War on the rocks - hypothetical NATO-RUS

[Sublime]

Thats still an insanely high number. People everyone was terrified of him! He pointed Beria out to US officials as " our Himmler" WTF?!

Vlad glad you know what i mean. Yeah less forces what about all the supplies thougu? And of course the US had allies and openly admitted it. Didnt claim the white guys in Abrams were Coptic Christians who bought a M1A2 on eBay.

 

 

As far as Article V needed to fight oh really? Even though it wasnt a NATO war that didnt stop Iraq or Vietnam. Pretty sure no NATO member was attacked in Libya either for an article V

[Kinophile]

@Sublime Iraq and Vietnam were not NATO wars. Never declared as such,  never involved it. They were US led expeditionary wars, with some allied countries who also happened to be NATO members, with some cursory UN (pressured by the US) rubberstamping. This is basic history, not opinion. It's getting to the point of this,  this and this.

Funnily,  this thread started with me taking issue with WOTRs postulated quick fall of Mariupol, became a whack-a-mole game of my suggestions for how Russia could actually do it and has come full circle where I agree that Mariupol is too hard a nut and too strategically inconsequential to warrant significant Russia bloodshed. 

I'm curious what people think of Russian target Kharkiv? What about Russian raids in force,  almost thunder runs  to demonstrate the weakness of the US,  namely that it cannot be everywhere? Thus could destabilize the UKR government. I imagine local populace resistance would rapidly stiffen, but it could be a way for Russia to deflect/drain the UKR Donbass offensive of momentum. 

 

Edited May 28, 2016 by kinophile

[VladimirTarasov]

3 hours ago, BTR said:

20-60, why not 200 or 400? This is the original document sent to Khrushchev by then Prosecutor General of Soviet Union, Minister of Interior and Minister of Justice at the inception of De-Stalinization. This document details the total amount of repressed, including served death sentence, and sent to labor camps. Not trying to whitewash a tragedy, but some facts need to be straight. Our greatest national tragedies, the civil war, the red terror and the second world war cannot be attributed to Stalin. Inter-war famine also cannot be attributed to Stalin personally. Over here people recognize in equal portion what Stalin did wrong and what he did right, one cannot be separated from the other.     

I was looking for that file good find. While killing even one soul is not right, it sure does show the anti-soviet propaganda even today. 

[VladimirTarasov]

43 minutes ago, kinophile said:

@Sublime Iraq and Vietnam were not NATO wars. Never declared as such,  never involved it. They were US led expeditionary wars, with some allied countries who also happened to be NATO members, with some cursory UN (pressured by the US) rubberstamping. This is basic history, not opinion. It's getting to the point of this,  this and this.

Funnily,  this thread started with me taking issue with WOTRs postulated quick fall of Mariupol, became a whack-a-mole game of my suggestions for how Russia could actually do it and has come full circle where I agree that Mariupol is too hard a nut and too strategically inconsequential to warrant significant Russia bloodshed. 

I'm curious what people think of Russian target Kharkiv? What about Russian raids in force,  almost thunder runs  to demonstrate the weakness of the US,  namely that it cannot be everywhere? Thus could destabilize the UKR government. I imagine local populace resistance would rapidly stiffen, but it could be a way for Russia to deflect/drain the UKR Donbass offensive of momentum. 

 

Kharkiv indeed will be a target goal. It is so close to our borders. Although there is one issue, the 92nd mechanized brigade of Ukraine is stationed in Kharkhiv. in 2015 during the war they were moved to Donbass. Attacking from Lugansk and Donetsk as well as large scale naval and aerial landings might be used to draw out a lot of forces to face this issue. Missile strikes would hit Ukrainian garrisons in order to make brigades less effective. Then essentially a third front can open to take Kharkiv, which will basically put Ukraine in a very overwhelmed situation. 

 

[Kinophile]

7 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

92nd mechanized brigade of Ukraine is stationed in Kharkhiv. in 2015 during the war they were moved to Donbass. Attacking from Lugansk and Donetsk as well as large scale naval and aerial landings might be used to draw out a lot of forces to face this issue. Missile strikes would hit Ukrainian garrisons in order to make brigades less effective. Then essentially a third front can open to take Kharkiv, which will basically put Ukraine in a very overwhelmed situation. 

If I understand correctly, the 92nd is one of the more effective Ukrainian units -  @Haiduk @BTR @Battlefront.com can maybe clarify/correct?

By naval landings, you mean along the southern coast? And by aerial you mean paradrops on Ukrainian airfields? The former possibly, in limited amounts (lets say max battalion, but in the right place it could have a disproportionate effect) and the latter, yes that could work. I doubt Ukrainian airfields are heavily defended, and a paradrop on a primary regional airbase could wreak havoc, if if eventually defeated.

[AttorneyAtWar]

You better hope AA is suppressed and Ukraines air force has ceased to exist before you try a freaking paradrop or helicopter assault on a modern battlefield.

[VladimirTarasov]

2 minutes ago, kinophile said:

If I understand correctly, the 92nd is one of the more effective Ukrainian units -  @Haiduk @BTR @Battlefront.com can maybe clarify/correct?

By naval landings, you mean along the southern coast? And by aerial you mean paradrops on Ukrainian airfields? The former possibly, in limited amounts (lets say max battalion, but in the right place it could have a disproportionate effect) and the latter, yes that could work. I doubt Ukrainian airfields are heavily defended, and a paradrop on a primary regional airbase could wreak havoc, if if eventually defeated.

You don't have to paradrop onto Ukrainian air fields. Any field can work, a airborne battalion dropped into Donetsk and Lugansk can be used in operations. I didn't clarify what I meant, if you open up with 2 main attacks the enemy will have no choice but to send their army to meet those threats. This is when an attack on Kharkiv can take place.

[Kinophile]

11 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

You don't have to paradrop onto Ukrainian air fields. Any field can work, a airborne battalion dropped into Donetsk and Lugansk can be used in operations. I didn't clarify what I meant, if you open up with 2 main attacks the enemy will have no choice but to send their army to meet those threats. This is when an attack on Kharkiv can take place.

Sure any fields can work, but it  might be better to give a defined, specific objective, and a Ukrainian air base gives the triple advantages of proper, flat open spaces, specific immediately accessible targets and instant strategic denial of the airbase for UKR air assets (no one is going to land while a ground fight is going on).

If I understand correctly, you're suggesting opening two preliminary, regional feint assaults in the area and THEN attack Kharkiv? Or more spread apart attacks, eg north of the Donbass, then on the coast in order to spread the Ukrainian reserves thin?

@Raptorx7 Absolutely. But surprise CAN be achieved. Proper recon and sabotage operations CAN work. Its definitely a high risk, probably high cost operation, but its also exactly the kind that could heavily advantage the Russians. Personally, I'd go for it - but with a heavy amount of recon FIRST. I could not be an off-the cuff op, especially for the Russians.

Edited May 28, 2016 by kinophile

[Sublime]

Kino I never intended to be ' whack a moling your ideas ' just have a discourse.

You.re of course right they werent ' NATO' wars but I think you underestimate that whilst NATO technically is a defensive European alliance the principal and strongest members almost always support eachother in their wars. Look at the Falklands.

We gave the Brits intel and were prepared to give them a carrier if they lost one.

French Indochina in the 40s and 50s.

I think if you saw in the clear Russian military action of an aggressive nature headed WESTWARDS you may not see much of a reaction of you may just set europe ablaze. Im about 90 percent sure NATO would definitely intervene if Russia tried to completely invade and occupy UKR.  Im less sure but still reasonably sure theyd get involved if Russia just put in a Russian puppet govt and started getting threatening towards Poland and the Baltics.

Again though what do I really know? Im an enthusiast nothing more nothing less.

[AttorneyAtWar]

5 minutes ago, kinophile said:

Sure any fields can work, but it  might be better to give a defined, specific objective, and a Ukrainian air base gives the triple advantages of proper, flat open spaces, specific immediately accessible targets and instant strategic denial of the airbase for UKR air assets (no one is going to land while a ground fight is going on).

Airfields also tend to contain anti-aircraft systems.

[Kinophile]

1 minute ago, Sublime said:

Kino I never intended to be ' whack a moling your ideas ' just have a discourse.

You.re of course right they werent ' NATO' wars but I think you underestimate that whilst NATO technically is a defensive European alliance the principal and strongest members almost always support each other in their wars. Look at the Falklands.

We gave the Brits intel and were prepared to give them a carrier if they lost one.

French Indochina in the 40s and 50s.

I think if you saw in the clear Russian military action of an aggressive nature headed WESTWARDS you may not see much of a reaction of you may just set europe ablaze. Im about 90 percent sure NATO would definitely intervene if Russia tried to completely invade and occupy UKR.  Im less sure but still reasonably sure theyd get involved if Russia just put in a Russian puppet govt and started getting threatening towards Poland and the Baltics.

Again though what do I really know? Im an enthusiast nothing more nothing less.

Sorry, whack-a-mole wasn't meant as a complaint, just a wry observation. If anyone it's Steve who pee'd all over my fresh backed cakes, the cad.

You're correct in  that countries that are also NATO members tend to help each other. But the US and UK have their own, bilateral alliances that pre-date and are independent of NATO. My issue is the argument that NATO would/could legally intervene without a very serious discussion about Art V., or a direct UN request. To also note, article V was thrashed out and worded specifically for the Europeans to prevent any single member state (i.e. the US) from utiziling the alliance to further its own geopolitical goals.

Thence why that nonsense "Coalition of the Willing" was deemed necessary for Iraq - 90% of NATO states believed 0% of the Bush/Cheney administrations lies about Iraqi WMD, and 0% of the notion that Iraq could somehow be an existential threat to the alliance. The Neo-Cons ran into a stone wall in Europe with those ideas. The UK has its own treaties with the US and is very much its partner - it needs the US more than the US needs it (which is still a lot, but the US would be OK if the UK dropped out; but not vice versa) and will almost always follow the US's lead.

But even then, my point about the UA still stands - it's a hugely potential partner army; why bother sending in NATO ground forces at all? Trainers, observers, JTACs, yes. Pretty much on the scale of Iraq right now. But that could all be done unilaterally by the US. Personally, I think the EU should intervene and request NATO aid/action. The EU needs to really step up its geopolitical game but it's a 99.999% a civilian body and there is an extremely strong feeling inside it to avoid embroiling itself in military situations. Leave that to NATO, however flawed and disconnected that thought is.

So NATO getting involved in the Ukraine is not a given by any means, ESPECIALLY if the Ukraine initiates a second phase of the Donbass War.

 

[Rebby]

13 minutes ago, Raptorx7 said:

Airfields also tend to contain anti-aircraft systems.

Also, the Ukranians still has some Grumbles and Gadflies (I love the outdated NATO reporting names) that could do severe damage to any direct assault paradrop attempt at the vicinity of an airport. 

Usually, airports are not taken through paradrop assaults. 

 

 

[AttorneyAtWar]

Look I love wargaming out things like this as much as anyone, but its also fun to play devils advocate to something like this. Don't take my shoot downs of anyones ideas as me being grumpy, just contributing in my own way.

[Kinophile]

Usually. But high risk operations are still perfectly doable, they're just...risky

[Kinophile]

3 minutes ago, Raptorx7 said:

Look I love wargaming out things like this as much as anyone, but its also fun to play devils advocate to something like this. Don't take my shoot downs of anyones ideas as me being grumpy, just contributing in my own way.

Absolutely not :). I have no ego when it comes to learning  - informed, insightful and thought-out contributions such as from yourself are completely welcome. It does feel a bit of an uphill struggle to find viable scenarios, but that just makes what is developed that much stronger.

I much prefer to have the proper understanding of a situation than build a fortress of straws on incorrect knowledge, wrong-headed analysis and inaccurate base information.

Edited May 28, 2016 by kinophile

[AttorneyAtWar]

There is actually a scenario from Shock Force that has you command a force of German gebirsjager in a heli assault on a Syrian airbase and I remember it being pretty fun.

[Kinophile]

Using the German forces is possibly the biggest incentive for me to get SF, but its still quite expensive for me :/

[VladimirTarasov]

44 minutes ago, kinophile said:

Sure any fields can work, but it  might be better to give a defined, specific objective, and a Ukrainian air base gives the triple advantages of proper, flat open spaces, specific immediately accessible targets and instant strategic denial of the airbase for UKR air assets (no one is going to land while a ground fight is going on).

If I understand correctly, you're suggesting opening two preliminary, regional feint assaults in the area and THEN attack Kharkiv? Or more spread apart attacks, eg north of the Donbass, then on the coast in order to spread the Ukrainian reserves thin?

I suggest westward drives from Donbass to break through Ukrainian defenses. Basically to push the Ukrainians back to new lines and deploy more reinforcements. While this happens use cruise missiles onto the Ukrainian bases where large amounts of assets are. There are already DPR and LPR armies that can be used to defend the already DPR and LPR territories. So I don't think the Russian Ground Forces will have to worry about DPR-LPR territory being held. So more troops can be used in offensive operations. I'd assume lads from GRU have are actively even now at the moment mapping Ukrainian defenses in the contact line. Over night artillery units can be moved in and used to take out front line defenses to effectively "surprise" the Ukrainians. during the same time SEAD operations can start and try to pick off Ukrainian AA systems that are posing a threat to air craft for the day operation that is to begin. The Ukrainians have a good air defense set up, it won't be easy. But it's better to start right away at taking out the air defenses. By day light, I'd use the DPR LPR to probe into lines where the regular Ground Forces will attack. If we can surprise the Ukrainians it will be way easier for us.

Assuming these goals are achieved, the Ukrainian command now has to deploy forces to make sure that a further break through does not happen. Now Russia can threaten other areas and attack through areas where they are vulnerable. No need to take Mariupol if Russia can deploy through the North-East and get to threaten Kiev faster.   

[Kinophile]

I'm not convinced by the Separatists being able to realistically engage and hold, much less push back, the UA. Their war record from the start to now argues against it. As steve mentioned, and which I've since examined, every Separatist success has been majority driven, organised and maintained by Russian forces, command and equipment. Without that, the Seps are a primarily an over-equipped light infantry force. They do not seem to have the officer pool, command training or military ethos to organize and succeed at a proper offensive against a force as well organised (relatively), motivated and equipped as the UA.

The Donbass armies would need a massive jump in training regime and professional mentality to achieve more than token, local success on their own. 

Add the usual massive Russian aid and troops and yes, a push back is possible. But then its  a Russian affair with local support, as it has always been when they've been successful...

 

Edited May 28, 2016 by kinophile

[AttorneyAtWar]

Russian air launched cruise missiles are something the Ukrainians would have a very hard time dealing with. These take a while to arm aircraft with and are definitely not surge friendly but if its a strategic strike on multiple targets its definitely doable.

Edited May 28, 2016 by Raptorx7

[BTR]

@kinophile You seem to greatly overestimate the Ukrainian army. Have they solved their heavy equipment shortages? Lack of air force? Lack of standardization? Problems with alcohol consumption? Lack of modern and/or functional radio sets? What makes Ukrainian forces battle hardened as a whole? As it currently stands, LDNR/Urkanian forces are very heterogeneous in their fighting capacity, suffer similar problems and need to be examined on formation basis. 

[AttorneyAtWar]

3 minutes ago, BTR said:

@kinophile  Problems with alcohol consumption?

Is that really something we can quantify as a whole in regards to the Ukrainians military effectiveness, it honestly comes off as a sputnik headline more than anything else?

[Haiduk]

2 hours ago, kinophile said:

If I understand correctly, the 92nd is one of the more effective Ukrainian units -  @Haiduk @BTR @Battlefront.com can maybe clarify/correct?

No, I can't comfirm that. Before war 92th brigade prepared to disbanding, but in 2012 was assumed decision to save it. In winter 2014 its has only one combat ready company tactical group, all other vehicles was stored. Also was lack of qualified officers, some of brigade officers have pro-Russian moods. Brigade has some trouble with personnel and its training. So, during summer campaign brigade guarded north-east border. After Russian invasion 18-24 Aug 2014 company task group of 92th threw to help of surrounded troops near Ilovaisk, but commander hasn't a plan of route and even a combat area map - as result, company task group lost on their way, was uncovered by Russian UAVs and heavy shelled with artillery. Soldiers fled in panic, all BTRs, tanks and SP-guns were destroyed or captured. In 2015 92th brigade, which at least completed own eqippping operated in "Sector A" - mostly has position contacts. Company task force took part in battle for Lohvynove village during Debaltseve battle. Tanker of this brigade in one fight have destroyed three enemy tanks and was awarded by "Hero of Ukraine" rank. Interesing, this was just second battle of this officer. Exactly 92th recons captured Russian special forces troopers Yerofeev and Alexandrov, which were changed for Savchenko. So, now this is "tough mid", but not "more effective". Though, recenly brigade have received 14 BTR-4E - this is single mech.brigade, which has BTRs, not BMPs 

Edited May 28, 2016 by Haiduk

[VladimirTarasov]

46 minutes ago, BTR said:

@kinophile You seem to greatly overestimate the Ukrainian army. Have they solved their heavy equipment shortages? Lack of air force? Lack of standardization? Problems with alcohol consumption? Lack of modern and/or functional radio sets? What makes Ukrainian forces battle hardened as a whole? As it currently stands, LDNR/Urkanian forces are very heterogeneous in their fighting capacity, suffer similar problems and need to be examined on formation basis. 

Quite true, you said it perfectly. They need to be examined on formation basis. 

[BTR]

1 hour ago, Raptorx7 said:

Is that really something we can quantify as a whole in regards to the Ukrainians military effectiveness, it honestly comes off as a sputnik headline more than anything else?

From what I read in first hand accounts it has caused a lot of grief during training, downtime and rotation. Originally it was more of a Ukrainian problem, but with formalization of LDNR forces, the problem is now apparent on both sides of the front. It may sound like a Sputnik headline to a foreigner, but it is a very natural problem linked to passive stress in COIN operations in large post-soviet armies. First Chechen campaign was no different.