• If Russia Started a War in the Baltics, NATO Would Lose — Quickly
    159 replies, posted
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/RPAcpFw.png[/IMG] [QUOTE]In numerous tabletop war games played over several months between 2014-2015, [B]Russian forces were knocking on the doors of the Estonian capital of Tallinn or the Latvian capital of Riga within 36 to 60 hours. [/B]U.S. and Baltic troops — and American airpower — proved unable to halt the advance of mechanized Russian units and suffered heavy casualties, the report said.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The United States and its NATO allies could try to mount a bloody counter-attack that could trigger a dramatic escalation by Russia, as Moscow would possibly see the allied action as a direct strategic threat to its homeland. A second option would be to take a page out of the old Cold War playbook, and threaten massive retaliation, including the use of nuclear weapons. A third option would be to concede at least a temporary defeat, rendering NATO toothless, and embark on a new Cold War with Moscow, the report said.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE][B]A force of about seven brigades in the area[/B], including three heavy armored brigades, and backed up by airpower and artillery, would be enough “to prevent the rapid overrun of the Baltic states,” it said. The additional forces [B]would cost an estimated $2.7 billion a year to maintain.[/B][/QUOTE] [QUOTE][B]As it stands now, there are two U.S. Army infantry brigades stationed in Europe[/B] — one in Italy and the other in Germany — but they have been stretched thin by the constant demands of training rotations with allies across the continent.[/QUOTE] Basically Russia would absolutely wreck NATO in the Baltic states with their huge number advantage of tanks, armored vehicles and soldiers. In order to provide adequate protection at least SEVEN brigades would be needed in the area, while there are currently two in the entirety of fucking Europe. Basically, not going to happen. Also if you want to know why NATO would lose so badly this pretty much sums it up: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Gy6R9DT.png[/IMG] [url]http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/03/if-russia-started-a-war-in-the-baltics-nato-would-lose-quickly/[/url]
I'm wondering how their new tanks stand up to our current infantry anti-tank weapons.
The US has already started planning a response to these findings: [quote=BBC][B]The Pentagon is to propose quadrupling its budget for European defence in 2017 in the light of "Russian aggression"[/B], US Defence Secretary Ash Carter says. .... Mr Carter said US forces engaged in an air campaign against IS in Iraq and Syria were "starting to run low" on laser-guided missiles and "smart bombs". "So we're investing $1.8bn (£1.2bn) in 2017 to buy over 45,000 more of them," he said in a speech to the Economic Club of Washington. On Europe, Mr Carter said increased funds would allow greater numbers of troops to be deployed to European bases, as well as more training and exercises with allies. "We're taking a strong and balanced approach to deter Russian aggression," he said. "We haven't had to worry about this for 25 years, and while I wish it were otherwise, now we do."[/quote] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35476180[/url]
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNAK21fcVzU[/media] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Video Macro Reply" - rilez))[/highlight]
No thanks, right now an invasion seems for the better of Poland if that would bring down PIS
And then the US Navy arrives in the Baltic Sea and their advance is met with a barrage of cruise missiles followed by the air power of basically every carrier within range. This is then followed by the B-2 bombers arriving and carpet bombing their positions. Not to mention what happens when the drones arrive. You have tanks? Adorable. We have unmanned aircraft with Hellfires. They are cheap and we have shit tons. Sure you can advance under AA coverage, but that means running your defense radar and attracting HARM missiles. Russia doesn't have the air power to do this. We own the skies. The report only covers the short term results. We know they can advance quickly. They know that doing so would be suicide after 72 hours. SO THEY WONT DO IT. No sense wasting the funding to deploy armored brigades.
We'll see about this in 2 to 3 years when the current massive finance deficit of Russia really kicks in.
Could the US maybe bitch at the vast majority of the other members in NATO to actually spend at least the pledged 2% percent of their GDP to defend their own back yard instead.
Well yeah. That's what happens when you rely on people an ocean away to be your muscle when it comes to NATO so you can keep your armed forces small and not as expensive.
what russian agression?
[QUOTE=GunFox;49664625]And then the US Navy arrives in the Baltic Sea and their advance is met with a barrage of cruise missiles followed by the air power of basically every carrier within range. This is then followed by the B-2 bombers arriving and carpet bombing their positions. Not to mention what happens when the drones arrive. You have tanks? Adorable. We have unmanned aircraft with Hellfires. They are cheap and we have shit tons. Sure you can advance under AA coverage, but that means running your defense radar and attracting HARM missiles. Russia doesn't have the air power to do this. We own the skies. The report only covers the short term results. We know they can advance quickly. They know that doing so would be suicide after 72 hours. SO THEY WONT DO IT. No sense wasting the funding to deploy armored brigades.[/QUOTE] I think people vastly underestimate just how much weapons technology has progressed.
He who defends everything defends nothing.
[QUOTE=morky;49664688]what russian agression?[/QUOTE] did you miss the whole crimea episode
[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;49664577]I'm wondering how their new tanks stand up to our current infantry anti-tank weapons.[/QUOTE] There was just recently a video about the new tanks. They are talking about the defence systems of the tank at 7:00 [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxVLL_25gog[/media]
[QUOTE=morky;49664688]what russian agression?[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014%E2%80%9316_Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War[/url] Hell, going back further: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War[/url]
Failed post.
[QUOTE=GunFox;49664625]And then the US Navy arrives in the Baltic Sea and their advance is met with a barrage of cruise missiles followed by the air power of basically every carrier within range. This is then followed by the B-2 bombers arriving and carpet bombing their positions. Not to mention what happens when the drones arrive. You have tanks? Adorable. We have unmanned aircraft with Hellfires. They are cheap and we have shit tons. Sure you can advance under AA coverage, but that means running your defense radar and attracting HARM missiles. Russia doesn't have the air power to do this. We own the skies. The report only covers the short term results. We know they can advance quickly. They know that doing so would be suicide after 72 hours. SO THEY WONT DO IT. No sense wasting the funding to deploy armored brigades.[/QUOTE] Russia has the greatest Anti-Air capabilities of any county in the world. If you would look at the map you would see that Kaliningrad is positioned right at the Baltic Sea. Just as you would have it, Kalinigrad is also chock-full of Russian AA units, Anti-Ship missiles, every fucking type of cruise missile system etc. As far as I know Kaliningrad is actually one of the most densely militarized places in the world. This alone would allow Russia to deny any US Navy carriers from coming near the Baltics in the Baltic Sea. Not to talk about what would happen if Russia seized Bornholm (which they have been practicing for since the Cold War). The Sea would be completely shut off to anybody trying to come in. The USA do not own the skies, Russia does. That is their entire strategy, and if you would read the article you would also see this mentioned, the troops were not able to get air support due to Russian AA. Drones are also a joke in this scenario, they can be used over a place you have complete air superiority, but not against a conventional enemy.
[QUOTE]The United States and its NATO allies could try to mount a bloody counter-attack that could trigger a dramatic escalation by Russia, as Moscow would possibly see the allied action as a direct strategic threat to its homeland. [/QUOTE] then stop threatening other peoples homelands whats even the point of invading the baltic states when denmark controls kattegatt
[QUOTE=gman003-main;49664780][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014%E2%80%9316_Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War[/url] Hell, going back further: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War[/url][/QUOTE] You can't quite put the military intervention in the same pile, as they were actually requested there by Assad. The others are true though. The Russian intervention in Transnistria in the '90s can be added as well. [editline]3rd February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49664669]Well yeah. That's what happens when you rely on people an ocean away to be your muscle when it comes to NATO so you can keep your armed forces small and not as expensive.[/QUOTE] Well, no. Estonia has one of the highest defence spendings per capita in the entire NATO, and definitely almost the only one in Europe alongside Poland.
Pretty sure if relations degraded to the point where Russia took on NATO we would all be basking in a radioactive hellstorm.
Russia has nothing to gain from invading the Baltic states, they wanted Sevastopol and knew nobody would stick up for Ukraine so they took it. But they aren't going to fuck with NATO in the Baltics.
[QUOTE=Killuah;49664633]We'll see about this in 2 to 3 years when the current massive finance deficit of Russia really kicks in.[/QUOTE] Ya they actually didn't expand the military with this year's budget, hopefully even if oil stabilizes at 50$/barrel Russia doesn't spend what little they make off of it purely for military purposes [editline]3rd February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Turing;49664796]Russia has the greatest Anti-Air capabilities of any county in the world. If you would look at the map you would see that Kaliningrad is positioned right at the Baltic Sea. Just as you would have it, Kalinigrad is also chock-full of Russian AA units, Anti-Ship missiles, every fucking type of cruise missile system etc. As far as I know Kaliningrad is actually one of the most densely militarized places in the world. This alone would allow Russia to deny any US Navy carriers from coming near the Baltics in the Baltic Sea. Not to talk about what would happen if Russia seized Bornholm (which they have been practicing for since the Cold War). The Sea would be completely shut off to anybody trying to come in. The USA do not own the skies, Russia does. That is their entire strategy, and if you would read the article you would also see this mentioned, the troops were not able to get air support due to Russian AA. Drones are also a joke in this scenario, they can be used over a place you have complete air superiority, but not against a conventional enemy.[/QUOTE] Don't underestimate drones and AA, Israel won a surprising amount of fights using 70s drones as cannon fodder to trick the radars into coming online, the US also has probably the best space based information system in the world, we probably already know where most of their control systems are, and without an integrated control system, those missiles can't fire, we did that in Iraq which was the most heavily fortified AA network in the world
[QUOTE=Saxon;49664814]Pretty sure if relations degraded to the point where Russia took on NATO we would all be basking in a radioactive hellstorm.[/QUOTE] At this point this response is getting irritating because people just have fun fearmongering about WWIII and parroting the same "omg we're all like so doomed!!!" bullshit without even putting any thought of their own into it because they feel all deep and brooding Do you think anyone WANTS to get blown up? No. And any nation that has nukes is well aware that if they use theirs, everyone else to. No one wants to get nuked, and no one is GOING to use nukes. And even if they did, we have defenses. Stop saying this.
[QUOTE=GunFox;49664625] SO THEY WONT DO IT.[/QUOTE] It's funny because when Euro Maidan ended and Yanukovich fled to Russia, (just before Russia annexed Crimea), somebody on FP wrote something similar in response to somebody asking what will Russia do: "Russia would have to be empire stupid to do anything at all right now" with everyone agreeing.
[QUOTE=Turing;49664804]Well, no. Estonia has one of the highest defence spendings per capita in the entire NATO, and definitely almost the only one in Europe alongside Poland.[/QUOTE] The point is most European NATO countries--including wealthy countries like Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and Netherlands don't even meet the 2% of GPD pledge--yet the expectation is for the US to spend even more money to protect the Baltic countries instead of those countries stepping up. [editline]3rd February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Killuah;49664633]We'll see about this in 2 to 3 years when the current massive finance deficit of Russia really kicks in.[/QUOTE] That's all the more reason to strike sooner rather than later, if their intent is to strike at all, which seems unlikely. [editline]3rd February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Spor;49664930]It's funny because when Euro Maidan ended and Yanukovich fled to Russia, (just before Russia annexed Crimea), somebody on FP wrote something similar in response to somebody asking what will Russia do: "Russia would have to be empire stupid to do anything at all right now" with everyone agreeing.[/QUOTE] Attacking a NATO country is a lot different. If the alliance isn't honored it falls apart and with it most of Eastern Europe most likely.
Those darn commies! I'll kick them in the Balkans!
[QUOTE=Bazsil;49664890]At this point this response is getting irritating because people just have fun fearmongering about WWIII and parroting the same "omg we're all like so doomed!!!" bullshit without even putting any thought of their own into it because they feel all deep and brooding Do you think anyone WANTS to get blown up? No. And any nation that has nukes is well aware that if they use theirs, everyone else to. No one wants to get nuked, and no one is GOING to use nukes. And even if they did, we have defenses. Stop saying this.[/QUOTE] I'm merely just saying that hypothetical scenarios like this are silly because no one is going to risk a confrontation with a nuclear power, but sure man whatever.
[QUOTE=Drag#!;49664775]There was just recently a video about the new tanks. They are talking about the defence systems of the tank at 7:00 [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxVLL_25gog[/media][/QUOTE] I can't get over the silly design of that tank. Autoloader is inaccessible in a failure, all vision is relied on by a camera that can be destroyed, and the quality of the video looks atrocious.
[QUOTE=Nautsabes;49664744]did you miss the whole crimea episode[/QUOTE] what russia has done is a drop in the water compared to the US
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;49665016]I wasn't aware that this was about the US, or US aggression.. Nor was I aware that the US had set it's sights on Europe....[/QUOTE] Nato itself is an aggression to russia Maybe russia is increasing its spending on military because NATO literally surrounds russia?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.