LUCASWILLEN05
-
Posts
1,591 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by LUCASWILLEN05
-
-
14 hours ago, kinophile said:
Disregard my above, borked mobile post.
Re @LUCASWILLEN05 you're correct, this is veering off.
I must point out though, again, that your primary examples and rationales for a NATO v RUS war are all grounded in WW2 thinking. That immediately limits your ideas' credibility when discussing modern day situations and developments.
For this ill informed footstool general at least...
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
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
-
4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
The difference is that Germany was capable of it, Russia is NOT capable of attacking into Poland. Not unless they have secret alien technology that we're unaware of.
There's a very small chance that I might win the lottery and become a multi-millionaire overnight, but making any plans based on it is stupid. In fact, I'd say I have more of a chance of winning the lottery than Russia has of invading Poland, and I don't even play the lottery.
You have it completely backwards. I have always understood your point and I have explained why it's not worth talking about or debating. I have explained why and yet you still persist with pushing for some sort of scenario that is utter nonsense. I have told you that we will NEVER consider such a scenario for simulation in CM and that's that. I already locked up one thread where you clearly weren't listening to a word anybody else wrote. I do not want to repeat that again here.
Steve
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
-
1 hour ago, Sublime said:
Oh please. Give me a break. That rant was such utter nonsense. You.re trying to say the US directed the French terror attacks? You.re living in a Kettlerian fantasy world - new world order etc. Pls.
Uh you do remember there were attacks elsewhere first of all, second of all why France? Uh maybe the flood of immigrants that are in France?
Maybe the enclaved huge muslim population thats living in what are essentially ghettos in the old fashioned sense? The same population that rioted and firebombed the Paris police responding in 05? So I bet you also think the US did 9 11 and the Brit terror attacks and the Spanish ones as well? Wheres the illuminati in your theory? (of making jews live in a specific area not in a rap sense.)
And no. Tens of thousands of people didnt get murdered in the US from shootings last year sorry. So no no comparison whatsoever to Syria or even Ukraine.
P.s. Or instead of blaming the US/EU for sanctions you could blame the Russian government for continually lying, aggressively pursuing hybrid warfare, and violating the Minsk agreements? Of course the upper class isnt suffering. Ironically if theres a third world war the only surviors will be thise assholes on the top. But to blame the US EU for the sanctions, how about Putin et. Al. For getting the sanctions and declaring on your behalf without asking you that you and the entire nation will endure anyways despite the evil capitalist lap dogs plan to make a new world order. Another thread down the tubes.
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!
-
13 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:
My own opinion is that there is no scenario in which NATO would choose to engage directly with Russia in Ukraine. It's not legally obligated to do so and none of the major NATO powers have national interests at stake that would justify direct conflict with a nuclear armed near-peer adversary.
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!
-
6 hours ago, kinophile said:
Vlad, do you not understand the basic nature of the EU? It's membership is voluntary, completely contingent on the approval of member states' population. The UK held a referendum specifically to allow the population to voice that opinion, yay or nay. And now is preparing to follow that result. The EU has no say in that decision and have been very clear that they respect that decision and the process that lead to it. They gave no ability to force a second referendum simply because they don't like the result. They are not the Russian Government. They are a democracy of democracies.
I don't know what mickey-mouse news outlets you're reading that could give that impression, as it is completely and utterly wrong.
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
-
9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
This is my opinion too (unless Putin attacked NATO first, of course). The most likely response would be the military aid which, apparently, the US (and presumably other NATO countries) said that they would hold off sending to Ukraine on the condition that Russia not invade. Which is one reason that Russia has bent over backwards to lie about the fact that it already has invaded Ukraine and continues to be present there. The West, sadly, is letting Russia get away with it. But I digress
If Russia were to invade Ukraine proper there would be no NATO response in any direct way. However, the amount of military aid that would suddenly appear in Ukraine would be substantial. Even if NATO doesn't officially do it, several of its member states definitely would. Having Poland on the border with Ukraine ensures that the aid would get there quickly and in whatever quantity chosen by NATO. If it had to be flown in by air or moved by ship then perhaps Russia could interdict it, but not by land.
Exactly.
Even if Russia could get very far into Poland (which I doubt VERY much), what would it do? It would have a very hostile population which, incidentally, Poland is now preparing for guerilla warfare. Russia's supply lines would be extremely long as they would have go go through the Baltics, not Belarus (anybody that thinks Lukashenko would throw his lot in with Putin is ill informed). The Baltics would be a hotbed of partisan activity as well. Russia doesn't have the manpower for the invasion much less keeping whatever takes EVEN IF not a single NATO country lifted a finger to help Poland. Which is, of course, not likely at all.
You are still missing the point. Let me explain it to you in as simple terms as possible...
Russia could no more take on Poland than I could get a date with Kate Upton. Even if I should happen to go to a bar where she was hanging out with her crew and "gambled" on going over to her VIP table to ask her on a date with her, it would never happen. I'm not young enough, good looking enough, famous enough, or rich enough to get past her body guards. My hopes and desires, planning, what I told my friends at the bar before I went over to her table, etc. MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. I would leave that bar without her phone number.
Let me summarize so you don't misunderstand me again...
Under the most extreme circumstances Russia might invade the Baltics. It might militarily conquer the Baltics. It would not be able to hold the Baltics for more than a few weeks, perhaps a few months. Any talk of Russia invading Poland is utterly insane. I think it's got less of a chance of happening than the EU invading Great Britain to take back all the superior cuisine that Britain acquired over the past 40 years.
Steve
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 hour ago, Raptorx7 said:
DUDE OMG.
COMBAT MISSION: BREXIT
Situation:
EU forces comprising of Russian, German, French, Polish, Italian, and Dutch forces invade the southern coast of England to force Britain back into the EU. Maybe the expansion would add US forces to aid Britain, and than an additional expansion featuring the Irish invading northern Ireland.
I would pay 500$ for that.
?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"
-
42 minutes ago, Raptorx7 said:
I think you misunderstood Steve.
RUSSIA DOES NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO INVADE THE BALTICS AND THAN THREATEN WARSAW, THAT IS RIDICULOUS.
I mean think through this man, what the hell happens if they capture Warsaw, the Polish just give up and say "Well the Warsaw pact wasn't THAT bad guys, come on fall in line!". This isn't World War 2, this freaking war is going to be decided in less than a week.
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
-
2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Russia doesn't have the military strength to do more than take on the Baltics. Blitzing into Poland would only hasten the military defeat of Russia and the resulting internal collapse to follow. I've run the numbers on a Russian invasion of Ukraine many times and I don't think there's a chance in Hell they would come out on top even against the initially poorly led and disorganized post-Maidan Ukrainian state, but against Poland it would be near instant suicide. First of all, they would have to get through the Baltics first and that would be messy. Second, by the time the Russians massed their forces to go into Poland would be about the same time that NATO's heavy stuff would be in place within Germany and Poland. Russia would also likely have near zero air cover. It would be a slaughter of epic proportions. 10s of thousands of Russian casualties vs. thousands.
The mistake that many people make when they project what Russia is militarily capable of doing is that they really don't understand what Russia is militarily capable of doing
Russia has absolutely no capacity to fight this sort of large scale war. It knows it very well and, in fact, the 2008 reforms were deliberately designed to take Russia away from the illusion of that capability and instead move it towards being able to do things like take Crimea without totally botching things in the process. It can only take on the Baltics under ideal conditions and is unlikely to survive to reap any benefits from it.
I've cased out the likely warning time for NATO in the Baltic scenario to be at least 9 days. Within that period of time I would have a sit down with Putin's top emissaries and case out exactly what I'd do to Russia if it should attack. I'd include some pictures of a couple of C-130s being loaded with Javelins with "Слава Україні! Героям слава!" stamped on them (translation = Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the heroes!). This would make it very clear to Russia that if it goes into Baltics then it will have to deal with a two front war MINIMUM. I think that would be enough to end any thoughts of going into the Baltics because Russia has ZERO ability to fight a two front war. In fact, I don't think it could win a single front war against Ukraine in any meaningful way.
So let's try to keep the discussion here more factual and less fanciful. Coming up with convoluted and unrealistic premises for possible successor games to CMBS is absolutely nothing I have any interest in, either personally or professionally.
Steve
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
-
19 hours ago, kinophile said:
You quote WW2 tactics a lot. Why not examine modern accounts of combined arms warfare?
The previously mentioned tactic of Tanks - Inf - Inf - Mech Inf is one. Personally I think that's really only feasible with late SEP Abrams and fully upgraded T90s.. Ive tried similar with lesser tanks (even oplots) and it just becomes a depressingly expensive BBQ.
Ive tried the Squad-Platoon-Compsny progression of assault, ie only go where a smaller unit has gone before. But it's slow.
I'll often use recon by drone to advance two platoons (1up 1 down) or if UKR I'll area Suppress with mortars (if it's an important OBJ) and roll it away as I advance in.
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
-
2 hours ago, Anthony P. said:
I feel you've got a thing for Russian submarines...
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
-
2 hours ago, TheVulture said:
Unless playing as the Russians. Then it is gently discouraged.
Ha Ha."Friendly fire isn't"
-
Combined Arms. Shoot Russkies! :-)
-
11 hours 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.
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?
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
-
12 hours 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
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
-
7 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
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.
I
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 :-) )
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
4 hours ago, kinophile said:
Sorry, quite correct. I should amend to "there's a potential tank killer out there".
I'd rather it was a bit less extreme than it is. Maybe the earlier suggestion (I think from BTR) of tying reaction to troop quality might work better How this would be coded in the software and whether it would be possible I don't know. It is annoying, it may or may not be realistic but one must adapt tactics to deal with it.
For me the best solution is to send infantry "tank hunters" out in front locate and eliminate the threat while the tanks suit back on overwatch. Not ideal, could well be realistic, being similar in concept to the way late WW2 armies dealt with the Anti Tank gun threat. Indeed, I have used a similar approach in the WW2 games as German manuals quoted in Jentz' two volmue Panzer Truppen Essentially combined arms
But what would you professional tankers do? Is it anything like what I am trying to do? This is your department :-)
-
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
Your one golden Tactical Rule
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
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! :-)