Russian army under equipped?

[Krater]

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I couldn't find specifics either.  It looks like they are going to go from their current a company sized force to a battalion.  Like you I presume that one company will be reserve status, which is probably why they are saying it's going to be a few years to phase in this change.

The proportion of Latvia's total force is definitely high.  However, in terms of absolute numbers it's very doable for Latvia's population and defense budget.  From a strategic standpoint it makes sense because special forces are more likely to be needed compared to conventional ground forces.  Especially in a Green Men scenario.

As for CMBS and future expansion, we have no plans to broaden the scope of the game beyond it's Ukrainian battlefield area.  As stated above, the conditions that would have Russia trying to widen a war into Sweden aren't even remotely possible. 

Steve

Yes, certainly a 2 million nation can raise a SF battalion, but there is still a question how the pipeline well be fed.  As you understand, you need a certain number of SF qualifiable recruits, and I don't see how current force structure could provide that.  Perhaps 18X equivalent...but honestly, I think there is something else it's going on...

[Battlefront.com]

There is talk about further enlargements of the Latvian military.  They also put up a "trial balloon" for reinstituting conscription, something which Lithuania recently adopted.  As of early 2016 Latvia said it will not go back to conscription.

It is also possible that they may be expanding forces for things other than combat.  PsyOps, counter intelligence, partisan cells, and even cyber warfare are things which might be part of the expansion but not requiring rigorous physical requirements.

Steve

[Machor]

Good new BBC article exploring the social psychology behind Russia's foreign policy:

"Russia ups the pressure in search for US respect"

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37558943

 

[Battlefront.com]

23 hours ago, Machor said:

Good new BBC article exploring the social psychology behind Russia's foreign policy:

"Russia ups the pressure in search for US respect"

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37558943

 

"Putin is a megalomaniac, he is convinced he is 10 times better than any western leader. But he's not the kind of person to open a window on the 18th floor, declare 'I can fly' and jump out. He has no plan to drop a hydrogen bomb on Washington. Narcissism is one thing; suicidal tendencies are another. He is not suicidal."

Yup, I've been saying that since Russian invaded Ukraine and it's deliberate attempts to threaten/intermediate the West.  Putin wants to have a free hand to do whatever he feels like doing, but not a war with the US or NATO.  Similarly, the West wants to keep Russia from doing things like bombing hospitals and aid convoys, but will not go to war with Russia to put a stop to it.  Which means we have to wait for one side or the other to "blink".  And the Syrians will continue to be used as pawns.

Steve

[VladimirTarasov]

Are there any plans of introducing illumination rounds which could help Russian operations at night illuminating the battlefield and increasing the NV equipment's range? Would definitely be cool if looked over. My BMP-2s are not going to be launching operations at night without them against NATO type forces.

[Machor]

21 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Are there any plans of introducing illumination rounds which could help Russian operations at night illuminating the battlefield and increasing the NV equipment's range?

I wholeheartedly second this, and believe that if anything it would help the Ukrainians more than the Russians. I have come to think of the game as modelling a conflict between a superpower, a regional power, and a sovereign state, and thermals are the crucial force multiplier as one moves up that ladder. Illumination rounds would help even the playing field in night battles.

[HerrTom]

3 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Are there any plans of introducing illumination rounds which could help Russian operations at night illuminating the battlefield and increasing the NV equipment's range? Would definitely be cool if looked over. My BMP-2s are not going to be launching operations at night without them against NATO type forces.

I also agree.

What about cluster munitions as well?  The Russians sure seem to have large stockpiles of them, and doesn't the US still field them?  It would add an interesting and deadly take to airstrikes.

[AttorneyAtWar]

17 minutes ago, HerrTom said:

I also agree.

What about cluster munitions as well?  The Russians sure seem to have large stockpiles of them, and doesn't the US still field them?  It would add an interesting and deadly take to airstrikes.

Oh I don't think you want to give the US access to its cluster munitions...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Sensor_Fuzed_Weapon

I have a feeling some people might have a problem with this sentence especially...

"The CBU-97 consists of an SUU-66/B tactical munition dispenser that contains 10 BLU-108 submunitions. Each submunition contains four hockey-puck-shaped sensor-fused projectiles called Skeets. These detect target vehicles, such as tanks, armored personnel carriers, trucks and other support vehicles, and fire a kinetic energy penetrator downwards at them."

Ive used these things in DCS and Falcon there *%^&(*& horrifying, and definitely earned there place in the Geneva convention that we...uh didn't exactly sign.

(Yeah I know DCS and Falcon aren't authoritative sources...)

Edited October 7, 2016 by Raptorx7

[HerrTom]

19 minutes ago, Raptorx7 said:

Oh I don't think you want to give the US access to its cluster munitions...

Yeah, each side being able to annihilate entire companies of armoured vehicles at once might be unbalanced.  But it'd still be pretty cool to be able to use them...

On the other side you've got dumb cluster bombs like the RBK-250, -500, and -750 and rocket delivered cluster bombs.

Edited October 7, 2016 by HerrTom

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

I think it'd just be scarier if US aircraft fired from standoff like they would for a real strike mission.  There'd be a lot of sadface people wondering why their 2S6s keep exploding.  

[Kinophile]

2 hours ago, HerrTom said:

Yeah, each side being able to annihilate entire companies of armoured vehicles at once might be unbalanced.  But it'd still be pretty cool to be able to use them...

It would be a decent counter to the next generation of APS. 

[VladimirTarasov]

47 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

 

I think it'd just be scarier if US aircraft fired from standoff like they would for a real strike mission.  There'd be a lot of sadface people wondering why their 2S6s keep exploding.  

Of course if AD and a modern air fleet didn't block US aircraft from conducting CAS from their standoff range.Modern being not Iraqi or Serbian.  

Edited October 7, 2016 by VladimirTarasov

[shift8]

25 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Of course if AD and a modern air fleet didn't block US aircraft from conducting CAS from their standoff range.Modern being not Iraqi or Serbian.  

Ah yes. Now that we have actual Russian IADS and AF, the NATO attack can now go from being described as a curb stomp to simply a mere seal clubbing instead. 

[VladimirTarasov]

1 minute ago, shift8 said:

Ah yes. Now that we have actual Russian IADS and AF, the NATO attack can now go from being described as a curb stomp to simply a mere seal clubbing instead. 

Of course if it can erode it without facing heavy casualties and trouble back home, NATO has the numbers to out attrition us. 

[shift8]

2 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Of course if it can erode it without facing heavy casualties and trouble back home, NATO has the numbers to out attrition us. 

I think if you have to use "problems back home" as a caveat then my point is made. 

NATO, even the US by itself, has the numerical and qualitative advantages. In spades. And the economic advantage to sustain it to a almost silly degree. Casualties would obviously higher than something like the Gulf war no doubt,  but it would be very unlikely for them to be high. The contest for the air is about as close as you can get militarily to a forgone conclusion. 

[VladimirTarasov]

Anyways I don't want to get into an argument whether or not the US can wreck Russian AD, but I think it's silly to assume that US fighter jets are going to be flying at standoff range unopposed by anything, while trying to target Russian stuff if there is an AD capability that can threat them. 

[John Kettler]

The National Interest has waded in on Would Russia Attack & Invade Baltics? This is a look at the RAND study.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/would-russia-attack-invade-the-baltics-could-americas-17921

Given that I've been hammering away on this topic for years now, I found this notable. Note especially my Bold. This is, of course, not a study of a Ukraine Invasion, but it serves to highlight some important matters.

(Fair Use)

During the various scenarios explored for the wargame, its participants concluded that NATO resistance would be overrun quickly in the absence of a larger mechanized defensive force posture.

“The absence of short-range air defenses in the U.S. units, and the minimal defenses in the other NATO units, meant that many of these attacks encountered resistance only from NATO combat air patrols, which were overwhelmed by sheer numbers. The result was heavy losses to several Blue (NATO) battalions and the disruption of the counterattack,” the study states.

Continuing the theme, the same pub put out a new piece called Why Russia's PAK-FA Stealth Fighter, SU-35 and Armata T-14 Tank Should Make America Worry.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-russias-pak-fa-stealth-fighter-su-35-armata-t-14-tank-17939

The T-14 curious should go directly to pages 5-6 and skip the rest. If the Vacuum-1 HVAPFSDS projectile for its lengthened 125 mm gun makes it out of development, it will have a rumored penetration of 1 meter of armor at 2 km and TLGMs out to 8 km. The article takes the form of a comparison between/among the corresponding aircraft, missiles and sensors--except for the T-14 Armata, which covers only it.

There is a case (PAK-FA--not one operational with RUAF) where Russia has the estimated edge, but is undone by eventual tiny quantities, major production difficulties in a bunch of key areas, or both. The Su-35 is rated as good as or better than US Fourth Generation Fighters. As usual, there is a raging debate over whether BVR only combat (which USAF would love) will be the rule, or like Vietnam and the Falklands, it'll come down to WVR (short range AAMs and guns), where Russian super maneuverability could be a real problem. The article does show some understanding of what having two Stealth birds clash will do for engagement dynamics, but Russian Stealth is risible (0.1 square meters for PAK-FA), vs. .0001 for the F-22. All values are nose-on. The Su-35 is 3 square meters, which is a huge improvement over the 10 square meters typical of fighters circa mid 1980s. If this is to be believed, though, the SU-35 is but a shadow of the SU-27, which is 15 square meters. The same chart therefore indicates the Su-35 has the RCS of a tiny MIG-21. But note the the F-16C and F-18 are 1 ish square meters. My understanding is the newer F/A-18s have considerable RCS reduction measures. By contrast, the "Here I Am!" F-15, unless it's a typo (hope so) somehow is 25 square meters!

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-russias-pak-fa-stealth-fighter-su-35-armata-t-14-tank-17939

I close with a report of how Putin managed to combine NATO cage rattling with a Tu-160 strike on ISIS in Syria. A brace of BLACKJACK caused considerable excitement via their unconventional routing and unprecedented launch point--the Mediterranean Sea.

https://theaviationist.com/2015/11/20/russian-armed-tu-160-bombers-circumnavigate-europe-launch-cruise-missiles-against-is-targets-from-mediterranean-sea/

Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

Edited October 7, 2016 by John Kettler

[Kinophile]

NI are pretty behind the curve if they're quoting that study. 

Everything Ive read since it's release (not just on here) suggests that's it's conditions are both needlessly restrictive and unrealistically avoid wider regional events/effects/forces/politics. It then comes to a set of conclusions that are highly specific and a bit warped by the initial constraints. 

 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

8 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Of course if AD and a modern air fleet didn't block US aircraft from conducting CAS from their standoff range.Modern being not Iraqi or Serbian.  

<insert eyeroll>

Of course, using this logic there should simply be no Russian CAS at all in the game, as getting an SU-24/25 (which is overwhelmingly the majority of your air to ground element) past Patriot, E3s and all the various F whatevers is not an especially realistic situation.  

Which again gets back to why we need to have the larger air control situation modeled somehow in the game.   Reasonably when Russian air defense is at its strongest, it's going to be too dangerous for anyone to do much CAS.  As the battle goes on though it's going to get to the point where it's just SHORAD platforms getting plinked from 30-40 miles out.  

6 hours ago, John Kettler said:

 

“The absence of short-range air defenses in the U.S. units, and the minimal defenses in the other NATO units, meant that many of these attacks encountered resistance only from NATO combat air patrols, which were overwhelmed by sheer numbers. The result was heavy losses to several Blue (NATO) battalions and the disruption of the counterattack,” the study states.

In a nutshell:

1. The simulation did not model units becoming combat ineffective.  If the 324rd Shock Guards Tank Plane Squadron took 75% losses earlier in the day, the remaining 25% was fully mission capable after an hour or two.

2. The Russian Air Force was able to sustain losses at a rate that would have made the 8th Air Force and Bomber Command both feel a little queasy....while still somehow scrounging up enough planes to continue to overwhelm NATO despite having less forces on hand.  Basically at three separate times at my recollection the Russian Air Force was operationally sacrificed to the point of being destroyed (in the military sense, not the absolute sense) in order to accomplish strategic level objectives.  Then each time like a phoenix it emerged fully able to mass never ending waves of planes to attack NATO.  

3. As Kinophile discusses, it also placed restrictions on NATO that basically tied both hands behind it's back and agreed not to kick,  or bite, while assuming Russia pretty much do everything to the Red Storm Rising level of military commitment

[Battlefront.com]

Argh... there is that damned RAND study again   Look around in this Forum and you'll find quite a lot of comments from me about what I think of it.  The word CRAP is mentioned a few times.  In a nutshell, the RAND study pretty much took the tact of giving the Russians near perfect representation of what they theoretically can do on paper.  Be it strategic planning, operational execution, or tactical behavior. 

As a guy who makes tactical simulations for a living, but is a strategic gamer at heart, the assumptions made at the tactical level need to be correctly modeled or the rest can (not necessarily a given) fall apart.  It's akin to taking the stats of the a decent Olympic sprinter, presuming he's going to run his best time vs. his worst, that he has no injuries, and that the track is absolutely perfect.  When in reality that sprinter pulled a groin muscle the week before, has been hitting Burger King a few too many times in the last year, and the track is littered with potholes and broken glass.  Sure, it's theoretically possible he might run his best time ever, but if I'm putting a wager down on a race under those circumstances I'd want to take those things into consideration.

Steve

[Kinophile]

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/20161007.aspx

It's Strategy Page, but worth a side glance. And, SURPRISE! It's actually relevant to the thread :-D. 

 

[VladimirTarasov]

3 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Of course, using this logic there should simply be no Russian CAS at all in the game, as getting an SU-24/25 (which is overwhelmingly the majority of your air to ground element) past Patriot, E3s and all the various F whatevers is not an especially realistic situation.  

Well of course if there's no AD then SU-24s and 25s are not going to be flying CAS, I know this. Anyways I think I get what you're saying, you meant that if there was little AD then aircraft could use the standoff range, and I agree with your proposal for the AD level thing.

Edited October 7, 2016 by VladimirTarasov

[kklownboy]

12 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Anyways I don't want to get into an argument whether or not the US can wreck Russian AD, but I think it's silly to assume that US fighter jets are going to be flying at standoff range unopposed by anything, while trying to target Russian stuff if there is an AD capability that can threat them. 

because 70 mile standoff

Edited October 7, 2016 by kklownboy
maths

[Wicky]

"because 130 mile standoff"

Kilometers?

These deployments will be prodded, poked, observed and analysed, and countermeasures devised (if they haven't already)  > https://www.rt.com/news/361800-russia-syria-usa-aistrikes/

Heck this was going on over 50 years ago  http://thespacereview.com/article/3066/1

[sburke]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Argh... there is that damned RAND study again   Look around in this Forum and you'll find quite a lot of comments from me about what I think of it.  The word CRAP is mentioned a few times. 

Steve

Were we supposed to drink then?  Just to be sure I downed a beer.   I think I like that Rand study.