CINCUSAREUR concerned about Russian rapid deployment and interior lines

[John Kettler]

BBC News recently ran an article following an interview with CINCUSAREUR LT GEN Hodges. He is concerned about Russia's ability, using interior lines, to rapidly deploy forces to Eastern Europe. Note well he's saying NATO needs to be able to do the same--on 3 days' notice. What's not said is how big that NATO force would be, but the time available to respond is eloquent on how small the dissuasion window is when it comes to countering a Russian buildup in preparation for an attack. In a March 7, 2016 DefenseNews interview, he had a lot to say about his plans, deficiencies and get-well program for his command. Finally, here is a July 15, 2016 interview he did with Jane's at Eurosatory 2016. In it, he describes a new US approach called Heel-to-Toe in which the current rotational model of leaving a Heavy Brigade equipment set in Europe and bringing in most of the personnel in a crisis will be replaced, come February, with a Heavy Brigade, equipped with all the newest gear and capabilities. Each such Brigade will be in-theater nine months and will seamlessly rotate back to the States, being replaced by another Heavy Brigade. This ensures a continuous deterrent presence. He also speaks of the recent Polish Exercise Anakonda, which saw some 31K NATO troops operating jointly and a 700-strong parachute drop by the French and British into Hohenfels, Germany. This is historic in that France has never done such a jump before with NATO.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited June 21, 2016 by John Kettler

[antaress73]

It's his job to be concerned. 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

11 hours ago, antaress73 said:

It's his job to be concerned.

And he couldwellbe right given the length of time it could take o get the politicaldecision for NATO to mobilie. A point Shirreffmade in his recentlypublished book. Even a tripwire force might not be deployed to the Valtic States in time. And here is tat 40 mile gap between Kaliningrad and the Belorussan border. If Putin had decided to invade the Baltic States he mght aswell invade Poland while he is at it in n attempt to nocj them out of the war. Alternativey he could stop at the Polish border and dig in. Much harder for NATO to launch a later ground offensive given the short border between Poland and Kalingrad/lithuania. Only about 140 miles. Only a couple of major roads from poland into Lithuania that are not in Kliningrad. The Kalingrad Oblast will of course be heavily defended. Any NATO counter offensive to liberate the Baltic States would be a tricky operaton to say the least

[cbennett88]

On 6/21/2016 at 2:24 PM, John Kettler said:

here is a July 15, 2016 interview

Pretty sure you meant "June 15..." Otherwise...I really need to talk to you about buying some lotto tickets! 

 

On 6/21/2016 at 2:24 PM, John Kettler said:

Each such Brigade will be in-theater nine months and will seamlessly rotate back to the States, being replaced by another Heavy Brigade.

I'm curious as to how logistically they are going to pull this off? Will there be a 2-3 week overlap so that the new unit can get settled in? If so...where are they going to house/store all of them? Without that overlap, as CINCUSAREUR, I'd be concerned that the russians would exploit the "gap" as one brigade has already packed up...and the other one disembarks and unpacks. You'd basically have 2 units sitting helplessly at the docks so to speak.

Plus...I'd be sure to have the US Navy escort the convoy bringing them the whole way, as if it was wartime. Better safe than sorry...

 

 

21 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

If Putin had decided to invade the Baltic States he mght aswell invade Poland while he is at it in n attempt to nocj them out of the war

@LUCASWILLEN05...Even Putin would pause before taking on Poland. Sure...much of their equipment is older and in need of replacing(especially their BMP-1s!!). But...they do have an decent size force of Leopard A2s (not the latest ones and yes, they are hand-me- downs from Germany). The air force is relatively well trained and the new JASSMs give them a serious punch that any russian military commander would have to consider.

Speaking of Polish military...

Do you think someone in the Polish army has played CM:BS and has learned a lesson or two about smoke dischargers?? 

 

 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

1 hour ago, cbennett88 said:

Pretty sure you meant "June 15..." Otherwise...I really need to talk to you about buying some lotto tickets! 

 

I'm curious as to how logistically they are going to pull this off? Will there be a 2-3 week overlap so that the new unit can get settled in? If so...where are they going to house/store all of them? Without that overlap, as CINCUSAREUR, I'd be concerned that the russians would exploit the "gap" as one brigade has already packed up...and the other one disembarks and unpacks. You'd basically have 2 units sitting helplessly at the docks so to speak.

Plus...I'd be sure to have the US Navy escort the convoy bringing them the whole way, as if it was wartime. Better safe than sorry...

 

 

@LUCASWILLEN05...Even Putin would pause before taking on Poland. Sure...much of their equipment is older and in need of replacing(especially their BMP-1s!!). But...they do have an decent size force of Leopard A2s (not the latest ones and yes, they are hand-me- downs from Germany). The air force is relatively well trained and the new JASSMs give them a serious punch that any russian military commander would have to consider.

Speaking of Polish military...

Do you think someone in the Polish army has played CM:BS and has learned a lesson or two about smoke dischargers?? 

 

 

That is why I used the word "might" Personally I agree with you. I think Putin in this scenario would be wiser to halt on the Polish border and dig in presenting NATO with all sorts of problems.Or he might decide not to.As you say it would pobably be a mistake. But it might be considered as a way to win the war quickly if NATO is still mobilizing,

If, however, the Russian army were to advance into Poland they could well over extend themselves as they did during the 3rd Battle of Kharkov making themselves vulnerable to something like a modern day version of Mantein's "backhand blow" or Pilsudskis 1920 Battle of Warsaw. Whichmay verywell happen once NATO gets its' act together. Putin would be gambling on a quick victory to knock a major EasternEuropean country (Poland) out of the war fast, before this hapens. Just bcauuse NATO tanks re superior tomost of the Russian arsenal is not neccessarily a problem. look a France 1940.Though Germn tanks were actualy inferior toFrench and British was still the Germans who wonthe campaign because they moved faster. Things are a bit different in he case of NATO. UnlikeFrance and Britain in 1940 NATO operational commanders are highly capable inmechanized warfare.

No,NATO's problem is a political one - getting agreement on the need tomobilise and deploy which may well tyake some time. General Sir Richard Shirreff, fomer Deputy SACEUR pointed this out in hirecent publication 2017 War with Russia. Shirreff is clearly in a position to know,

All of this could be interesting background for hypotheical scenaros using the game engine. What would an armoured engagement against over extended Russian forces near Warsaw look like? What would a battle fought during a NATO offensive to take Kaliningrad or to liberate the Baltic Sates look like. All this is a purely hypotheical game that involvessomething slightly different than the existing Ukraine 2017 back story but still assuming a 2017 war in Eastern Europe

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

2 hours ago, cbennett88 said:

Pretty sure you meant "June 15..." Otherwise...I really need to talk to you about buying some lotto tickets! 

 

I'm curious as to how logistically they are going to pull this off? Will there be a 2-3 week overlap so that the new unit can get settled in? If so...where are they going to house/store all of them? Without that overlap, as CINCUSAREUR, I'd be concerned that the russians would exploit the "gap" as one brigade has already packed up...and the other one disembarks and unpacks. You'd basically have 2 units sitting helplessly at the docks so to speak.

Plus...I'd be sure to have the US Navy escort the convoy bringing them the whole way, as if it was wartime. Better safe than sorry...

 

 

@LUCASWILLEN05...Even Putin would pause before taking on Poland. Sure...much of their equipment is older and in need of replacing(especially their BMP-1s!!). But...they do have an decent size force of Leopard A2s (not the latest ones and yes, they are hand-me- downs from Germany). The air force is relatively well trained and the new JASSMs give them a serious punch that any russian military commander would have to consider.

Speaking of Polish military...

Do you think someone in the Polish army has played CM:BS and has learned a lesson or two about smoke dischargers?? 

 

 

Just a quick response:

We did the rotational thing in Korea, or at least, I was there as we were transitioning from the BCT at Casey being a garrison into a rotational unit.  

1. In regards to turnover, basically it'll be one element at a time.  One Battalion from the old unit hands over the mission to the incoming unit, then the cycle repeats down the line until it's all of the "new" unit.

2. In regards to convoys, likely wont be any until the actual outbreak of war.  There's going to be a complete set of US equipment stowed in Europe, basically the Soldiers will fly in (typically by chartered airliners), meet up with their equipment, sign it over from the last unit if applicable, and go.  

3. As far as two units in the same footprint, it gets tight, but it usually means instead of Privates sleeping two to a room, they sleep four to a room, and junior officers loose their private rooms.  It's not quite that disastrous.  

[LUCASWILLEN05]

17 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

 

If the Russians had decided on war I would think that they would most likely use the summer exercises to cover preparation and deployment as was expected that they would back in the days of he Cold War.The question is would Maskirovka deception methods be effective in delaying a NATO political response nd mobilization. General Sir Richard Shirreff in his recently published 2017 War with Russia argued that the mechanics of getting an Article 5 would delay a NATO response.

The deployment of  NATO forces into the Baltic states might very well leave them vulnerable to encirclement. A quick Russian thrust from Russia linking up with an advance from the Kalliningrad Oblast in a pincer movement seems like yhe obvious thing for the Russian army to do.

Maybe NATO would have to write off the Baltic Sates for the early sages of a war and deploy to defend Poland initially. Later on a counter offensive to retake the Baltic States can be launched. hat said, if is possible to mount some form of defense of the Baltic States without undue risk to th forces involved this might be attempted for political reasons but it might n prevent a temporary lossof these NATO nations

[Kinophile]

4 hours ago, cbennett88 said:

 

Four to eight rounds of smoke... Man after a few hours it would be like fighting a napoleonic battle. 

But hey if you haz de thermals...

POL v RUS would be a very interesting fight. Basically a more competent, NATO-ified Ukraine. With just as much motivation.   

Edited June 23, 2016 by kinophile

[LUCASWILLEN05]

1 hour ago, kinophile said:

Four to eight rounds of smoke... Man after a few hours it would be like fighting a napoleonic battle. 

But hey if you haz de thermals...

POL v RUS would be a very interesting fight. Basically a more competent, NATO-ified Ukraine. With just as much motivation.   

Definitely agree. Poland should be included in a NATO module.

Regarding smoke and dust  In some WW2 tank battles in the region we do hear of large mounts of smoke and dust being kicked up and obscuring vision, It might not be that unrealistic when using he sand ground type (not sure what the effects of the dirt ground type)combined with the very dry ground condition and a gentle or no wind condition in tne scenario editor. My expectation would be for vehicles to kick up dust which might be the effect we want for a particular scenario, set on a hot, fry day in the Steppes. In CMBS e often saw tanks kick up dust in desert terrain,hence the same shold happen here under the right conditions

[Kinophile]

@panzersaurkrautwerfer,  @BTR how relevant is dust to modern rank optics? Is there significant degradation at all? Is the rate of degradation tied literally to the quantity of dusty in the air? Is ME desert dust worse than European, 'earth'  dust? 

 

[Kinophile]

Re NATO's political process,  doesn't SACEUR have the option of commiting the reaction forces If he deems it militarily neccesary,  ie before a vote is concluded? 

[BTR]

9 minutes ago, kinophile said:

@panzersaurkrautwerfer,  @BTR how relevant is dust to modern rank optics? Is there significant degradation at all? Is the rate of degradation tied literally to the quantity of dusty in the air? Is ME desert dust worse than European, 'earth'  dust? 

 

Panzer's your guy for this. Don't know in terms of thermals and other expensive devices, but in terms of actual dust and other things covering optics during operation, all modern systems have water flushes to clear optics. 

[cbennett88]

@LUCASWILLEN05  You are obviously up on your military history and have a good grasp on Poland's/Western Europe's current dilemma. Part of my assessment of Polish military ability is based on intangible items...

1) Since 2003 Polish military forces have rotated through Afghanistan and Iraq which gives them some combat experience and more importantly, years of experience working with/integrating into US/NATO military doctrine. Personal relationships(trust) and breaking down language barriers that comes from that probably counts for something when you have to suddenly fight together.

2) Polish special forces (GROM...there may be others) have also gotten years of valuable combat experience in those 2 hot spots. Sure...they can't stop a mechanized force by themselves but...used wisely, they might disrupt supply lines,etc. 

3) The Polish air force has trained with the US for years. We get Polish pilots here at Nellis(I live in Las Vegas) all the time and many of them have gone through various US advanced military instruction.

4) Not sure if you saw it, but the Polish army and the German army have combined their armor school. Getting that sort of high quality instruction from the guys with years of experience with those exact Leopards HAS to be a good thing, right?

  5) Lastly...and probably meaningless IRL but...imagine that if you added the Polish military to CM:BS...and gave me a choice of having to fight the Russians with... Polish Leopards 2 A4/A5 OR UKR equipment & troops...I'd definitely pick the polish! 

Like you said...would be an interesting hypothetical module to add to this game.

3 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

Maybe NATO would have to write off the Baltic Sates for the early sages of a war and deploy to defend Poland initially. Later on a counter offensive to retake the Baltic States can be launched.

 

Totally agree with this. It would be (IMHO) the only sensible military decision.

 

3 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

There's going to be a complete set of US equipment stowed in Europe, basically the Soldiers will fly in (typically by chartered airliners), meet up with their equipment, sign it over from the last unit if applicable, and go.  

@panzersaurkrautwerfer Did he not say during the video(@ 3:08 mins) that the complete brigade with ALL of their equipment is coming over EACH rotation? I thought he made a point of explaining that this was not going to be like the 80's REFORGER plan of flying in the troops to their pre-positioned equipment...

I do appreciate the insight from your experience though. My experience with mass equipment re-deployment was from coming back to the US after Desert Storm. Did you know that we had to pass US Dept of Agriculture inspection before they would let us load our Humvees, etc?!? Ever cleaned the underside of a Humvee with a toothbrush?? I have! NO FUN! Lol

[Battlefront.com]

Russia has too many advantages in terms of attacking the Baltics on its terms:

1.  It would be the aggressor and therefore could decide if/when to invade.  NATO will always have to react to this

2.  Russia has continued the Soviet concept of "snap drills".  Despite all the false cries of anguish from Moscow about recent NATO activities, NATO's manuevers are announced in advance and (traditionally) Russian officers in Brussels are made aware of the details.  Contrast this with Russia's "snap drills" which are often within striking distance of neighboring countries and come without much, if any, warning.  This tradition of not letting anybody know squat about Russia's plans AND doing it somewhat randomly is deliberately designed to keep those around it forever uncertain if Russia is just training or if it is going to invade.  Since NATO can't run around with its hair on fire every time Russia does one of these exercises, it has to have other information before it would know the difference between the normal Russian passive/aggressive behavior and outright aggression.

3.  The Baltics, Ukraine, Georgia, etc. are outlying regions for NATO, but for Russia it's all their "front yard".  Russia can maneuver large forces into place within striking distance of a neighbor relatively quickly because for it the distances are much shorter than for NATO forces.

4.  Russia doesn't have to clear movements of troops with any other government, while NATO on the other hand does.  This is a point that Hodges has made a few times in the last couple of days.  NATO basically needs more authority to maneuver within NATO countries independent of normal restrictions.

5.  Russia is one country, NATO is almost three dozen (including it's partners, such as Sweden, Finland, and France).  Putin could wake up tomorrow, decide to invade, and by the end of next week it would be happening.  That's the benefit of being a dictator... one man is about a short of a decision cycle as you can get!  On the other hand, NATO is a mess of political nonsense coming from the fact that there is no one voice nor a smooth decision cycle.  Some countries, like Italy and Hungary, are thought to be in Russia's pocket enough that they are considered by many to be unreliable.  Out of all Russia's advantages in a Baltic scenario, this it the biggest one.

In the end Russia would lose any war that it started against NATO, so in that sense NATO (as an organization) could allow the Baltics to temporarily go back under Moscow's iron rule and force Russia to withdraw in any number of different ways.  Russia is absolutely incapable of surviving such a war.  And by surviving I mean remaining a nation state with the same political boundaries and government that it started with.

The trick would be to inflict as much pain on the Russian invasion force as possible as quickly as possible.  It's possible that hitting the force hard enough in the first 2 days could dramatically affect the outcome.  That is something NATO is definitely recognizing and preparing for.  And whatever squabbles might go on at NATO HQ, if Russia attacks the Baltics it will be attacking American military forces that are 100% morally and legally justified to be right where they are.  NATO could sit on its collective arses for months, but the US would react within hours.  It would also not be acting alone.

My prediction is that after the dust settled from such a war neither the Russian state nor NATO would exist as they did before the war.  For Russia this isn't a good thing because not only would it come out weaker, whatever new organization that replaced NATO would be far more effective against it's bad behavior in the future.

Steve

[LUCASWILLEN05]

3 hours ago, kinophile said:

Re NATO's political process,  doesn't SACEUR have the option of commiting the reaction forces If he deems it militarily neccesary,  ie before a vote is concluded? 

That might be politically difficult depending on circumstances. Another question is whether deploying the Rapid Reaction forces into the Baltic States. Considering the 40 mile gap between Kaliningrad and the Belorussian border combined with the likely high speed of a Russian advance would not the Rapid Reaction Force be in danger of being cut off. OK so they mifght still be evacuated by sea but that would be embarrassing to say the least, 

Perhaps it would be militarily wiser to temporarily abandon the Baltic States but give them air support as they fight a delaying action. Put the Rapid Reaction Force on the border to hold the gap open for any Baltic States forces to escape 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

2 hours ago, cbennett88 said:

@LUCASWILLEN05  You are obviously up on your military history and have a good grasp on Poland's/Western Europe's current dilemma. Part of my assessment of Polish military ability is based on intangible items...

1) Since 2003 Polish military forces have rotated through Afghanistan and Iraq which gives them some combat experience and more importantly, years of experience working with/integrating into US/NATO military doctrine. Personal relationships(trust) and breaking down language barriers that comes from that probably counts for something when you have to suddenly fight together.

2) Polish special forces (GROM...there may be others) have also gotten years of valuable combat experience in those 2 hot spots. Sure...they can't stop a mechanized force by themselves but...used wisely, they might disrupt supply lines,etc. 

3) The Polish air force has trained with the US for years. We get Polish pilots here at Nellis(I live in Las Vegas) all the time and many of them have gone through various US advanced military instruction.

4) Not sure if you saw it, but the Polish army and the German army have combined their armor school. Getting that sort of high quality instruction from the guys with years of experience with those exact Leopards HAS to be a good thing, right?

  5) Lastly...and probably meaningless IRL but...imagine that if you added the Polish military to CM:BS...and gave me a choice of having to fight the Russians with... Polish Leopards 2 A4/A5 OR UKR equipment & troops...I'd definitely pick the polish! 

Like you said...would be an interesting hypothetical module to add to this game.

 

Totally agree with this. It would be (IMHO) the only sensible military decision.

 

@panzersaurkrautwerfer Did he not say during the video(@ 3:08 mins) that the complete brigade with ALL of their equipment is coming over EACH rotation? I thought he made a point of explaining that this was not going to be like the 80's REFORGER plan of flying in the troops to their pre-positioned equipment...

I do appreciate the insight from your experience though. My experience with mass equipment re-deployment was from coming back to the US after Desert Storm. Did you know that we had to pass US Dept of Agriculture inspection before they would let us load our Humvees, etc?!? Ever cleaned the underside of a Humvee with a toothbrush?? I have! NO FUN! Lol

That makes sense. Some interesting points re the Polws and Germans.

One thing i wonder about is whether here is a modern day version of the Reforger Plan. It makes sense there would be one but I have heard nothing about it

[cbennett88]

16 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Russia has too many advantages in terms of attacking the Baltics on its terms:

Agree...ESPECIALLY if time is a factor

As I mentioned in an earlier post...The biggest weakness for the US is the Atlantic & Baltic crossing.

IF...the Russian leader decides to strike the convoy carrying all the necessary mech equipment.

I just don't think any amount of naval power can completely protect an convoy all the way to Gdansk(or any Baltic port). Just entering the Baltic with a carrier is highly risky. NATO spent years working on plans/war games to do it. In almost every scenario, losses were severe. That means landing somewhere else in Europe and long distance transporting them. Much safer...but too slow for anything other than a long term (3+ months) fight.

Airlifts won't be able to do it, unless you are willing to take MONTHS. 

I realize that means an escalation.

But if such a tempting prize WERE TO enter the Baltic I'm not sure Putin wouldn't risk it. Even on a war footing, a 2nd US convoy would take awhile...given that the US navy would want to double the protection... and that means pulling assets from all over. In that time, Putin might be betting that enough NATO nations aren't willing to let things escalate further, given that they themselves haven't yet suffered any losses. Would France, Italy or Turkey really care if the Baltic states were taken?

[Vanir Ausf B]

58 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Russia has too many advantages in terms of attacking the Baltics on its terms:

1.  It would be the aggressor and therefore could decide if/when to invade.  NATO will always have to react to this

2.  Russia has continued the Soviet concept of "snap drills".  Despite all the false cries of anguish from Moscow about recent NATO activities, NATO's manuevers are announced in advance and (traditionally) Russian officers in Brussels are made aware of the details.  Contrast this with Russia's "snap drills" which are often within striking distance of neighboring countries and come without much, if any, warning.  This tradition of not letting anybody know squat about Russia's plans AND doing it somewhat randomly is deliberately designed to keep those around it forever uncertain if Russia is just training or if it is going to invade.  Since NATO can't run around with its hair on fire every time Russia does one of these exercises, it has to have other information before it would know the difference between the normal Russian passive/aggressive behavior and outright aggression.

3.  The Baltics, Ukraine, Georgia, etc. are outlying regions for NATO, but for Russia it's all their "front yard".  Russia can maneuver large forces into place within striking distance of a neighbor relatively quickly because for it the distances are much shorter than for NATO forces.

4.  Russia doesn't have to clear movements of troops with any other government, while NATO on the other hand does.  This is a point that Hodges has made a few times in the last couple of days.  NATO basically needs more authority to maneuver within NATO countries independent of normal restrictions.

5.  Russia is one country, NATO is almost three dozen (including it's partners, such as Sweden, Finland, and France).  Putin could wake up tomorrow, decide to invade, and by the end of next week it would be happening.  That's the benefit of being a dictator... one man is about a short of a decision cycle as you can get!  On the other hand, NATO is a mess of political nonsense coming from the fact that there is no one voice nor a smooth decision cycle.  Some countries, like Italy and Hungary, are thought to be in Russia's pocket enough that they are considered by many to be unreliable.  Out of all Russia's advantages in a Baltic scenario, this it the biggest one.

In the end Russia would lose any war that it started against NATO, so in that sense NATO (as an organization) could allow the Baltics to temporarily go back under Moscow's iron rule and force Russia to withdraw in any number of different ways.  Russia is absolutely incapable of surviving such a war.  And by surviving I mean remaining a nation state with the same political boundaries and government that it started with.

The trick would be to inflict as much pain on the Russian invasion force as possible as quickly as possible.  It's possible that hitting the force hard enough in the first 2 days could dramatically affect the outcome.  That is something NATO is definitely recognizing and preparing for.  And whatever squabbles might go on at NATO HQ, if Russia attacks the Baltics it will be attacking American military forces that are 100% morally and legally justified to be right where they are.  NATO could sit on its collective arses for months, but the US would react within hours.  It would also not be acting alone.

My prediction is that after the dust settled from such a war neither the Russian state nor NATO would exist as they did before the war.  For Russia this isn't a good thing because not only would it come out weaker, whatever new organization that replaced NATO would be far more effective against it's bad behavior in the future.

Steve

That's actually a very good summation

Edited June 23, 2016 by Vanir Ausf B

[Michael Emrys]

11 hours ago, cbennett88 said:

Do you think someone in the Polish army has played CM:BS and has learned a lesson or two about smoke dischargers?? 

If you got 'em, smoke 'em.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

One thing i wonder about is whether here is a modern day version of the Reforger Plan. It makes sense there would be one but I have heard nothing about it

I'm not sure there was, or at least one that was capable of being implemented.  However, I'd bet you a couple copies of Black Sea that there's several plans in the works now.

1 hour ago, cbennett88 said:

Agree...ESPECIALLY if time is a factor

As I mentioned in an earlier post...The biggest weakness for the US is the Atlantic & Baltic crossing.

Yup.  The biggest strength, however, is that Russia could probably be effectively defeated without moving anything else into Europe.  More on that below.

Quote

IF...the Russian leader decides to strike the convoy carrying all the necessary mech equipment.

I just don't think any amount of naval power can completely protect an convoy all the way to Gdansk(or any Baltic port). Just entering the Baltic with a carrier is highly risky. NATO spent years working on plans/war games to do it. In almost every scenario, losses were severe. That means landing somewhere else in Europe and long distance transporting them. Much safer...but too slow for anything other than a long term (3+ months) fight.

Airlifts won't be able to do it, unless you are willing to take MONTHS. 

I realize that means an escalation.

Time will always be on Russia's adversaries' side.  Everything about Russia today shows signs that the country will collapse at some point in the near future even if there is no war with NATO.  This might sound harsh to our Russian Forum members, but the statistics that matters (i.e. not numbers of tanks and nukes) are forecasting extremely difficult times ahead.  Record out migration, decades of declining birth rates, rapidly increasing poverty rate, a huge wave of people going on state assistance due to age, declining infrastructure, declining GDP (separate from oil products), increasing domestic unrest (in particular Caucuses), and of course a trashed reputation abroad.  Just like the Soviet Union of the 1980s, it's only a matter of time before Russia will not be able to support its' military posture and keep its population from revolting. It would be better for everybody, including Russia, if it wasn't hastened by warfare.

Therefore, worst case is Russia invades and takes the Baltics, suffering significant losses in the process (see below), then somehow manages to get the fighting to stop without losing what it took.  It would then face total economic isolation and through a series of events total collapse as a state.

Quote

But if such a tempting prize WERE TO enter the Baltic I'm not sure Putin wouldn't risk it.

I agree.  I do not think Putin is very smart, but I don't think he is a blithering idiot.  Only a blithering idiot would deliberately take Russia to war against NATO (see below)

Quote

Even on a war footing, a 2nd US convoy would take awhile...given that the US navy would want to double the protection... and that means pulling assets from all over. In that time, Putin might be betting that enough NATO nations aren't willing to let things escalate further, given that they themselves haven't yet suffered any losses. Would France, Italy or Turkey really care if the Baltic states were taken?

It is probable that a war against NATO will mean NATO reshapes itself or dissolves and reforms into something new.  The groundwork for that already exists in the bilateral non-NATO defense agreements made between the countries that are most concerned about Russian aggression.

If Putin thinks that breaking up NATO fixes everything, the he'd be an utter fool.  This is not 1966 or 1976.  The United States could defeat Russia quite easily even if nobody helped it.  Simple rules of war... the one with the more resources and will to fight will win.  Any objective view of Russia's military capacity shows that it is totally outclassed by just the US.  And unlike Russia, the United States has a lot of very powerful friends.  Therefore, if NATO were to dissolve into the a small group of like minded countries (Baltics, Poland, Great Britain, Netherlands, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and most likely Germany) Russia would be no better off than it is with the current NATO.  In fact, it will be WORSE off because whatever replaces NATO would be far more unified in mindset.

1 hour ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

That's actually a very good summation

High praise  

OK, now or the rest of the summation.  What would Russia likely lose even if it took the Baltics?

1.  A few thousands military personnel and the backlash from it

2.  Most of its air force

3.  A big chunk of its navy

4.  Donbas (but not Crimea)

5.  Presence in Syria

6.  Transnistria

7.  Any and all chance of being a part of the world economy, including being kicked out of SWIFT

8.  Most likely 10s of billions of Dollars stashed away in other country's banks and property markets

9.  Pretty much all leverage/control within the EU would be neutralized (no money to fund, no ability to move money easily, active counter actions from EU countries, etc.)

10.  Personal financial ruin for the ruling elite (and boy they won't be pleased about that!)

11.  What it took from Georgia in 2008

12.  New wars in the Caucuses that would result in loss of control and major spilling of blood and treasure

13.  Loss of most of the "Stans" to either US, Iranian, Turkish, and in particular Chinese influence.

14.  At some point regime change (see #10 if you don't understand why).

That's just off the top of my head.

Losses 1-10 would happen within months, the rest would be more opportunistic.

The problem Russia has is that there's no corresponding list of disasters to befall any of the NATO and European countries except for the Baltics (of course).  This makes a move into the Baltics suicidal for both Putin's regime and for Russia as a nation state.  If Russia felt pain losing all of its Soviet influence, imagine what the next Russia would feel like to lose all of its Soviet influence AND all of the current Russian Federation influence. 

As I said, I don't think Putin is crazy, nor do I think he is suicidal.  Literally, because I don't think Putin would survive to see the end of Russia as we know it because he'd "die of natural causes" (traditionally a heart attack) before the end arrived.

Steve

[John Kettler]

cbennett88,

Good catch! I did report the date one month too soon (scurries about and hides his time machine). You are also correct in that CINCUSAREUR did say this was not going to be simply flying in troops to join already in place equipment, but would be the bringing in of a complete Heavy Brigade, with all the newest toys, every nine months. He also made it clear there would be a continuous presence of a Heavy Brigade. My interpretation is that the rotating unit doesn't get to leave until the relieving unit is fully in place.

Steve,

Since you have a bunch of CM addicts who need your product (and thoroughly enjoy virtually hanging out with the dealer), please don't let the Intelligence Community recruit you. Formidable analysts don't grow on trees, and you fully merit the descriptor.

Regards,

John Kettler

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

7 hours ago, kinophile said:

@panzersaurkrautwerfer,  @BTR how relevant is dust to modern rank optics? Is there significant degradation at all? Is the rate of degradation tied literally to the quantity of dusty in the air? Is ME desert dust worse than European, 'earth'  dust? 

 

Dust will still obscure a target if it's thick enough.  Firing on a dry range during the summer will throw up a huge plume, and you'll lose the target for just a bit....but you'll reacquire way faster with thermal optics.

As far as thinner plumes (like driving down a dusty road) it'll only have negligible effects, you'll see the dust suspended in the air, but the heat signature of the target will generally show through.  

 

 

6 hours ago, cbennett88 said:

@LUCASWILLEN05  You are obviously up on your military history and have a good grasp on Poland's/Western Europe's current dilemma. Part of my assessment of Polish military ability is based on intangible items...

1) Since 2003 Polish military forces have rotated through Afghanistan and Iraq which gives them some combat experience and more importantly, years of experience working with/integrating into US/NATO military doctrine. Personal relationships(trust) and breaking down language barriers that comes from that probably counts for something when you have to suddenly fight together.

2) Polish special forces (GROM...there may be others) have also gotten years of valuable combat experience in those 2 hot spots. Sure...they can't stop a mechanized force by themselves but...used wisely, they might disrupt supply lines,etc. 

3) The Polish air force has trained with the US for years. We get Polish pilots here at Nellis(I live in Las Vegas) all the time and many of them have gone through various US advanced military instruction.

4) Not sure if you saw it, but the Polish army and the German army have combined their armor school. Getting that sort of high quality instruction from the guys with years of experience with those exact Leopards HAS to be a good thing, right?

  5) Lastly...and probably meaningless IRL but...imagine that if you added the Polish military to CM:BS...and gave me a choice of having to fight the Russians with... Polish Leopards 2 A4/A5 OR UKR equipment & troops...I'd definitely pick the polish! 

Like you said...would be an interesting hypothetical module to add to this game.

 

Totally agree with this. It would be (IMHO) the only sensible military decision.

 

@panzersaurkrautwerfer Did he not say during the video(@ 3:08 mins) that the complete brigade with ALL of their equipment is coming over EACH rotation? I thought he made a point of explaining that this was not going to be like the 80's REFORGER plan of flying in the troops to their pre-positioned equipment...

I do appreciate the insight from your experience though. My experience with mass equipment re-deployment was from coming back to the US after Desert Storm. Did you know that we had to pass US Dept of Agriculture inspection before they would let us load our Humvees, etc?!? Ever cleaned the underside of a Humvee with a toothbrush?? I have! NO FUN! Lol

I'll be honest, I didn't actually watch the video.  I did some staff work around Baltic stuff, and have had a bit of a personal/professional interest in the area.  I believe they might have been talking about for the training rotation/exercises, but there is, and are going to be more, pre-positioned equipment stocks, and rotationally stationed units like I described in Europe.

I heard about the epic cleaning of equipment after 1991.  We lucked out in that all of our hardware was waiting for us in theater, and we left it behind when we redeployed.  

Still finding small deposits of iraqi sand in my personal stuff years on though*


*There's a lot of kit and odds and ends that came back with me to Iraq that went right into storage when I went onto school, and from school to Korea, didn't really get a chance to go through it until I left active duty.  

[cbennett88]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

OK, now or the rest of the summation.  What would Russia likely lose even if it took the Baltics?

Very good presentation! (need clapping hands emoji)

Someone PLEASE forward this to the Kremlin for Putin to see!! I'm not convinced he has anyone advising him that would be willing to say this to him. 

I for one, only want to see these types of battles happen within the confines of the "CM world".

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, cbennett88 said:

Very good presentation! (need clapping hands emoji)

Someone PLEASE forward this to the Kremlin for Putin to see!! I'm not convinced he has anyone advising him that would be willing to say this to him. 

This is, of course, a legitimate concern.  All leadership, even in democracies, runs into problems of listening to too few people saying stupid things.  In very recent US military history we had the neocon "war on the cheap" voice that convinced too many that Iraq could be won quickly, easily, and relatively inexpensively.  Lots of very smart people in the room were told to STFU and/or get out when they raised uncomfortable questions.  Those daring to point out unwanted things were retaliated against.  Fortunately some leaders were willing to fall onto their swords for the greater good and we at least went into Iraq with 150,000 instead of the political leadership's originally proposed 60,000.  Would have been better if they also took us to war with a plan (even a bad one!), but at least we went in with more than double what we would have.  I won't even get into the laundry list of leadership failures due to insularity and hubris that resulted in the disastrous Iraq situation as this one example is sufficient.

The problem with autocratic leadership is that there are far fewer checks and balances to really poor decision making at the top.  And as real world options become slimmer the less people are wiling to risk telling the leaders the truth.  This causes the leadership to be even less receptive to outside criticism since the inside voices are mostly Yes Men.  Course changes are still possible, but they are done with minimal outside input and generally with the isolated leadership looking for details to be solved rather than a truly fresh perspective.  Which is why autocratic leadership, no matter what type of organization it is (business, religion, NGO, government, etc), usually runs things into the ground sooner rather than later.

It seems that Putin already had one showdown with oligarchs concerned about their personal wealth and access to the West.  That's where Putin has to be careful.  If he pushes things too far he'll have to go to war against his own support network.  That would be really, really ugly.  I think the oligarchs have already made this known to him.  I'm sure Putin understands that it's hard to spend billions if one is dead of a "heart attack".

1 hour ago, cbennett88 said:

I for one, only want to see these types of battles happen within the confines of the "CM world".

No kidding.  While Russia's defeat in a conflict with NATO is nearly 100% assured, Russia can do a LOT of damage on the way down.  That's even without using nukes.

Steve

[LUCASWILLEN05]

8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I'm not sure there was, or at least one that was capable of being implemented.  However, I'd bet you a couple copies of Black Sea that there's several plans in the works now.

Yup.  The biggest strength, however, is that Russia could probably be effectively defeated without moving anything else into Europe.  More on that below.

Time will always be on Russia's adversaries' side.  Everything about Russia today shows signs that the country will collapse at some point in the near future even if there is no war with NATO.  This might sound harsh to our Russian Forum members, but the statistics that matters (i.e. not numbers of tanks and nukes) are forecasting extremely difficult times ahead.  Record out migration, decades of declining birth rates, rapidly increasing poverty rate, a huge wave of people going on state assistance due to age, declining infrastructure, declining GDP (separate from oil products), increasing domestic unrest (in particular Caucuses), and of course a trashed reputation abroad.  Just like the Soviet Union of the 1980s, it's only a matter of time before Russia will not be able to support its' military posture and keep its population from revolting. It would be better for everybody, including Russia, if it wasn't hastened by warfare.

Therefore, worst case is Russia invades and takes the Baltics, suffering significant losses in the process (see below), then somehow manages to get the fighting to stop without losing what it took.  It would then face total economic isolation and through a series of events total collapse as a state.

I agree.  I do not think Putin is very smart, but I don't think he is a blithering idiot.  Only a blithering idiot would deliberately take Russia to war against NATO (see below)

It is probable that a war against NATO will mean NATO reshapes itself or dissolves and reforms into something new.  The groundwork for that already exists in the bilateral non-NATO defense agreements made between the countries that are most concerned about Russian aggression.

If Putin thinks that breaking up NATO fixes everything, the he'd be an utter fool.  This is not 1966 or 1976.  The United States could defeat Russia quite easily even if nobody helped it.  Simple rules of war... the one with the more resources and will to fight will win.  Any objective view of Russia's military capacity shows that it is totally outclassed by just the US.  And unlike Russia, the United States has a lot of very powerful friends.  Therefore, if NATO were to dissolve into the a small group of like minded countries (Baltics, Poland, Great Britain, Netherlands, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and most likely Germany) Russia would be no better off than it is with the current NATO.  In fact, it will be WORSE off because whatever replaces NATO would be far more unified in mindset.

High praise  

OK, now or the rest of the summation.  What would Russia likely lose even if it took the Baltics?

1.  A few thousands military personnel and the backlash from it

2.  Most of its air force

3.  A big chunk of its navy

4.  Donbas (but not Crimea)

5.  Presence in Syria

6.  Transnistria

7.  Any and all chance of being a part of the world economy, including being kicked out of SWIFT

8.  Most likely 10s of billions of Dollars stashed away in other country's banks and property markets

9.  Pretty much all leverage/control within the EU would be neutralized (no money to fund, no ability to move money easily, active counter actions from EU countries, etc.)

10.  Personal financial ruin for the ruling elite (and boy they won't be pleased about that!)

11.  What it took from Georgia in 2008

12.  New wars in the Caucuses that would result in loss of control and major spilling of blood and treasure

13.  Loss of most of the "Stans" to either US, Iranian, Turkish, and in particular Chinese influence.

14.  At some point regime change (see #10 if you don't understand why).

That's just off the top of my head.

Losses 1-10 would happen within months, the rest would be more opportunistic.

The problem Russia has is that there's no corresponding list of disasters to befall any of the NATO and European countries except for the Baltics (of course).  This makes a move into the Baltics suicidal for both Putin's regime and for Russia as a nation state.  If Russia felt pain losing all of its Soviet influence, imagine what the next Russia would feel like to lose all of its Soviet influence AND all of the current Russian Federation influence. 

As I said, I don't think Putin is crazy, nor do I think he is suicidal.  Literally, because I don't think Putin would survive to see the end of Russia as we know it because he'd "die of natural causes" (traditionally a heart attack) before the end arrived.

Steve

There probably are Reforger like plans in he works or actually in place

Regarding any naval war I would expect something like that described in Michael Palmer's The War that Never Was" After a week or so Russia's surface fleet will be sunk or blockaded in port.  he submarine that might take longer.Pesky things submarines. Hard to detect.

Regarding the land war, it may well be Russia wins some early victories in the land war. The Baltic States themselves are probably untenable. It might be worth fighting a delaying action to buy time for NATO to mobilize to defend Poland. If Putin continues to push west the main battle will be fought in Eastern Poland Or, as most of us, including myself think, it will be wiser for Putin to halt and dig in on the Polish border. However,that could be making the same mistake Saddam made in 1990 when he invaded Kuwait. The situation here though is different as there seems little prospect for a wide Desert Storm style outflanking move on land. An amphibious landing might be considered but the Russians would expect that.On land it would have to be a frontal assault combined with airmobile and seaborne assaults.

It may well be that the firs battles of a war end in stalemate after considerable losses on both sides in a similar manner to 1914. Assuming no use of nukes you are left with an extended conventional war. Initially you will probably get a 21st Century version of the 1915 "shell shortage" and new armies of volunteers/conscripts will have to learn their trade the hard way, on the battle feld as in WW1/WW2. However, the maritime powers will control the seas and that will be an advantage. Possibly a decisive one eventually if history is any guide.

A techno thriller would recommend that illustrates this welI is Dragon's Fury by Jeff Head although his World War 3 pits the West againt China and much of the Islamic World. Among other roles the author has worked in the Defense industry on various weapons systems engineering projects. I do not agree with all of the author's views by any means but his book isa fascinating and thought provoking read. Definitely worth a look if i you haven't read it.