LUCASWILLEN05

Interesting piece as always. Thanks. While I do not wish to be political I do not see Ukraine becoming a NATO member unless relations with Russia really deteriorated very badly and war appeared highly likely. Otherwise it would be a highly provocative move. Unofficial/semi official support would appear to be what is happening but not a a level that would unduly anagonise Moscow

Fire and Maneuver. Always cover any movement with at least one unit deployed on overwatch. That includes AAA assets by the way. Just in case there is an airstrike or helicopter gunships on the prowl. Speaking of helicopter gunships I like to set up interlocking engagement areas wherever possible particularly when attacking enmy armur. Co-ordinated with ground forces and fixd wing where appropriate/possible

Respect the air threat. Don't dash across open areas without deploying SAMs to cover them should enemy jets or attack helicopters how up. What can happen if they do and you have nothingset upto counter them the results could be extremely nasty. I have only made this mistake once! :-)

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. My point is that a similar operational situation to 3rd Kharkov or the 1920 Battle of Warsaw might well develop with an invading Russian army becoming badly over extended and being hit with a NATO counter offensive very like (in operational terms) von Manstein's "backhand blow)in 1943 or Pilsudski#s counter offensive in 1920. Today, with modern technology events would move at even higher speed as we have seen from modern wars like Operation Desert Storm and Operation iraqi Freedom. Russian generals in this situation would have even less time o react than their forbears did in 1943 and 1920. The results would be very similar. Strung out Russian forces would be defeated and destroyed in detail. Which is why I say a Russian attempt to invade Poland would be a gamble. When gamblers lose he loss is often very big indeed. and that is why I said the WISEST Russian course of action would be to choose the safer path and dig in. I never said that the Russians are likely to invade Poland. What I have been doing is pointing out the risks and consequences to the Russians if they did try it and the gamble failed to pay off. In other words, looking at it from the Russian POV I would consider it too high a risk to attempt under most circumstances but, were I a Russian general planning the invasion of the Baltic States I would prepare a contingency plan to continue the advance into Poland should the Kremlin see an opportunity and decide to exploit it. My plan under most conditions would be to halt on the Polish border and did in along a relatively short 140 mile border much of which is the Kaliningrad Oblast

Furthermore Putin has made threats to invade Poland, Romania and the Baltic States, Maybe it is bluster and maybe it is not http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11106195/Putin-privately-threatened-to-invade-Poland-Romania-and-the-Baltic-states.html Just accept that, while the chances of such a scenario are slim indeed, there is a small chance that the contingency might arise where the Russians do indeed push on into Poland after securing te Baltic States. Look at the military and political advantages for Russia in a situation where the implementation of Article 5 has been badly delayed because too many NATO nations refuse to believe the invasion threat is badly delayed Read Shirreff's book with particular attention to the mobilization issues. Bear in mind that Shirreff is a recently required Deputy SACEUR and is familiar with the political and military problems inherent in NATO mobilization. hopefully there would be time for the Polish army to mobilize and deploy to war positions and for it to be reinforced by some NATO units. If that is achieved then this quick deployment will probably dissuade Putun from a further advance into Poland. Just s the quick response of he US and the rapid deployment of xviii Airborne Corps and elements of the US marines dissuaded Saddam from implementing ny plan he might have had for invading Saudi Arabia in August/September 1990. I am not saying there was an Iraqi plan to do that, just that a slower US political and military response might well have tempted Saddam had he been minded to risk it At the time there certainly were fears that Iraq might advance into Saudi Arabia. Read for example XVIII airborne Corps in Desert Storm by Charles Lane Toomey and Certain Victory by Brigadier General Robert Scales. There are lessons from Desert Shield tat could apply to a deployment to the Polish border in the event of a Russian invasion of the Baltic States. And before you object with the argument that the terrain is different. Yes it is. But the STRATEGIC and OPERATIONAL similarities are there

Steve my point is that a Russia advance into Poland is probably not a good idea under most circumstances. In a situation where NATO is not fully mobilized and forces are out of position, as might be the case then it might be worth the risk. Remember the problems General Sir Richard Shirreff outlined in his book 2017 War with Russia. There was much debate an argument regarding whether the threat to the Baltic States was a real one or not and that considerably delayed the NATO response. If NATO's mobilization is indeed delayed by the politics that sets up a situation where a further Russian advance into Poland might at least be considered whether or not it is actually implemented. I fully agree that the WISEST thing for the Russians to do is stop on the Polish border. But it is possible that they do the UNEXPECTED (as the Germans did in 1940 when they attacked through the Ardennes The point you ignore is that sometimes the enemy does the unexpected. In Operation Desert Storm the Iraqis did not expect the left hook through the desert. The IDF did not expect the Arabs to attack on Yom Kippur during the late afternoon but that is what actually happened, At the start of the Six Day War the Arabs did not expect the massive IAFair strikes that wiped out their air forces to all intents and purposes for the rest of the war. We don't think the Russians will continue an attack into Poland after invading the Baltic States but they might. If we have ruled the possibility out entirely we will be as psychologically unprepared for that as the Allies were completely unprepared in 1940 The wise man would be saying yes I think this contingency is an unlikely but it should not be completely ruled out. That way, in the event that the situation does develop, however unlikely we thought it was we are mentally prepared to deal with it even if the forces are not all in place to deal with it. Recall that just before the Battle of the Bulge Patton had his staff do a planning exercise assuming his 3rd Army had to do a left turn into the Ardennes, When the Germans did attack in the Ardennes a few days later the staff work had already been done for the movement and 3rd Army staff and senior staff were mntally prepared so, unlike the French in 1940 they did not panic. The right responses were made and the rest is history. The same principle applies to a future war with Russia. Learn from History - those who do not are doomed to repeat it

Real time battles with time topause and plan in large scenarios.It could work for smallscenarios .Sadly I dn't always have a spare couple of hourrs to sit at te computer payg on lines However, in prnciple playing in that manner could be very realistic

I'd rather we didn't discuss Brexit or the Referendum except in terms of how it might affect NATO interventionin EasternEurope. Otherwise please can we not dscuss it here. I know my views can be qcontroversial at times but t least they have some relevance on this forum. This was an interesting thread and it would be nice to get bck on track gents :-)

Employ tactical nuclear weapons. Just one will do -wipe out the whole 4000 x 4000 metre battlefield inone fell swoop and set to high aiirburst tominimise fallout Kidding!

Like I very much doubt the US would send armed forces into the #Ukrane. Maybe a future President Trump might do it for some reason but if he wanted to try it the Joint Chiefs would likely put him firmly in his place for obvious reasons. A war over a Russian invasion ofthe Baltic States is more probable but if he tried that Putin would vbe startinga war with NATO. However, in CMBS we assume, for wargamng purposes, that the politicians were stupd enough to start such wars. If we didn't make thatssumption we wouldn't have a game would we!

Please let us not discuss Brexit. I see enough ofthat on the news and franly come here to get away from it for a bit. Thanks

Steve I do not misunderstand you.All i am saying is the plan might be considered but it would be a really risky iea. however, THE CAVEAT is that there have been times whensomeone has done the unexpected in military history. In 1940 nobody on the Allied side expEcted the Germans to come through the Ardennes but that is exactly what they did do. While we agree a Russia advance into Poland is extremely unlikely we should not completely rule out the possibility, however small If someone produces a CMBS scenario against the backgroundof a Russian invasionof Poland grat, I will play it. Back in the 1980s moderns tabletop gamers were war gaming Warsaw Pact invasions of Western Europe (Sci Fi on the Rhine) Move East and to the present day in CMBS we re gaming Sci Fi on the Dnieper. We might as well use the game engine to play Sci Fi on the Vistula/Sci Fi Baltic States. Or even Sci Fi Russia The game engine is designed for Moderns in Eatern Europe. Suspend the geopolitical disbelief and have fun assuming they actually did fight a wa that way - just play the war game scenario and concentrate on fighting te battle ven if it is a bayttle unlikely ever to be fought - and I hope all the battlles in CMBS are never actually fought in the real world. Again, I reiterate what I said earler,The most likely scenario is that Russia halts on the Poland - lithunia border and digs in Now please read what I ACTUALLY said, not what you THINK i SAID Thankyou

?1? :-)I think a Russian invasion of the Baltic States, possibly followed by an advance into Poland is probably more likely. Putin has made threats to invade Poland. The only "threats" EU leaders have made is that the UK won't have any special privileges. That is hardly a threat of Operation Sealion 2 coming through the Channel Tunnel. And no I am not suggesting that as a CM game! OK how about Combat Mission PEXIT? :-) Larry Bond's Cauldon does postulate an EU (EURCON) invasion of Poland and Hungary. Now. were Poland to leave the EU Merkel could be a little upset....Perhaps Germany and France could ally with Russia as nearly happens in Bond's novel.:-) Now, if Battlefront were to add French. German and Polish forces we could actually game that with Blue on Blue forces. that is a serious game suggestion by the way - just as a bit of fun, nothing more so don't start WW3 over it :-) It is just a war game, not reality! Some people take strict geopolitical correctness a little too seriously at times.All it s is |"what if they did do that"

I am not saying thy will do it. Indeed I think I have made it very clear in multiple posts that it would be unwise. But,under certain circumstances (NATO not mobilized and incompletely deployed someone might think of trying it. As I have also pointed out it would be a gamble and gambles that go wrong tend to go horribly wrong.The Russians would end up with a much longer line of defense eg along the Vistula in the event the Polish did not capitulate as Putin might hope they would. Indeed, as #I hve also pointed out several times the Russians woul risk over extending their forces exposimg them to defeat in detail I AM IN FACT POINTING OUT GOOD REASONS WHY THE RUSSIANS WOULD NOT TAKE THE RISK ALTHOUGH THEY MIGHT CONSIDER THE GAMBLE That is why have stated categorically that the best option would be a limited rapid operation to take the Baltic States before NATO mobilizes and deploys heavy forces into Poland. I don't agree however the war will be decided in a week. yOU ASSUME THATrUSSIA OCCUPIES THE bALTICsTATES AFTER WHICH NATO NEGTIAES FOR PEACE AFTER BEING HANDED A FAT ACCOMPLI. In fact NATO will spend two or three months building up fr the liberaton of the Baltic States.A bit like Operation Desert Storm

I agree the wisest thing for the Russian army would be to stop at the Polish border and it would make it hard for a NATO "Desert Storm" style operation to liberate the territory. The only possible advantage of pushing on into Warsaw would be a gamble to knock out an important NATO member before the alliance fully mobilized and deployed. It couldvery well result in a military disaster for Russia as they make a similar mistake to that made at 3rd Kharkov or in 1920. Which is why they probably won't risk it. Having aid that NATO's problem is a political one. To deploy without risking a political split NATO has to g through the Article 5 procedures as described by General ir Richard Shirreff, As former Deputy SACEUR Shirreff is well awar of the procedures, potential problems and the time it will take to get things done.Sure NATO has 9 days warning but then you have to convince the alliance members th threat is real Lets say it takes three days to get Article 5. That leaves you 6 days to mobilize and deploy. It will be wisest for most of the heavy forces to deploy on the Polish border so tey don't thrust themselves into a trap rather like that the British and French did in in May 1940 under the Dyle Plan. Some forces could deploy into the Baltc States both for political reasons and to fight a delaying action to gain time for NATO to complete deployment. The Russians will then be haled on the Polish border while NATO prepares a counter offensive if the Russians refuse to withdraw

It is just that I war game and read about WW2 a lot. I certainly you would not send IFVs out and they would run into the same problem or worse. Dismounted infantry is what you need. Drones are certainly helpful but in my experience often get shot down a lot As with every other period, when faced with a combined arms defense you have to deal with it by a combined arms attack (and vice versa) The challenge is finding the best ways to achieve this with your combined arms team however it happens to be organised. personally I find the Stryker too vulnerable for the mechanized battlefield Hence use it only to get your infantry as far forward as i safe to do so, then dismount (load up your infantry with all the anti tank weapons as they cn carry using them as part of the combined arms team with the tanks, helicopters, air,drones and artillery. Easy to say but hard to master. Sometimes I will split a leading squad into teams and just send a scout team out on point.Maybe use a drone or two if available

Just that the Russians will certainly try to use them to interdict the convoys. Also long range aircraft and anti ship missiles I do not however see the Russians being able to do this for very long. Only for the first few weeks although I would not like to predict a more precise time frame than that.The West will have largely won the war at sea in the first two or three weeks although some residual threat may remain for longer Then the US will be able to roll reinforcements across the Atlantic almost unimpeded

Ha Ha."Friendly fire isn't"

Combined Arms. Shoot Russkies! :-)

Of course convoys in the initial phases of a war are going to suffer heavy losses. There will be a Battle of the Atlantic in a 21st Century war with Russia just as there was a Battle of he Atlantic in WW1 and WW2. It would make sense for Russians to interdict Atlantic convoys using submarines and long range air. However this probably won't last for too long. Convoys do not necessarily have to go to Gdansk. They could instead go to Western European ports and from there Poland by land. Dust off the plans dating from the 1980s and update them as needed; As I indicated elsewhere something similar to the 1980s Reforger plan would make a lot of sense

The initial sages might well be something like he early part of WW2 German blitzkriegs with there Russians winning early battles in the Baltic States and possibly Eastern Poland. It will take a while for NATO to get organised but,assuming the Russians advanced further West than the Baltic States they will probably be halted on the Vistula or the German border. I envisage a 21st Century version of the 1920 Battle of Warsaw and something similar to von Manstein's Backhand Blow at theThird Battle of Kharkov. As you say Russia will eventually lose a conventional war if it fails to achieve a early knock oot blow. This will be for much the same reasons the Kaiser lost WW1 and Hitler lost WW2. Western maritime power.Like the two previous world wars a future struggle could turn into a protracted conventional struggle assuming the war leaders are too scared to resort to nuclear weapons use. I believe that will be the case but, since there has never been a war between nuclear armed powers we cannot be completely certain about the above assumption

That is what I suspected. Thank you for confirming it from your professional expertise. I came at it from the military history buff angle which will probably cause you to grin :-) Here however we both came to the same conclusion. Don;t you just love it when a plan comes together (Does a Hannibal Smith impression with a big Havana cigar :-) )

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.

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

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