessels (deals with minor threats), some ICBM submarines (failsafe in time of nuclear), and intel gathering vessels (always useful ;))... but beyond that I don't see the practical reason to spend so much money on a navy.

And repairing a air base, Or any base in modern times is impossible in a count of days, Especially if your logistic lines or military infrastructure is being hit hard. 

This presumes that Russia can hit enough places enough times with enough speed to change the overall equation.  I think that is overly optimistic.  Especially given NATO's anti-missile defenses and the ability for US bombers to dish out a lot of pain to Russia's infrastructure.  If the long range missiles constituted the sort of threat you think they do, NATO would have long ago developed something else to counter them.

Steve

Edited by Battlefront.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know or attempt to follow Russian domestic politics or military decision making so will take Steve at his word. I also understand and agree that CM has always been about realism first. If one side is more powerful than another on the battlefield, then that is reflected in the game play and players need to adapt. 

But at what point in a fictitious setting and narrative (hopefully to remain that way), does BF say, "Yes let's stretch the realms of possibility here for the sake of diversity and to add in something new." Expand the 'sandbox' of options for players and scenario designers to play around in.

Example: As you say, NATO would overwhelm a Russian act of aggression in a traditional conflict in a span of a few weeks. Would this reality be enough for you to preclude ever expanding Black Sea into autumn and winter as a result?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know or attempt to follow Russian domestic politics or military decision making so will take Steve at his word. I also understand and agree that CM has always been about realism first. If one side is more powerful than another on the battlefield, then that is reflected in the game play and players need to adapt. 

But at what point in a fictitious setting and narrative (hopefully to remain that way), does BF say, "Yes let's stretch the realms of possibility here for the sake of diversity and to add in something new." Expand the 'sandbox' of options for players and scenario designers to play around in.

Example: As you say, NATO would overwhelm a Russian act of aggression in a traditional conflict in a span of a few weeks. Would this reality be enough for you to preclude ever expanding Black Sea into autumn and winter as a result?

 

One could always say there was a temporary ceasefire and open conflict then broke out again months later.  There is always a way if there is a will.  :P

Edited by sburke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know or attempt to follow Russian domestic politics or military decision making so will take Steve at his word. I also understand and agree that CM has always been about realism first. If one side is more powerful than another on the battlefield, then that is reflected in the game play and players need to adapt. 

But at what point in a fictitious setting and narrative (hopefully to remain that way), does BF say, "Yes let's stretch the realms of possibility here for the sake of diversity and to add in something new." Expand the 'sandbox' of options for players and scenario designers to play around in.

Example: As you say, NATO would overwhelm a Russian act of aggression in a traditional conflict in a span of a few weeks. Would this reality be enough for you to preclude ever expanding Black Sea into autumn and winter as a result?

A very good question.  I haven't reread the manual in a long time (and I'm on the road with apparently an empty Black Sea folder?!?), but one of the original drafts had combat starting in the Fall and stalling out for Winter, then finishing in the Summer explicitly to cover multiple seasons.  The storyline was that there simply wasn't enough forces in theater to do more than arrest the Russian advance into Ukraine, then minimal fighting in the winter, and finally a big finale in the Summer.  Very unrealistic for a bunch of reasons, but as you say sometimes story has to come first!

If we didn't wind up with the story this way, don't worry about it holding back the game expansion.  At the very worst we can tell people it's an alternative start season.  Since we are talking about something that hasn't happened (and hopefully never will!!!) alternative futures aren't really a big problem.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very good question.  I haven't reread the manual in a long time (and I'm on the road with apparently an empty Black Sea folder?!?), but one of the original drafts had combat starting in the Fall and stalling out for Winter, then finishing in the Summer explicitly to cover multiple seasons.  The storyline was that there simply wasn't enough forces in theater to do more than arrest the Russian advance into Ukraine, then minimal fighting in the winter, and finally a big finale in the Summer.  Very unrealistic for a bunch of reasons, but as you say sometimes story has to come first!

If we didn't wind up with the story this way, don't worry about it holding back the game expansion.  At the very worst we can tell people it's an alternative start season.  Since we are talking about something that hasn't happened (and hopefully never will!!!) alternative futures aren't really a big problem.

Steve

 

The original storyline (as my hazy memory recollects) had the conflict starting in winter and then moving into spring or summer. All sorts of problems with that as you can imagine, and that was pointed out in detail by the beta testers and advisers in the early stages. Besides the overly long timeline for the conflict, it also put fighting in some really crap seasons (spring in that area?)

 

Personally however, like Steve I don't see that being an issue at all when it comes down to representing different seasons, specifically winter. I'm not going to expand the official storyline all the way to December, but why not just include a Pack or something similar that has an alternate winter setting? Seems fine to me, after all this is a fictional setting.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh... yeah, it was tough enough to write a future history that worked well for the game even without a real war to take into account, but once Putin started making moves into Ukraine for real we had to do a lot of revision work on the details.  Fortunately for us, Putin pretty much followed our storyline right up to the point of forcing in "peace keepers".  Although in a way he kinda did that too because he moved "peace keepers" into position and when he figured nobody would accept them moving in he held them back.  Well, at least as long as it took to let the white paint that covered up the peace keeping symbols dry, then into Ukraine they went as "captured Ukrainian BTRs" :)

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×