US Stingers

[LUCASWILLEN05]

And remember all the US is likely to be able to deploy to Ukraine in the first instance is going to be 101st Airmobile, 82nd Airborne, some similar Light Infantry types and probably some heavy armour. Enough for say a division sized forc. And that still has to be supported logistically is what is obviously going o be very high intensity ground combat. Ammunition, fuel and war stocks are going to be used up at a frightening rate Which means these will need to be replenished from reserves in CONUS. So you are going to have to fly or ship war materials and reinforcements over the Atlantic. One o the navy's jobs in this scenario is to ensure all of this gets to the front in Ukraine. This may not be the Fulda Gap but it is the modern day equivalent.and failure could still lose the US the war  by allowing Russia enough time to achieve her local strategc goals in Ukraine.

Have you considered the possibility that this scenario or something much like it is what happens in the Russian victory timeline of the CMBS scenario?????

[Codename Duchess]

For a history student you still seem caught up in the late 80s.  They haven't been the 101st airmobile division since the 70s.  The Russian fleet is not of the same size as the Soviet Navy.  Russian goals in Ukraine are not the same as Soviet goals of glorious Socialist T-80s on the Champs-Elysees.  Have you read my post on realistic Russian naval capabilities from the previous page? Yes or no?  Until I know that you're tracking on what the modern Russian Navy looks like, I can't continue this discussion meaningfully.  If we want to talk about the 1980s Navy like you seem to want to, then I'll bite.  But you don't seem to comprehend they're not the same.

And remember all the US is likely to be able to deploy to Ukraine in the first instance is going to be 101st Airmobile, 82nd Airborne, some similar Light Infantry types and probably some heavy armour. Enough for say a division sized forc. And that still has to be supported logistically is what is obviously going o be very high intensity ground combat. Ammunition, fuel and war stocks are going to be used up at a frightening rate Which means these will need to be replenished from reserves in CONUS. So you are going to have to fly or ship war materials and reinforcements over the Atlantic. One o the navy's jobs in this scenario is to ensure all of this gets to the front in Ukraine. This may not be the Fulda Gap but it is the modern day equivalent.and failure could still lose the US the war  by allowing Russia enough time to achieve her local strategc goals in Ukraine.

Have you considered the possibility that this scenario or something much like it is what happens in the Russian victory timeline of the CMBS scenario?????

My Fulda Gap reference was in terms of scale.  I was referencing multiple Army groups fighting multiple Army groups.  That requires a heavy logistics tail requiring daily convoys right the **** now.  A few brigades does not.

The Russian victory stems from the rapid achievement of goals combined with Western public not being favorable to the war.  Nowhere is escalation mentioned.  And again, you seem to think that strikes on civilian ports would somehow 1) be meaningful 2) be possible and 3) be non-escalatory.  I've read Arc Light too.  May I remind you that that (great) book ends with TEAMS tanks in Moscow.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Codename Duchess

[LUCASWILLEN05]

For a history student you still seem caught up in the late 80s.  They haven't been the 101st airmobile division since the 70s.  The Russian fleet is not of the same size as the Soviet Navy.  Russian goals in Ukraine are not the same as Soviet goals of glorious Socialist T-80s on the Champs-Elysees.  Have you read my post on realistic Russian naval capabilities from the previous page? Yes or no?  Until I know that you're tracking on what the modern Russian Navy looks like, I can't continue this discussion meaningfully.  If we want to talk about the 1980s Navy like you seem to want to, then I'll bite.  But you don't seem to comprehend they're not the same.

My Fulda Gap reference was in terms of scale.  I was referencing multiple Army groups fighting multiple Army groups.  That requires a heavy logistics tail requiring daily convoys right the **** now.  A few brigades does not.
The Russian victory stems from the rapid achievement of goals combined with Western public not being favorable to the war.  Nowhere is escalation mentioned.  And again, you seem to think that strikes on civilian ports would somehow 1) be meaningful 2) be possible and 3) be non-escalatory.  I've read Arc Light too.  May I remind you that that (great) book ends with TEAMS tanks in Moscow.

Yes I know very well how Arc Light ends. And need I remind you ta i also almost ends in nuclear Armageddon. Only avoided because General Razov has a secret code to disable the Russian nukes launched due, s I recall to the "Fail Deadly" strategy.

My reference to the Fulda Gap by the way was as a 1980s parallel to the 2017 Ukraine scenario. I kind of assumed I was talking to informed and intelligent people here to whom I would no have to spell ths kind of hing out to

Yes I have read your posts regarding Russian naval capabilities. The question is, hve you read mine on Russian the Russian strategic problem. Despite their naval weaknesses the Russians are going to have to make some ATTEMPT at interdicting US reinforcements deploying across the Atlantic 

BECAUSE IF THEY DON'T MAKE ANY SUCH ATTEMPT THEY ARE GUARANTEED TO LOSE THE WAR FOR JUST HE SAME REASON SADDAM HUSSEIN LOST THE `1990 - 1991 GULF WAR AND WITH EVEN LESS EXCUSE!!!!

NOW WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?????

As for limited Russian attacks targeted at Port facilities, airports etc. Yes. I always said that would be a slight escalation AND I ALSO SAID NATO would be taking similar things, certainly in the Crimea and probably at Kaliningrad and around Murmansk

DO YOU REALLY THINK VLADIMIR PUTIN IS AN EVEN GREATER STRATEGIC MORON THAN SADDAM HUSSEIBN?

YES OR NO. ANSWER A STRAIGHT QUESTION PLEASE 

Jeez I feel I am going around in circles trying to get across a really basic strategic point that you, as a naval professional should definitely understand. And yet it seems to me that for some reason you just don't get the point I am trying to get across to you.

WHICH IS, IN ORDER TO WIN IN UKRAINE SOME LIMITED AIR AND NAVAL ACTION BY RUSSIA WITH THE AIM OF SLOWING THE ARRIVAL OF HEAVY US ARMOURED FORCES TO UKRAINE FOR LONG ENOUGH FOR RUSSIA TO ACHIEVE MILITARY/POLITICAL OBJECTIVES ON THE UKRAINIAN BATTLEFIELD (OR A LEAST TO MAXIMIZE THE CHANCE OF DOING SO) WE ALL AGREE THAT IS WHAT RUSSIA HAS TO DO AND THE LIMITED AIR AND NAVAL ACTIONS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN AND NORTH ATLANTIC ARE THE ONLY WAY RUSSIA CAN DO IT.

IF YOU WERE THE SENIOR RUSSIAN NAVAL ADVISER TO PUTIN WHAT WOULD YOUR EXPERT MILITARY ADVICE BE TO HIM????????????

[Codename Duchess]

BLUF: I'd tell him you better win quickly in Ukraine because my fleet can't do anything.  Can I have more money please?

Look if this was World War Three or just about, then yeah I'd unleash everything I had worldwide because use it or lose it.  This isn't, it's localized.  NATO is going to destroy the Black Sea Fleet so sail it, but they're probably just going to blockade Kaliningrad (maybe not even then, Ukraine isn't NATO).

Dude, calm down.  And thanks for calling me uninformed and unintelligent.

They're not going to lose the war for the same reason Saddam did.  Their goals are different.  Iraq and the coalition sat opposed from each other for like six months.  That's how we built up forces, unopposed.  This scenario is closer to if he seized Kuwait and then didn't stop and wait.  Like look at how Georgia and Ukraine were conducted, not how the Cold War would have been conducted.  That's how this would happen. Y'know, because it just did.

I don't think Putin is a bigger moron than Saddam.  Quite the contrary.  But I think he's a realist.  That's why he used Little Green Men and Hybrid War in the Ukraine, and not just waves of armored divisions.  Because he needs to play smart against NATO.

Ways to play smart against NATO: Maintain plausible deniability up until H hour.  Take your objectives before NATO can respond.  Force NATO to come to the negotiating table with favorable terms for Russia.  Do not rally the American people against you.

Ways to play dumb against NATO: Broadcast your intentions for enough of a peaceful buildup (Saddam).  Attack NATO homeland (Article 5, galvanized public, WORLD ****ING WAR THREE).  Play to NATO's strengths (Navy).

Look the American public is a fickle bunch, but if you have American servicemen or civilians killed on American soil by Russians then BOY HOWDY ARE WE GOIN' GIT THEM ROOSHAN SUMBITCHES.  I assure you the finer strategy of the "limited tactical escalation" by Russia will be lost on the Channel 5 Action News Team and all of our politicians.  Same thing applies to Europeans.  They spent an awful lot of recent memory looking at the business end of Russian artillery.  And they're sure as hell not going to launch Tomahawks at Kaliningrad or Murmansk for the same damn reason.  It serves no purpose.  We're trying to win a war in Ukraine, not a global dismantling of the Russian menace.

To humor you, I set up a scenario in CMANO attempting a breakout of 8 Russian SSN's through the GIUK gap.  I was able to localize every single one more than 350 miles away from the SOSUS arrays which were supported by two SURTASS vessels (the Yasen got the closest, 345 miles from the hydrophone).  Note that I wasn't trying to get caught, I had the Russians trying above or below the layer.  I didn't even bother adding in MPA, NATO SSNs, or Surface Ships by that point because if you've found the submarine you can kill it.

If you can't stem the personal attacks I see no further purpose in discussion.  You're going to war in 2017 with the Russian Navy of 1987 and the goals of 1957.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Codename Duchess

[VladimirTarasov]

This is how I think it would play out with this given scenario, Russia invades Ukraine NATO wants to punish Russia and show who's boss. So US airborne units are shipped in to Lvov possible by the 2nd or 3rd day of the offensive, Equipped with ATGMs and support weaponry. I'm sure the US would announce that it is willing to do war while this happens, This is when the whole Russian military goes on 100% readiness, Reserves called up for training and getting equipped. By the first week Ukraine's logistics would be destroyed by missile strikes, And Ukraine's military would be scattered in terms of logistics and commands. This is where NATO decides, Do we deploy fully into Ukraine? And if the answer is yes, Kaliningrad would pick this up, Tactical missiles would be launched at NATO bases through Kaliningrad, NATO would have to focus on Kaliningrad as well. With this momentum, By the 2nd week the Russian army MUST be at Kiev. Now Belarus can be used as a quick bypass route, VDV brigades and rapid reaction forces deployed from the North would make this war end even quicker. This is my opinion on how it would play out, If we are talking about a NATO war vs Russia in Europe. One main offensive heading straight for Kiev, As well as other smaller offensives with local goals would be a disaster for Ukrainian command, And logistics. 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

BLUF: I'd tell him you better win quickly in Ukraine because my fleet can't do anything.  Can I have more money please?

Dude, calm down.  And thanks for calling me uninformed and unintelligent.

They're not going to lose the war for the same reason Saddam did.  Their goals are different.  Iraq and the coalition sat opposed from each other for like six months.  That's how we built up forces, unopposed.  This scenario is closer to if he seized Kuwait and then didn't stop and wait.  Like look at how Georgia and Ukraine were conducted, not how the Cold War would have been conducted.  That's how this would happen. Y'know, because it just did.

I don't think Putin is a bigger moron than Saddam.  Quite the contrary.  But I think he's a realist.  That's why he used Little Green Men and Hybrid War in the Ukraine, and not just waves of armored divisions.  Because he needs to play smart against NATO.

Ways to play smart against NATO: Maintain plausible deniability up until H hour.  Take your objectives before NATO can respond.  Force NATO to come to the negotiating table with favorable terms for Russia.  Do not rally the American people against you.

Ways to play dumb against NATO: Broadcast your intentions for enough of a peaceful buildup (Saddam).  Attack NATO homeland (Article 5, galvanized public, WORLD ****ING WAR THREE).  Play to NATO's strengths (Navy).

Look the American public is a fickle bunch, but if you have American servicemen or civilians killed on American soil by Russians then BOY HOWDY ARE WE GOIN' GIT THEM ROOSHAN SUMBITCHES.  I assure you the finer strategy of the "limited tactical escalation" by Russia will be lost on the Channel 5 Action News Team and all of our politicians.  Same thing applies to Europeans.  They spent an awful lot of recent memory looking at the business end of Russian artillery.

To humor you, I set up a scenario in CMANO attempting a breakout of 8 Russian SSN's through the GIUK gap.  I was able to localize every single one more than 350 miles away from the SOSUS arrays which were supported by two SURTASS vessels (the Yasen got the closest, 345 miles from the hydrophone).  Note that I wasn't trying to get caught, I had the Russians trying above or below the layer.  I didn't even bother adding in MPA, NATO SSNs, or Surface Ships by that point because if you've found the submarine you can kill it.

That is called irritation because someone is not getting he point I am very obviously trying to get over to you which is that Putin is not a strategic moron like Saddam Hussein was and that, having miscalculated his way into a war with NATO he is going to have to at least try to do something with the navy to delay he arrival of US reinforcements which have to bw shipped over the Atlantic as you and I both knw perfectly well

We also both know perfectly well that the best the Russians can do is cause delay and damage. They WILL lose the war at sea. The only question is how long this wlll take and how much damage they cn do and whether this gains them enough time to win the ground war in Ukraine.

And as I understand it the Northern Fleet orbat looks something like this

 

Joint Strategic Command Northern Fleet[edit]

Northern Fleet[edit]

 

The Northern Fleet, showing major bases and headquarters.

Main article: Russian Northern Fleet

The Russian Northern Fleet, established as a modern formation in 1933, is headquartered at Severomorsk and spread around various bases in the greater Murmansk area. This is the main fleet of the Russian Navy and currently comprises:^[35]

• Admiral Kuznetsov (1)
• Kirov class nuclear-powered cruiser (2)
• Slava class cruiser (1)
• Udaloy class destroyer (4)
• Udaloy II class destroyer (1)
• Sovremennyy class destroyer (2)
• Dolgorukiy class submarine(1)
• Delta IV class submarine (6)
• Typhoon class submarine (1)
• Oscar-class submarine (3)
• Severodvinsk class submarine (1)
• Sierra class submarine (2)
• Akula-class submarine (6)
• Victor class submarine (4)
• Kilo class submarine (5)
• Lada-class submarine (1)

Approximately 30 submarines that could deploy through the GIUK Gap and you know as well as I do that deploymn culd take place in he pre war stage under guise of "military maneuvers/ I am not saying they will last that long onc war starts. Thy won't. Just ha they will do some damage before they are sunk - and that is their job!!!

[Codename Duchess]

 

This is how I think it would play out with this given scenario, Russia invades Ukraine NATO wants to punish Russia and show who's boss. So US airborne units are shipped in to Lvov possible by the 2nd or 3rd day of the offensive, Equipped with ATGMs and support weaponry. I'm sure the US would announce that it is willing to do war while this happens, This is when the whole Russian military goes on 100% readiness, Reserves called up for training and getting equipped. By the first week Ukraine's logistics would be destroyed by missile strikes, And Ukraine's military would be scattered in terms of logistics and commands. This is where NATO decides, Do we deploy fully into Ukraine? And if the answer is yes, Kaliningrad would pick this up, Tactical missiles would be launched at NATO bases through Kaliningrad, NATO would have to focus on Kaliningrad as well. With this momentum, By the 2nd week the Russian army MUST be at Kiev. Now Belarus can be used as a quick bypass route, VDV brigades and rapid reaction forces deployed from the North would make this war end even quicker. This is my opinion on how it would play out, If we are talking about a NATO war vs Russia in Europe. One main offensive heading straight for Kiev, As well as other smaller offensives with local goals would be a disaster for Ukrainian command, And logistics. 

I generally agree with you, although I think Kaliningrad is a huge wildcard in any scenario.

Lucas:
Your Russian Strategic Problem: If NATO is allowed to buildup, I will lose.
Analysis: This is correct.
Your solution: We must attack everywhere we can with everything we can so as to ensure we.......liberate Ukraine?
My Analysis: The American people doesn't like dead Americans on American soil, so I hope you like a lot of dead Russians on Russian soil.  We were trying to avoid this point because we thought you were too.
My solution: See above.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

This is how I think it would play out with this given scenario, Russia invades Ukraine NATO wants to punish Russia and show who's boss. So US airborne units are shipped in to Lvov possible by the 2nd or 3rd day of the offensive, Equipped with ATGMs and support weaponry. I'm sure the US would announce that it is willing to do war while this happens, This is when the whole Russian military goes on 100% readiness, Reserves called up for training and getting equipped. By the first week Ukraine's logistics would be destroyed by missile strikes, And Ukraine's military would be scattered in terms of logistics and commands. This is where NATO decides, Do we deploy fully into Ukraine? And if the answer is yes, Kaliningrad would pick this up, Tactical missiles would be launched at NATO bases through Kaliningrad, NATO would have to focus on Kaliningrad as well. With this momentum, By the 2nd week the Russian army MUST be at Kiev. Now Belarus can be used as a quick bypass route, VDV brigades and rapid reaction forces deployed from the North would make this war end even quicker. This is my opinion on how it would play out, If we are talking about a NATO war vs Russia in Europe. One main offensive heading straight for Kiev, As well as other smaller offensives with local goals would be a disaster for Ukrainian command, And logistics. 

Yes. If Russia is to have any chance of winning this one it has got t be done quickly. As far as US heavy armour stocks are concerned there will probably be some pre-positioned stocks in Europe. As with the 1980s REFORGER program. At most let us assume there is enough for a division if you fly the men over. Lets say enough war stocks for hat unit to fight for, let us be generous a month. In reality likely less than that as heavy combat is likely to use up supplies at a greater tan expected rate . The heavy armour and high readiness forcws likely deploy to Poland and he Baltic States initially during the pre war crisis phase

It then plays out much as Vladimir suggests with airborne units deploying into Ukraine as soon as the invasion starts ansd the US President gives the order. At sea US/NATO units engage the Russian Northern Fleet and Black Sea Fleet though combat is mostly limited to air and naval engagements at sea. There are however limited attacks o port facilities and transport hubs employing conventional bombing and guided missiles but any such attacks are carefully targeted t avoid angering the civilian population unduly.

US light airborne infantry, the available US heavy armoured units in Europe whose manpower has been flown over and mobilized European units will be moved into Ukraine as soon as possible. probably to hold the Dneiper Line as depicted in CMBS. The Ukraian army will try to make a fighting retreat to the Dnieper Line while trying to gain as much time as possible for NATO to deploy into Ukraine - and avoiding its' own destruction. That is probably what the opening phase of he war is going to look likw.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

This would appear to be a moment of unhingedness.

You keep floating your credentials like they're especially relevant.  I really mean the next bit in the least insulting way possible:

A. I am a 8 year veteran of active service in several ABCTs.  I have done time in both the Cavalry and Armor communities including Company Command.  I served both in Iraq and Korea which gives me a modestly rounded perspective on both insurgency and high intensity conflict. I am also currently serving at the Brigade Staff level for a National Guard SBCT. I have degrees in both Political Science with an emphasis in international relations, and just a general purpose history one too.  I've been playing wargames since the very first Close Combat came out, and I still play a fair amount, including some actual boring for reals tabletop with tiny painted tanks games.  I think I have some grasp on strategy, how the US intends to fight a groundwar, and I am at the least, a semi-educated professional on what Russian military behavior, capabilities and I think thanks to my almost biological compulsion to fight in the Fulda Gap, a pretty good understanding of who the Soviets were, vs who the Russians are.

B. Duchess is from what I know of him:
  i. A graduate of a military type academy
  ii. A Naval Aviator, which comes with a lot more schooling than "turn this plane on and go places"
  iii. Might outrank me given some of the references he's made
  iv. Also does Naval wargaming.
  v. Assumption: watches Archer.  Good taste in humor.

   In that regard, for a game that is largely oriented on land warfare, on this forum he is likely our best Navy expert on the forum.

C. Sburke seems pretty smart.  I've got no professional background on him.  Seems to hate pretty hard on Putin, but his writing indicates a level of education.

D. Currahee is a military college student which gives him some professional education, but by golly seems like he's got enough wargaming under his belt.

E. Vladimir is a former Russian paratrooper, and a pretty strong advocate of Russian capabilities.   

We're all in loose agreement that the scenarios you're presenting are unrealistic.  If we had some sort of crazy groupthink going on, that we all worked in the same basement at the pentagon, authored a report together, were all graduates from the USAF academy and stewed in the same bizzaro airpower pot etc I think your one man stand would have at least some validity, but at the least we are all equally, if not more educated, experienced, or realistic than you're being, and it is frankly getting a little old to be told we're wrong by someone who cannot be bothered to count submarines or explain their logic beyond not wanting to be Saddam.

So here's a few quick nuggets, then I'm going to consider this matter settled:

Re: Ignoring History

Not wanting to be on the receiving end of History Repeating is a valid point.  However your logic is flawed in which history.  Worse than Saddam in 1991 where he let US Forces build up and crush him, the resumption of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare, Pearl Harbor, and September 11th all graphically demonstrated how to turn Americans from ambivalent about international involvement and military conflict, to just short of putting heads on pikes and marching on a holy war to lay waste to their assailant.  If there was one truism beyond never starting a land war in Asia, it is never explode Americans on their home soil/kill Americans in general.  This is not World War Two or Three, even avoiding port strikes, given the state of global trade and use of commercial ships to move military hardware, it's going to be hard to tell if this is a container ship heading to Lisbon with a load of ipod cables, or it's some mix of munitions, armor, and energy drinks for 2-1 ABCT gunning for Antwerp.  Sink enough ipod cables, or engage enough cruise ships and it's going to become World War Three very quickly.  

Re: Sacrifice

The Russian military has no capability to rebuild major surface combatants.  This is a simple reality, the infrastructure does not exist, nor does the money.  If the Russians were willing to trade away their surface  fleet today, it would be for no Navy in the future.  Again this is not World War Three wherein you just have to win at the finish and you're set for life, in the event of the sort of conflict you're describing it would likely continue well past the destruction of those assets (thus yielding control of the oceans to the west), or will certainly be revisited down the road.  This makes little sense to virtually anyone given that it leaves Russia open to carrier air raids, a near total embargo, and seeing as we've gone beyond regional and into global conflict, allowing for a build up that frankly would make the 1991 one look like a hasty collection of odds and ends.

 

[Codename Duchess]

That is called irritation because someone is not getting he point I am very obviously trying to get over to you which is that Putin is not a strategic moron like Saddam Hussein was and that, having miscalculated his way into a war with NATO he is going to have to at least try to do something with the navy to delay he arrival of US reinforcements which have to bw shipped over the Atlantic as you and I both knw perfectly well

We also both know perfectly well that the best the Russians can do is cause delay and damage. They WILL lose the war at sea. The only question is how long this wlll take and how much damage they cn do and whether this gains them enough time to win the ground war in Ukraine.

And as I understand it the Northern Fleet orbat looks something like this

 

Joint Strategic Command Northern Fleet[edit]

Northern Fleet[edit]

 

The Northern Fleet, showing major bases and headquarters.

Main article: Russian Northern Fleet

The Russian Northern Fleet, established as a modern formation in 1933, is headquartered at Severomorsk and spread around various bases in the greater Murmansk area. This is the main fleet of the Russian Navy and currently comprises:^[35]

• Admiral Kuznetsov (1)
• Kirov class nuclear-powered cruiser (2)
• Slava class cruiser (1)
• Udaloy class destroyer (4)
• Udaloy II class destroyer (1)
• Sovremennyy class destroyer (2)
• Dolgorukiy class submarine(1)
• Delta IV class submarine (6)
• Typhoon class submarine (1)
• Oscar-class submarine (3)
• Severodvinsk class submarine (1)
• Sierra class submarine (2)
• Akula-class submarine (6)
• Victor class submarine (4)
• Kilo class submarine (5)
• Lada-class submarine (1)

Approximately 30 submarines that could deploy through the GIUK Gap and you know as well as I do that deploymn culd take place in he pre war stage under guise of "military maneuvers/ I am not saying they will last that long onc war starts. Thy won't. Just ha they will do some damage before they are sunk - and that is their job!!!

That's the Northern Fleet ORBAT, on paper.  ORBAT on paper doesn't equal functional hulls in the water.  Functional hulls in the water doesn't equal deployable hulls.  Deployable hulls. Doesn't mean experienced crews.  Please read the links in my orbat post on the previous page, especially this article: https://russiamil.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/russian-naval-capabilities-and-procurement-plans/

It's from a Harvard professor prepared for Oxford.  Of note regarding the Northern Fleet: All emphasis my own

The Northern Fleet has historically been the most important, but the emphasis is now more on the Pacific Fleet....
Of the current ships, only the Peter the Great cruiser, the Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, two Udaloy-class destroyers, five corvettes, two landing ships and five smaller ships are considered deployable.

and

Non-strategic submarines include one new Yasen-class currently undergoing sea trials, three Oscar II-class submarines with cruise missiles, 14 multi-purpose nuclear submarines of various classes and seven Kilo-class diesel submarines. About half of the non-strategic submarines are on active duty, while the rest are in various stages of modernisation or repair.

Overall, somewhere between 40-70% of the Northern Fleet’s ships and submarines are not fully operational.

I have analyzed what this really means in terms of capability on the previous page.  The Russian Navy has been criminally neglected, but it was the right call to make.  I'm not saying a War in the Atlantic isn't the right idea, on paper.  I am saying that it won't happen as it will just be the great North Atlantic Turkey shoot, over before the first transatlantic convoy forms up.

Or from another angle, I set up a CMANO scenario (since you're a Harpoon expert, I'll take it's more advanced descendant as just as valid) of the Northern Fleet submarine Force trying to break out.  It went poorly for Russia. Sorry to say.  It's just too stacked in their favor to even make it into the North Atlantic in 2017.  Their best case is pre-emptive deployments, although you bet we'll notice if every deployable sub goes to sea.  And here's where my awesomesauce actual real world perspective comes into play.  When their subs deploy on routine patrols, whose subs do you think follow them fat dumb and happy the whole time?  I'll give you a hint, it rhymes with US Navy.

One last game we can play, since you can commit the entirety of the Russian Northern Fleet to fighting in the North Atlantic, by the same logic I can commit every US vessel on the east coast:
5 Nuclear Super Carriers (remember, every ship counts, even the ones in Nuclear Refueling)
4 Amphibious Assault Carriers (only 150' shorter than the sole Russian Carrier and capable of fixed wing operations)
10 Guided Missile Cruisers (For Reference)
28 Guided Missile Destroyers
6 Ballistic Missile Submarines (Zero and no reason to be hunting Russian hulls but hey you counted them first)
2 Guided Missile Submarines (154 Tomahawks each).
16 Los Angeles Class Fast Attack Nuclear Submarines (I figure you've heard of these)
8 Virginia Class Fast Attack Nuclear Submarines.
And a bunch of other Amphibs and Auxiliaries.

You also get:
6 P-3/P-8 Maritime Patrol Squadrons which don't have to avoid Russian fighters in the North Atlantic, unlike their Red Star brethren that have to circumvent a bunch of countries that would be happy to intercept them.

And since we're attacking NATO in their home countries, you can factor them in as well.  Would you like me to do that for you too?
In conclusion


 

Edited February 7, 2016 by Codename Duchess

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I generally agree with you, although I think Kaliningrad is a huge wildcard in any scenario.
Lucas:
Your Russian Strategic Problem: If NATO is allowed to buildup, I will lose.
Analysis: This is correct.
Your solution: We must attack everywhere we can with everything we can so as to ensure we.......liberate Ukraine?
My Analysis: The American people doesn't like dead Americans on American soil, so I hope you like a lot of dead Russians on Russian soil.  We were trying to avoid this point because we thought you were too.
My solution: See above.

I am not saying Russia will hit US ports or airports. More likely British and European facilities will be attacked in this scenario. Much as in the 1980s Cold War gone hot but, I granT you, in a far more limited and targeted way. Most of the air and naval fighting will be out in the North Atlantic and probably a brief but spectacular day or two of surface actions in the Mediterranean The Black Sea Fleet will lose the D Day shootout. Russian submarines will interdict the Dardanelles and probably the Gibraltar Straits. Mines would be a cheap and effective way to do this. The whole idea, from the Russian perspective is to gain as much time as possible while Russian ground forces try to win the ground war fast 

Now, can we agree tht, in the event of hostilities over Ukraine this is the best Russian strategy in a limited war scenario, as this scenario is assumed to be. As I have agreed earlier steps will be taken to void deliberate or accidental hostilities elsewhere  including the Far East.

Regarding Kaliningrad. I agree that is definitely a wildcard.Most likely, in the first instance it will be isolated and blockaded but we cannot rule  out the possibility of some form of major action at a later date if the Russian garrison were to take some form of action. For a CMBS wargame some form of ground action around Kalingrad might provide some interesting scenario possibilities. Much he same can be said fr any Russian military actions in the Baltic States and Belorussia. Russian invasions of Poland are far less likely within The CMBS timeline anyway. Although That would be an interesting wargame in itself that could be simulated with CMBS

[VladimirTarasov]

In regards to navy overall, The Black Sea fleet must protect the Black sea, And try to lock down the Mediterranean so that the Black Sea cannot be accessed. As for the pacific fleet, I would assume the farthest ship groups would go from shore is 100 KM, Because then the air force can be used to advantage against NATO war ships. TU-22Ms can be tricked out with heavy anti-ship missiles, SU-35s although in low numbers have the KH-35s they can use, Ground based mobile anti-ship systems would boost the defensive capabilities of the Russian navy. NATO's navy outclasses the Russian navy in numbers by alot, But in a defensive role if done right, It could be good enough to defend. And the Russian navy's training standards are on par with NATO's new procedures and reformations have taken place, And joint naval drills with other countries, And regular drills have increased experience of most of the Russian armed forces.  

Edited February 7, 2016 by VladimirTarasov

[LUCASWILLEN05]

This would appear to be a moment of unhingedness.

You keep floating your credentials like they're especially relevant.  I really mean the next bit in the least insulting way possible:

A. I am a 8 year veteran of active service in several ABCTs.  I have done time in both the Cavalry and Armor communities including Company Command.  I served both in Iraq and Korea which gives me a modestly rounded perspective on both insurgency and high intensity conflict. I am also currently serving at the Brigade Staff level for a National Guard SBCT. I have degrees in both Political Science with an emphasis in international relations, and just a general purpose history one too.  I've been playing wargames since the very first Close Combat came out, and I still play a fair amount, including some actual boring for reals tabletop with tiny painted tanks games.  I think I have some grasp on strategy, how the US intends to fight a groundwar, and I am at the least, a semi-educated professional on what Russian military behavior, capabilities and I think thanks to my almost biological compulsion to fight in the Fulda Gap, a pretty good understanding of who the Soviets were, vs who the Russians are.

B. Duchess is from what I know of him:
  i. A graduate of a military type academy
  ii. A Naval Aviator, which comes with a lot more schooling than "turn this plane on and go places"
  iii. Might outrank me given some of the references he's made
  iv. Also does Naval wargaming.
  v. Assumption: watches Archer.  Good taste in humor.

   In that regard, for a game that is largely oriented on land warfare, on this forum he is likely our best Navy expert on the forum.

C. Sburke seems pretty smart.  I've got no professional background on him.  Seems to hate pretty hard on Putin, but his writing indicates a level of education.

D. Currahee is a military college student which gives him some professional education, but by golly seems like he's got enough wargaming under his belt.

E. Vladimir is a former Russian paratrooper, and a pretty strong advocate of Russian capabilities.   

We're all in loose agreement that the scenarios you're presenting are unrealistic.  If we had some sort of crazy groupthink going on, that we all worked in the same basement at the pentagon, authored a report together, were all graduates from the USAF academy and stewed in the same bizzaro airpower pot etc I think your one man stand would have at least some validity, but at the least we are all equally, if not more educated, experienced, or realistic than you're being, and it is frankly getting a little old to be told we're wrong by someone who cannot be bothered to count submarines or explain their logic beyond not wanting to be Saddam.

So here's a few quick nuggets, then I'm going to consider this matter settled:

Re: Ignoring History

Not wanting to be on the receiving end of History Repeating is a valid point.  However your logic is flawed in which history.  Worse than Saddam in 1991 where he let US Forces build up and crush him, the resumption of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare, Pearl Harbor, and September 11th all graphically demonstrated how to turn Americans from ambivalent about international involvement and military conflict, to just short of putting heads on pikes and marching on a holy war to lay waste to their assailant.  If there was one truism beyond never starting a land war in Asia, it is never explode Americans on their home soil/kill Americans in general.  This is not World War Two or Three, even avoiding port strikes, given the state of global trade and use of commercial ships to move military hardware, it's going to be hard to tell if this is a container ship heading to Lisbon with a load of ipod cables, or it's some mix of munitions, armor, and energy drinks for 2-1 ABCT gunning for Antwerp.  Sink enough ipod cables, or engage enough cruise ships and it's going to become World War Three very quickly.  

Re: Sacrifice

The Russian military has no capability to rebuild major surface combatants.  This is a simple reality, the infrastructure does not exist, nor does the money.  If the Russians were willing to trade away their surface  fleet today, it would be for no Navy in the future.  Again this is not World War Three wherein you just have to win at the finish and you're set for life, in the event of the sort of conflict you're describing it would likely continue well past the destruction of those assets (thus yielding control of the oceans to the west), or will certainly be revisited down the road.  This makes little sense to virtually anyone given that it leaves Russia open to carrier air raids, a near total embargo, and seeing as we've gone beyond regional and into global conflict, allowing for a build up that frankly would make the 1991 one look like a hasty collection of odds and ends.

 

Oh I give up!

 Vladimir Putin is obviously a greater strategic moron than Saddam Hussein. He will, despite the REAL WORLD evidence to the contrary of his actual strategic skills make not the slightest attempt  to prevent, interdict or delay the US military reinforcement of forces deployed to Ukraine. And this will lead directly to a massive Russian military disaster. History majors and military college graduates will write essays and thesis pointing out just how stupid Vladimir Putin was for making not the slightest effort to do anything about it - despite saving the military resources to a least attempt something.

Sheesh I have just about had it with this debate which flies against every iota of common sense as regards Vladimir Putin's most sensible strategy having blundered into a war with NATO. Which is the very premise of CMBS I must now bow out of this  discussion in the face of your obviously far superior wisdom 

[Codename Duchess]

My quote system is all sorts of broken, sorry about that:

B. Duchess is from what I know of him:

  iii. Might outrank me given some of the references he's made
 

iii. False, but everything else was pretty good.  As were your follow on points.
 

I am not saying Russia will hit US ports or airports. More likely British and European facilities will be attacked in this scenario. Much as in the 1980s Cold War gone hot but, I granT you, in a far more limited and targeted way. Most of the air and naval fighting will be out in the North Atlantic and probably a brief but spectacular day or two of surface actions in the Mediterranean The Black Sea Fleet will lose the D Day shootout. Russian submarines will interdict the Dardanelles and probably the Gibraltar Straits. Mines would be a cheap and effective way to do this. The whole idea, from the Russian perspective is to gain as much time as possible while Russian ground forces try to win the ground war fast 

Now, can we agree tht, in the event of hostilities over Ukraine this is the best Russian strategy in a limited war scenario, as this scenario is assumed to be. As I have agreed earlier steps will be taken to void deliberate or accidental hostilities elsewhere  including the Far East.

Regarding Kaliningrad. I agree that is definitely a wildcard.Most likely, in the first instance it will be isolated and blockaded but we cannot rule  out the possibility of some form of major action at a later date if the Russian garrison were to take some form of action. For a CMBS wargame some form of ground action around Kalingrad might provide some interesting scenario possibilities. Much he same can be said fr any Russian military actions in the Baltic States and Belorussia. Russian invasions of Poland are far less likely within The CMBS timeline anyway. Although That would be an interesting wargame in itself that could be simulated with CMBS

Okay, here we go.  After this I'm pretty much done.

I am not saying Russia will hit US ports or airports. More likely British and European facilities will be attacked in this scenario. Much as in the 1980s Cold War gone hot but, I granT you, in a far more limited and targeted way.

That's not going to make the Europeans very happy, and they're kind of our allies.  Doesn't matter how limited it is, if a single UK, French, German, etc citizen is killed on their own soil it's Article 5 game on time.  God help the Russians if an American is killed.  The Western Public does not care, at all, if it's a "limited" strike.  How does that not register?

Therefore it's a bad move.

Most of the air and naval fighting will be out in the North Atlantic and probably a brief but spectacular day or two of surface actions in the Mediterranean The Black Sea Fleet will lose the D Day shootout. Russian submarines will interdict the Dardanelles and probably the Gibraltar Straits. Mines would be a cheap and effective way to do this. The whole idea, from the Russian perspective is to gain as much time as possible while Russian ground forces try to win the ground war fast 

I have discussed the North Atlantic.  Nothing that you want is possible.  There might be a shootout, but that fleet sure as **** ain't getting past Iceland.
Any Russian ships in the Med will last at most two days.  In this you are correct.
The Black Sea Fleet will be destroyed in it's entirety at the time and place of NATO's choosing.  In this you are correct.
Russian (Kilo class) submarines will interdict the Dardanelles, assisted by mines.  In this you are correct.  Won't change the endgame of Marines landing in Odessa (CMBS canon).
Those same submarines interdicting Gibraltar.  You're fighting outnumbered in European home waters for 1000 miles just to get to an easily defensible position.  Nope.
Gain as much time as possible: Yes that's the goal, but seeing as all the fighting is in the Black Sea, that's the only part where it matters.  It will be easier and with a higher probability of success for Russian Tanks to drive that much faster to Kiev than for the Northern Fleet to attempt a second front.  So you are correct.

Now, can we agree tht, in the event of hostilities over Ukraine this is the best Russian strategy in a limited war scenario, as this scenario is assumed to be. As I have agreed earlier steps will be taken to void deliberate or accidental hostilities elsewhere  including the Far East.

Yup, we all agree there.

Regarding Kaliningrad. I agree that is definitely a wildcard.Most likely, in the first instance it will be isolated and blockaded but we cannot rule  out the possibility of some form of major action at a later date if the Russian garrison were to take some form of action. For a CMBS wargame some form of ground action around Kalingrad might provide some interesting scenario possibilities. Much he same can be said fr any Russian military actions in the Baltic States and Belorussia. Russian invasions of Poland are far less likely within The CMBS timeline anyway. Although That would be an interesting wargame in itself that could be simulated with CMBS

This is the stuff being discussed in the other big thread right now, but yeah it's an interesting what if.
 

In regards to navy overall, The Black Sea fleet must protect the Black sea, And try to lock down the Mediterranean so that the Black Sea cannot be accessed. As for the pacific fleet, I would assume the farthest ship groups would go from shore is 100 KM, Because then the air force can be used to advantage against NATO war ships. TU-22Ms can be tricked out with heavy anti-ship missiles, SU-35s although in low numbers have the KH-35s they can use, Ground based mobile anti-ship systems would boost the defensive capabilities of the Russian navy. NATO's navy outclasses the Russian navy in numbers by alot, But in a defensive role if done right, It could be good enough to defend. And the Russian navy's training standards are on par with NATO's new procedures and reformations have taken place, And joint naval drills with other countries, And regular drills have increased experience of most of the Russian armed forces.  

The Black Sea Fleet will have those objectives, but is hopelessly outclassed in their ability to conduct them.  Still they will put up a hell of a fight.  I think other Russian forces may sortie in a defensive posture (that's what they're good at, coastal defense) but will make no efforts to get anywhere near any Western forces.  Western Forces in return will probably have a weapons hold posture and not seek to close with any Russian fleets.  Therefore, the naval war is contained.  The exception would be NATO submarines which would keep very close eyes on any Russian submarines that attempted to leave the coastal regions.

I'm not sure where Russia would commit the TU-22Ms.  Probably the Black Sea for the reasons above.

 

[Codename Duchess]

 

Oh I give up!

 Vladimir Putin is obviously a greater strategic moron than Saddam Hussein. He will, despite the REAL WORLD evidence to the contrary of his actual strategic skills make not the slightest attempt  to prevent, interdict or delay the US military reinforcement of forces deployed to Ukraine. And this will lead directly to a massive Russian military disaster. History majors and military college graduates will write essays and thesis pointing out just how stupid Vladimir Putin was for making not the slightest effort to do anything about it - despite saving the military resources to a least attempt something.

Sheesh I have just about had it with this debate which flies against every iota of common sense as regards Vladimir Putin's most sensible strategy having blundered into a war with NATO. Which is the very premise of CMBS I must now bow out of this  discussion in the face of your obviously far superior wisdom 

Would it help if I said "you are right" before debunking everything you said?  Or are you going to just continue to refuse to hear the other side of the argument which is pretty simple really.

It's not that he doesn't want to, it's just that he can't.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

In regards to navy overall, The Black Sea fleet must protect the Black sea, And try to lock down the Mediterranean so that the Black Sea cannot be accessed. As for the pacific fleet, I would assume the farthest ship groups would go from shore is 100 KM, Because then the air force can be used to advantage against NATO war ships. TU-22Ms can be tricked out with heavy anti-ship missiles, SU-35s although in low numbers have the KH-35s they can use, Ground based mobile anti-ship systems would boost the defensive capabilities of the Russian navy. NATO's navy outclasses the Russian navy in numbers by alot, But in a defensive role if done right, It could be good enough to defend. And the Russian navy's training standards are on par with NATO's new procedures and reformations have taken place, And joint naval drills with other countries, And regular drills have increased experience of most of the Russian armed forces.  

If we assume that actions are taken to keep he Pacific Fleet out of the war as with Russian warships in the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf/Indian Ocean which s fair on the assumption that both sides want to keep this limited we should assume military action of any sort is limited to the North Atlantic and Mediterranean. I am perfectly happy to go along with that assumption.

Regarding Russian naval strategy in the Mediterranean I would try to interdict the Straits of Gibraltar using mines and submarines. Likewise he Dardanelles. Assuming major elements of the Black Sea Fleet are in the Eastern Mediterranean at the time I would expect to lose them so I might as well try to take down a US aircraft carrier during the opening D Day shootout. Anything i the Blacck Sea is probably going to be bottled up there pretty quickly, mucch like he Kaiser'ss navy in WW1 was bottled up in port during WW1

[Codename Duchess]

Regarding Russian naval strategy in the Mediterranean I would try to interdict the Straits of Gibraltar using mines and submarines. Likewise he Dardanelles. Assuming major elements of the Black Sea Fleet are in the Eastern Mediterranean at the time I would expect to lose them so I might as well try to take down a US aircraft carrier during the opening D Day shootout. Anything i the Blacck Sea is probably going to be bottled up there pretty quickly, mucch like he Kaiser'ss navy in WW1 was bottled up in port during WW1

Any actions to blockade Gibraltar needs to be done on day one by forces already out of the Black Sea.  Nothing Russia has will be able to get out once NATO is involved and Turkey says "nah mate".

So The Black Sea Fleet has 5 Kilos.  Some of these are pretty new, so we'll assume a decent readiness rate.  That means that 2 or 3 will be able to sail, maybe, at any given time. (That's how the US Navy sustains it's ships, 1/3 is always in maintenance).  Might be able to get a 4th one out if maintenance requirements are light.  I have no reason, whatsoever, to believe that the Russians can sortie all 5 (seeing as they can't do it literally anywhere else).  I sure as hell think NATO would notice if more than one of those Kilos left the piers, let alone the Black Sea.  It's not like the Bosphorous is that deep, and Turkey has submarines too, plus ASW patrol boats guarding the straights.  It's a simple phonecall then to get a bigger NATO submarine to wait at the far end of the Dardanelles/Aegean and find it, supported by MPA from NATO countries.  They would be hard tasked with just 2-4 boats to defend the Black Sea entrance, Blockade Gibraltar (which still leaves a lot of NATO fleets behind them, and the Suez), and find and attack a US Carrier Strike Group (with it's own pretty awesome ASW assets) (assuming there even is one in the Med at the beginning of hostilities).  It's a hefty task order for a limited force, even assuming they get by Turkey.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Codename Duchess

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

One final addendum:

There's a big disconnect between things that should be done vs can be done here.  Putin would love to put the Mediterranean in lockdown, mine the entrance of Norfolk, put Spetznaz in the halls of congress to force the US government to surrender Alaska back to the Russians, but the key to strategy is identifying what you need to accomplish, and your limitations to accomplishing those goals.  A US landing in France in 1943 was technically possible, the equipment existed, the men were around, but given the inexperinence, limitations on existing landing equipment and logistics it ultimately was taken off the table until much later when those limitations had been much better mitigated.  It didn't matter that a second front right away, and attacking on the most direct route to Berlin was something very smart to do to end World War Two, what mattered was those objectives could not be accomplished with the tools at hand.

Limiting or preventing a US build up of forces would be something the Russians would like to do, but it is something their Navy cannot do in its current state.  Even in some fantastical Charge of the Light Brigade in which anything that can sail is sortied to do battle with the West, fully knowing it's going to die nobly, the damage done to Russia will outweigh the damage done to NATO, and even worse has very doubtful prospects of accomplishing even modest goals against shipping or major strategic assets.

We're looking at a battleship Yamoto sort of situation, overtly a powerful, potent weapons system capable of doing great damage if launched against an enemy fleet.  However when it met its fate it did so deprived of the aviation it needed to survive, against an enemy with much greater battlefield awareness, with a massive qualitative edge.  It was a stupid choice that simply added to the losses of the Japanese.

As the case is the Japanese sort of were going for the dying with nobility sort of warplan which is its own discussion, but unless the Russians become fatalistic suicide warriors, tying those red and orange ribbons around their heads before crash-diving MIG-29s into advancing US tanks, I see the Russians more likely to look out to the sea, and the odds, mutter something about "the old days" before surrounding their ports with S-300s and S-400s, and planning for having nuclear carriers in 2067.  

[VladimirTarasov]

You have to keep in mind in Crimea, And the surrounding black sea cities we have land based anti ship systems, Our ships are equipped with advanced long range and close range anti air systems. We could deny any entry into the black sea, Which Is all we would need. S-400 and S-300 systems on land will provide air coverage as well. The Turks would play it smart and not join the war because our Caspian fleet can unleash hell onto their bases. All we need to do is make sure NATO logsitics cannot reach the shores of our operations. A few of our submarines already out there might as well take out their air craft carriers. The Kuznetsov would be kept in the Black Sea as I said, To offer aerial protection to other ship groups. Bringing history into the modern age is silly, Now just one missile can end a whole operation. Both sides must be careful and not risk anything. 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

My quote system is all sorts of broken, sorry about that:

 

iii. False, but everything else was pretty good.  As were your follow on points.
 

 

Okay, here we go.  After this I'm pretty much done.

That's not going to make the Europeans very happy, and they're kind of our allies.  Doesn't matter how limited it is, if a single UK, French, German, etc citizen is killed on their own soil it's Article 5 game on time.  God help the Russians if an American is killed.  The Western Public does not care, at all, if it's a "limited" strike.  How does that not register?

Therefore it's a bad move.

I have discussed the North Atlantic.  Nothing that you want is possible.  There might be a shootout, but that fleet sure as **** ain't getting past Iceland.
Any Russian ships in the Med will last at most two days.  In this you are correct.
The Black Sea Fleet will be destroyed in it's entirety at the time and place of NATO's choosing.  In this you are correct.
Russian (Kilo class) submarines will interdict the Dardanelles, assisted by mines.  In this you are correct.  Won't change the endgame of Marines landing in Odessa (CMBS canon).
Those same submarines interdicting Gibraltar.  You're fighting outnumbered in European home waters for 1000 miles just to get to an easily defensible position.  Nope.
Gain as much time as possible: Yes that's the goal, but seeing as all the fighting is in the Black Sea, that's the only part where it matters.  It will be easier and with a higher probability of success for Russian Tanks to drive that much faster to Kiev than for the Northern Fleet to attempt a second front.  So you are correct.

Yup, we all agree there.

This is the stuff being discussed in the other big thread right now, but yeah it's an interesting what if.
 

 

The Black Sea Fleet will have those objectives, but is hopelessly outclassed in their ability to conduct them.  Still they will put up a hell of a fight.  I think other Russian forces may sortie in a defensive posture (that's what they're good at, coastal defense) but will make no efforts to get anywhere near any Western forces.  Western Forces in return will probably have a weapons hold posture and not seek to close with any Russian fleets.  Therefore, the naval war is contained.  The exception would be NATO submarines which would keep very close eyes on any Russian submarines that attempted to leave the coastal regions.

I'm not sure where Russia would commit the TU-22Ms.  Probably the Black Sea for the reasons above.

 

I never said the Russians would succeed. Just that they would have to try if hey are going to have the slightest possibility of winning in Ukraine. The most they can do is cause delay and damage. I never disputed hat Russia would win the naval war - I agree they will lose on that front of how much time hey can gain and what damage they can do in the pursuit of accomplishing their objectives ON LAND . Same principle as per the old Gulf Strike and Aegean Strike bord wargames

Whether this is a limited war scenario as CMBS assumes or WW3 it doesn't really matter. That's it.Like I said I am done with this discussion

[sburke]

Lucas just a couple things then I am bowing out of this

1 I make no claims to any professional knowledge or experience, however I do try to get as clear a picture of an issue before opening my piehole.  Sometimes stupid s**t still exits but most times I think I am at least rational and within the ballpark.

2 For someone who is basing a lot of his argument by gaming out a strategy, you seem to not know what the units you are talking about actually are - not to insult, but above you listed the Orbat for Northern fleet and then said Russia could sortie 30 boats... 8 of those boats are SSBNs, Russia would never sortie those.  Even in the Cold War they were never meant to sortie.  They are a nuclear deterrent platform and are meant to hide in protected waters.  6 are diesel electric boats that are not meant to go deep water, that isn't their strength or reason for building.  It does call into question your understanding of the platforms and capabilities and therefore the basis of strategy.  Sorry, but it is what it is.

3 I don't think it is a given that the Black Sea fleet has to sortie.  Port attacks on a homeland cuts both ways.  I do not believe given the scenario the US would plan for attacks on Russian bases unless Russia postured such that it would be required.  It is plausible that both sides would perceive this as a fight to be waged on Ukrainian soil and do their best to not give the other side cause to escalate.  Yes that means Russia would have to accept NATO reinforcing, therefore their goal has to be to reach a particular objective before those forces can intervene.  Once those forces are showing up in theater, it is time to forestall NATO by going to ceasefire.  That to me sounds more like what Putin and the Russian General staff would shoot for.  NATO's weakness is that it isn't a single body.  Maintaining the fight below a threshold that would unite NATO is a major strategic advantage I do not think Russia would be willing to give up without really good reason.  At the same time I think NATO would not support a direct attack on Russian soil unless it was first attacked from Russian on their home soil.  Ukraine does not count.  The US has fought Russian forces before.  Russian pilots were flying in N Korea and Russian advisers were in Vietnam.  It isn't quite the same, but the general idea is there.  Both sides have something to lose by expansion of the war.  The Back Story does not even include the US going into Crimea.  There is nothing in it that presupposes US strikes on Russian soil.  The assumptions above are all that the Black Sea fleet has to sortie as it is going to be hit regardless.  I don't think that is actually a given.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Lucas just a couple things then I am bowing out of this

1 I make no claims to any professional knowledge or experience, however I do try to get as clear a picture of an issue before opening my piehole.  Sometimes stupid s**t still exits but most times I think I am at least rational and within the ballpark.

2 For someone who is basing a lot of his argument by gaming out a strategy, you seem to not know what the units you are talking about actually are - not to insult, but above you listed the Orbat for Northern fleet and then said Russia could sortie 30 boats... 8 of those boats are SSBNs, Russia would never sortie those.  Even in the Cold War they were never meant to sortie.  They are a nuclear deterrent platform and are meant to hide in protected waters.  6 are diesel electric boats that are not meant to go deep water, that isn't their strength or reason for building.  It does call into question your understanding of the platforms and capabilities and therefore the basis of strategy.  Sorry, but it is what it is.

3 I don't think it is a given that the Black Sea fleet has to sortie.  Port attacks on a homeland cuts both ways.  I do not believe given the scenario the US would plan for attacks on Russian bases unless Russia postured such that it would be required.  It is plausible that both sides would perceive this as a fight to be waged on Ukrainian soil and do their best to not give the other side cause to escalate.  Yes that means Russia would have to accept NATO reinforcing, therefore their goal has to be to reach a particular objective before those forces can intervene.  Once those forces are showing up in theater, it is time to forestall NATO by going to ceasefire.  That to me sounds more like what Putin and the Russian General staff would shoot for.  NATO's weakness is that it isn't a single body.  Maintaining the fight below a threshold that would unite NATO is a major strategic advantage I do not think Russia would be willing to give up without really good reason.  At the same time I think NATO would not support a direct attack on Russian soil unless it was first attacked from Russian on their home soil.  Ukraine does not count.  The US has fought Russian forces before.  Russian pilots were flying in N Korea and Russian advisers were in Vietnam.  It isn't quite the same, but the general idea is there.  Both sides have something to lose by expansion of the war.  The Back Story does not even include the US going into Crimea.  There is nothing in it that presupposes US strikes on Russian soil.  The assumptions above are all that the Black Sea fleet has to sortie as it is going to be hit regardless.  I don't think that is actually a given.

Whatever. Russia has to achieve its Ukraine objectives , whether these might be a full annexation, acquisition of territory along the Black Sea Coast linking up with Moldovan Russian separatists or annexing Eastern Ukraine up to the Dnieper Line those objectives have to be achieved swiifly before US heavy forces are deployed. At which point, as you say Putin goes for  ceasefire. P{Possibly trying nuclear blackmail to scare the west into negotiating. Note this just means veiled threats, certainly not actual use. Limited action in the Atlantic and Mediterranean is a likely and, to the Russians useful course of action in that it delays the arrival of heavy US armourd forces. It still maintains the fighting below that certain threshold as log as the targeting is primarily against military or military relad targets. Hence Russia could hit targets like

1 UK airports used for the deployment of US troops

2 UK ports used for same

3 The US reinforcement convoys sailing over the Atlantic or through he Mediterranean

4 NATO military bases and air bases in the UK and Europe

5 Possibly an invasion of the Baltic States to relieve a blockade of Kalingrad

6 Naval and air engagement with NATO forces in the Baltic Sea

These would be reasonable actions associated more or less with Russian action in Ukraine.

Actions such as unrestricted bombing of civilian targets in the UK, unrestricted attacks on shipping in the Atlantic or Mediterranean, any unprovoked military action elsewhere in the world (eg Far East), use of chemical weapons or other WMD would not fall within the limited Russian war aims that we both agree would be likely in this conflict scenario

https://www.stratfor.com/video/wargaming-russias-military-options-ukraine

[MikeyD]

Over the past thirteen years America learned to its cost that successfully starting a war does not mean that they'll be able to conclude it with any accrued benefit to themselves. What would the endgame be for a Nuevo-soviet assault on its bordering neighbors? Possession of financially depressed borderlands with tapped-out coal mines and falling-down steel mills? So the Nuevo-soviets might be able to catch NATO flat footed in the opening weeks of the war. The fertilizer bomb IED hasn't been un-invented. This is not a good era to be an occupying army in a hostile country. Plus there's nothing like a good old-fashioned external threat to bind-together factions that had been bickering in peacetime. In looking at future modern war titles BFC is in a bit of a bind. Its difficult to come up with a plausible war scenario between significant nation states that doesn't result in national suicide. Perhaps China invading Taiwan or Vietnam or - more implausibly - Saudi Arabia vs Iran.

[Doc844]

I must admit i have thoroughly enjoyed following along with this debate, for one i have learned alot.  I have no intention to join the overall debate because there are numerous members here who have been debating the issue who are massively more qualified than me.  However i would like to point out one little tid bit.  

THIS.

 P{Possibly trying nuclear blackmail to scare the west into negotiating. Note this just means veiled threats, certainly not actual use.

 

In a shooting war, even one that is 'contained', if there ever has been one, veiled threats in regard to nuclear deterrents are not VEILED.  That would be akin to opening pandoras box. The limited objective of the Ukraine, may to Putin be worth the loss of the Black Sea fleet and his main submarine force but to start tossing around the word nuclear arms would be a massive military and political miss-step, one that would probably cost him his head and I get the feeling that it wouldn't be the west doing the cutting.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

1 UK airports used for the deployment of US troops

2 UK ports used for same

3 The US reinforcement convoys sailing over the Atlantic or through he Mediterranean

4 NATO military bases and air bases in the UK and Europe

5 Possibly an invasion of the Baltic States to relieve a blockade of Kalingrad

6 Naval and air engagement with NATO forces in the Baltic Sea

These would be reasonable actions associated more or less with Russian action in Ukraine.

1. Invoking article 5, resulting in total NATO commitment to war against Russia, likely resulting in Russian expats in London swinging from lamp poles thanks to hooligans.

2. See above

3. We've shown how unlikely this is, also will virtually certainly invoke article 5 given some of the waterways involved, resulting in total NATO commitment to war against Russia.

4. Invoking article 5, resulting in total NATO commitment to war against Russia, in the case of Germany and other Eastern European countries utterly eviserating Russian exports and resulting in total economic collapse in a few years.

5. Invoking article 5, resulting in total NATO commitment to war against Russia, likely the world at large given the abjectly expansionist violation of international law and standards.  Russia stands alone and dies alone, by the sword or by the famine.

6. And loses, by your own admission, likely invoking article 5 and resulting in total NATO commitment to war against Russia

If those are reasonable, boy do I have some pamplets on lizardmen illuminati conspriacies that are right up your ally.  None of those are smart actions with any sort of long term benefits for the Russian government, people, or the world at large, and frankly had this conversation not occured, I would refuse to believe someone could be as off base as this has gone.  You cannot argue for a fast war with the west, while arguing the only sort of acts that will virtually ensure that does not happen are reasonable, rational choices.