Are Russia's military advances a problem for Nato?

[Ithikial_AU]

Any war between NATO and Russia over Ukraine would likely lead to a NATO victory, as discussed at length in other threads. However I think what this General is concerned about is the fact that NATO hasn't fought a conventional war against an opponent that can actually shoot back with modern equipment and weaponary that has a good chance of doing some damage. The US and NATO have over the last few decades been called upon to take on threats which are significantly less than what their own forces can accompish and with comparitively minimal loss.

Assuming BF has modelled a modern tactical engagement correctly within CMBS, anyone here can tell you that a straight up fight between a US force and a Russian equivilent is going to be a bloody affair with additional material loss for both sides. Losing 40 soldiers in one engagement is going to be keenly felt from day 1 in the West and would be considered a massacre by some commentators. (Now times that across an entire front day after day). An Abrams MBT may of had a field day in Iraq, but this time when a T90 is down the road... you may still put your money on the Abrams but you'll stick around to see who actually wins.

I'm just a keen wargamer and history buff, but even us gamers here have made a comment that within CMBS the US army simply lacks ground based AAA vehicles and are incredibly vunrable to air attack. If we can spot a weakness like the from a fictional recreation wargame, you can bet there are other holes in modern militaries that haven't had to fight a long (more than a couple of weeks) high intensity conflict against a capable enemy.

The outcome may not be in serious doubt, but the road to get there would be more painful than Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

 

[Michael Emrys]

4 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:

The outcome may not be in serious doubt, but the road to get there would be more painful than Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

War between major powers is always extremely painful. They have nearly always evolved further in the arts of inflicting pain and also usually have the human and other resources to absorb a lot of pain without folding. Ergo, they hang there slugging away at each other and shedding oceans of blood before it's over.

Michael

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

8 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:

 

I'm just a keen wargamer and history buff, but even us gamers here have made a comment that within CMBS the US army simply lacks ground based AAA vehicles and are incredibly vunrable to air attack. If we can spot a weakness like the from a fictional recreation wargame, you can bet there are other holes in modern militaries that haven't had to fight a long (more than a couple of weeks) high intensity conflict against a capable enemy.

 

There's massive threads on this forum discussing why the lack of AAA vehicles is pretty much a non-starter.  The US Army is only incredibly vulnerable to air attack if it leaves the rest of the military behind, doesn't pack its Patriots and somehow winds up in a war against the USAF and USN.  

Again the base point that no one who might be involved in a hypothetical war against near-peer threats has fought a throw down conventional war in a while is valid.  But as Steve pointed out, it's a multiple way street (more of a four way intersection all the signage and signals have been removed from).  There's a lot of capabilities everyone involved in currently rely on that will be sorely tested to accomplish even a small percentage of what they do, NATO, Russia, etc*.  But Russian air strikes are pretty low on the list of things that are likely.

*Before someone points it out, in regards to Russian manned aviation vs NATO air defense, the Russian air arm is out numbered by a large amount, out gunned, flying against some of the most advanced air forces in the world.  The USAF could sit out the war, and most of NATO too, and the USN and USMC air elements would still be too much for Russia's air force to handle.  It might not go as smoothly as we'd like, but if we're taking bets, Russian CAS or strike missions being a regular thing would be long odds.  The Russian air force still having enough planes/pilots to continue those missions after a few days, even longer.  

 

[Peter Cairns]

Another example of Russians Security prowess;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-37166353

 

[antaress73]

*cough* *cough* Rio Grande *cough*

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

There's massive threads on this forum discussing why the lack of AAA vehicles is pretty much a non-starter.  The US Army is only incredibly vulnerable to air attack if it leaves the rest of the military behind, doesn't pack its Patriots and somehow winds up in a war against the USAF and USN. 

This reminds me of the later war period in WWII Western Europe.  The Luftwaffe still existed and still had the capability of performing close air support, however the totality of the pressures against it made CAS extremely rare.  So rare that AAA were downgraded or, in the case of many British units, disbanded in part or in total so as to free up manpower for other things.  It wasn't that the AAA weapons they had were ineffective, they simply were redundant.

In a matchup with Russia it is probable that the Russian airforces would effectively cease to exist sooner than they could cause NATO significant setbacks.  This means that frontline AA systems for NATO ground forces isn't likely a big deal.  However, I do contend that NATO should re-invest in light MANPAD type weapons to deal with whatever does make it through.  It wouldn't change the strategic outcome at all, but it would likely mean fewer letters home.

4 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

*Before someone points it out, in regards to Russian manned aviation vs NATO air defense, the Russian air arm is out numbered by a large amount, out gunned, flying against some of the most advanced air forces in the world.  The USAF could sit out the war, and most of NATO too, and the USN and USMC air elements would still be too much for Russia's air force to handle.  It might not go as smoothly as we'd like, but if we're taking bets, Russian CAS or strike missions being a regular thing would be long odds.  The Russian air force still having enough planes/pilots to continue those missions after a few days, even longer.  

And it is unclear how many smart munitions would be available for those missions, which gets back to what I said earlier about matching up capability with reality.  Russians do have some smart munition technology, but most of their planes are not equipped to use it and it appears there's not many in stock.  Therefore, even if a pair of Russian fighters got through to attack a NATO force it could very well do little more than increase "the pucker factor" of the targeted forces.

In warfare luck plays a role.  However, I agree with military thinkers who say that for the most part luck is the result of deliberate action or inaction than it is random chance.  The more a force is set up to succeed in a wider array of tasks, the better its chances of coming out on top.  Compared to NATO Russia has a thin layer of forces that are organized, trained, led, equipped, and supported to beat NATO forces.  No amount of EW, rocket artillery, or air defenses will change that equation.  What it does do for Russia is increase it's ability to challenge, threaten, and engage it's non-NATO neighbors.  In that sense the Russian military is a very credible threat.

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

21 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

The more a force is set up to succeed in a wider array of tasks, the better its chances of coming out on top. 

As Kenny Dalglish said when asked as Liverpool Manager;

"Why do Liverpool get so many Penalties compared to other teams?"

"Because we spent a lot of time in their Penalty area!"

 

Peter. 

[Vet 0369]

On August 23, 2016 at 0:45 AM, MikeyD said:

I get the impression Russia has largely negated its greatest advantages in its invasion of Ukraine. You can't surprise us twice. Jamming, airpower, drones, artillery rockets would have come as a nasty shock to NATO 3 years ago, may have sent us reeling. The same way infiltrated units with insignia removed and instigated civil unrest among fringe elements would have been a surprise 3 years ago. Or pushing forward a far right proxy political candidates to pursue Russian interests. We've already been there/done that. We know what 'snap drills on the border' mean and what 'humanitarian convoys into the conflict zone mean.

They don't have to surprise us. They just have to wait until Inauguration Day next January. The circus clown Trump has already praised Putin as a strong leader and hired (then fired after media discovery) a campaign manager who contributed to a pro-Russian Ukraine party. And the snake Billery has a track record of appeasement  and lack of action. When do you think Putin will assault East Ukraine with all the forces he's positioned around the borders with Ukraine since last May to secure land access to the Crimea? See http://www.rferl.org/contentinfographics/ukraine-besieged/27934213.html

Edited August 24, 2016 by Vet 0369
To add additional cite.