If Russia Started a War in the Baltics, NATO Would Lose — Quickly
159 replies, posted
[QUOTE=GunFox;49669235]Like I pointed out, surface to air systems have inherent flaws.
Drones aren't what you use to destroy them. Drones are what you use to make them turn on their stations and give away their positions. The S-400's range is largely irrelevant. Radar only works up to the horizon and you need the radar to detect that a threat exists in the first place.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure I follow, because the S-400 is capable of shooting down missiles mid-air, neither is the S-400 the only AA available, especially when drones are notoriously slow and large.
The S-400 can certainly shoot down a HARM missile and heavily disrupt air operations when used in conjunction with a full land invasion of Ukraine, Poland, etc.
i hereby propose a new adage: the lightning 2 law
where amount of air force knowledge is inversely proportional to the number of uninformed f-35/a-10 articles posted
bonus points for foxtrotalpha or warisboring
[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]
What about the shitload of Russian anti ship missiles?
surely they have to count for something
[editline]4th February 2016[/editline]
Not to mention the huge amount of mobile AA, it's not all static.
[editline]4th February 2016[/editline]
Don't get me wrong, I know Russia wouldn't be able to win a war against NATO but you make it seem way easier than it would be.
[QUOTE=Incoming.;49669278]I'm not sure I follow, because the S-400 is capable of shooting down missiles mid-air, neither is the S-400 the only AA available, especially when drones are notoriously slow and large.
The S-400 can certainly shoot down a HARM missile and heavily disrupt air operations when used in conjunction with a full land invasion of Ukraine, Poland, etc.[/QUOTE]
do you even know what the difference between a cruise missile and an ARM is
[editline]4th February 2016[/editline]
if you don't know the answer is about 2 meters and 1200 kilometers per hour
[QUOTE=Incoming.;49669278]I'm not sure I follow, because the S-400 is capable of shooting down missiles mid-air, neither is the S-400 the only AA available, especially when drones are notoriously slow and large.
The S-400 can certainly shoot down a HARM missile and heavily disrupt air operations when used in conjunction with a full land invasion of Ukraine, Poland, etc.[/QUOTE]
The S-400 can engage and shoot down ballistic missiles and can, with a decent kill rate, hit and destroy cruise missiles.
It can't engage or destroy HARM missiles, which are AGM's.
Even assuming you had to rely on cruise missiles: A battalion of S-400's consists of 32 missiles. A single Arleigh Burke Destroyer can (in theory) carry 96 tomahawks. Literally enough missiles to deplete three battalions of S-400's. Their kill rate on missiles is only 70 percent.
[QUOTE=Araknid;49669286]What about the shitload of Russian anti ship missiles?
surely they have to count for something
[editline]4th February 2016[/editline]
Not to mention the huge amount of mobile AA, it's not all static.
[editline]4th February 2016[/editline]
Don't get me wrong, I know Russia wouldn't be able to win a war against NATO but you make it seem way easier than it would be.[/QUOTE]
Mobile in that it can move. It can't move fast enough to avoid a missile.
Anti ship missiles may shift where we launch from. Or they may be utterly worthless against modern missile interception. A network of boats with cannons, CIWS systems, and missiles all tasked with defense is a difficult thing to breach. You might overwhelm the defenses, but doing so would require moving a massive amount of hardware into a region, which is likely to get noticed.
Only reason Russia got away with Crimea and Eastern Ukraine was because they had the support of at least SOME of the local population and was basically just acting as a proxy.
This isn't the Cold War anymore, they basically have no reason to directly invade anything using their actual army. What excuse could they use this time?
I'd put my money on the Western military-industrial complex being behind this for that fat logistics cash.
[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;49670813]Only reason Russia got away with Crimea and Eastern Ukraine was because they had the support of at least SOME of the local population and was basically just acting as a proxy[/QUOTE]
Oh boy, you have no idea about the amount of support Russia can receive in Estonia and Latvia.
For starters, in Ida-Virumaa, the north-eastern region on the border with Ivangorod (Russia), 98% of people speak exclusively in Russian.
I'm not gonna start about an entire district almost exclusively consisting of Russian population in Tallinn, which has more population than any other [b]city[/b] in Estonia.
It's going to be a fucking mess. Hopefully it will be avoided by Estonia being in NATO and, hopefully, Russia isn't too stupid to think they will come out in one piece after clashing with NATO.
Facepunch Military Expertise, The Thread.
I am always fascinated by war boners of our time, since even a slightest reference to an event that have global influence (although not happening, ever) get us soo hyped that we might forget about consequences and start dreaming of some game-movie based pictures in our head. Do we really are anticipating apocalypse for lack of something more meaningful in a peaceful time?
[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]
You're pretty confident of your military, that's good, but don't get too cocky ;) Remember that this is Russia. They are not North Korea, they do have a very powerful military themselves. I don't think it would be a walk in the park, as you seem to think - remember that we'd be going into [I]their[/I] territory so they automatically have the upper hand.
[QUOTE=karimatrix;49671029]Facepunch Military Expertise, The Thread.
I am always fascinated by war boners of our time, since even a slightest reference to an event that have global influence (although not happening, ever) get us soo hyped that we might forget about consequences and start dreaming of some game-movie based pictures in our head. Do we really are anticipating apocalypse for lack of something more meaningful in a peaceful time?[/QUOTE]
yes because clearly anyone who discusses war scenarios at any point whatsoever is just a codkiddie who literally gets off to the thought of people dying in war!!! no one can have a legitimate discussion and compare military hardware and manpower, it's all just video gamers who want to see people who arent us getting killed
i'm so glad you're around to show us the folly of our ways and try and censor discussion that you think is bad and scary! one step closer to being a nice, safe, cozy hugbox/echo chamber
[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]
Yeah I'm sure you're more correct then them.
The issue is I could easily see Russia lashing out at the world to try and bring a nationalistic cohesion even if its just for a short while.
[QUOTE=Bazsil;49671274]yes because clearly anyone who discusses war scenarios at any point whatsoever is just a codkiddie who literally gets off to the thought of people dying in war!!! no one can have a legitimate discussion and compare military hardware and manpower, it's all just video gamers who want to see people who arent us getting killed
i'm so glad you're around to show us the folly of our ways and try and censor discussion that you think is bad and scary! one step closer to being a nice, safe, cozy hugbox/echo chamber[/QUOTE]
He's right though. It hasn't happened in this thread (yet, but it's already slowly dying so it probably won't), but certainly happened before. As threads progress and this sort of discussions extend for longer and longer, legit war boners start showing up.
[QUOTE=Jame's;49671669]Yeah I'm sure you're more correct then them.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1200/RR1253/RAND_RR1253.pdf[/url]
A precursory glance at the actual report will tell you that yes, I am.
Their report includes aircraft that can respond immediately. It fails to include aircraft that can scramble, refuel, and launch from a different base.
Like the entirety of the French, UK, and German air forces, which are one hop away. It literally doesn't include or account for anything that can't launch inside combat range.
Not to mention it makes zero mention of the US deploying strategic bombers, which can respond to anywhere on the globe. Or the entire drone fleet. It also fails to account for paratroopers, which are apparently laid out to respond inside of 24 hours to anywhere in the world.
Their plan is to stick tanks in or near the Baltic states. Their plan is to fight Russian armor with western armor. Armored vehicles is what Russia does. We focus on air power because we know that going after their armor toe to toe is probably not a great plan.
There are so many resources that could be deployed to region inside a short time span, but aren't kept on station.
Read their methods. They made a turbo nerd tabletop wargame and made up a bunch of numbers that seemed right. They are a fucking joke.
[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;49671008]Oh boy, you have no idea about the amount of support Russia can receive in Estonia and Latvia.
For starters, in Ida-Virumaa, the north-eastern region on the border with Ivangorod (Russia), 98% of people speak exclusively in Russian.
I'm not gonna start about an entire district almost exclusively consisting of Russian population in Tallinn, which has more population than any other [b]city[/b] in Estonia.
It's going to be a fucking mess. Hopefully it will be avoided by Estonia being in NATO and, hopefully, Russia isn't too stupid to think they will come out in one piece after clashing with NATO.[/QUOTE]
If I understand it correctly though, the average Russian-Estonian or Russian-Latvian doesn't much care for the idea of Russian intervention. Sure, there are a few calling for it, but I've been told that the majority of them believe that their lives would only be made harder by it.
[QUOTE=GunFox;49664625]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.[/QUOTE]
USA and westerners in general have such a great track record of giving a shit about their allies being overrun by baddies I wouldn't be surprised if they just let Putin get away with it.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;49672432]If I understand it correctly though, the average Russian-Estonian or Russian-Latvian doesn't much care for the idea of Russian intervention. Sure, there are a few calling for it, but I've been told that the majority of them believe that their lives would only be made harder by it.[/QUOTE]
Currently, yes. But I am sure you would have gotten the same results when asking that question in Eastern Ukraine a few years ago. Russian media is very strong, and as no real alternative exists to them people can have their opinions changed very quickly.
[img]https://landhajen.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/598px-twilight2000cover.jpg[/img]
Only 16 years late.
[QUOTE=karimatrix;49671029]Facepunch Military Expertise, The Thread.
I am always fascinated by war boners of our time, since even a slightest reference to an event that have global influence (although not happening, ever) get us soo hyped that we might forget about consequences and start dreaming of some game-movie based pictures in our head. Do we really are anticipating apocalypse for lack of something more meaningful in a peaceful time?[/QUOTE]
maybe you're getting these thoughts from yourself because literally no one here is saying or thinking this. a ground war with Russia would be terrible and I really hope it never comes to that
maybe you shouldn't come in these threads all the time if people talking about russia in a possibly negative light (we aren't really though here) rustles your jimmies so much
[QUOTE=gudman;49672293]He's right though. It hasn't happened in this thread (yet, but it's already slowly dying so it probably won't), but certainly happened before. As threads progress and this sort of discussions extend for longer and longer, legit war boners start showing up.[/QUOTE]
this is a videogame forum so what do you expect
the thing is though this thread has actually been really interesting and given perspectives from both sides and i havent seen a single "WAR BONER!!" in here
if there's any boners in here it's karimatrix for posting stuff like this when there's no issue in the first place
and literally the one post (at the very beginning) in the whole thread like that is an obvious joke
[QUOTE=karimatrix;49665899]This thread is full of Red Scare...
[B][I]good[/I][/B]
On a serious note - Russian Command has entire strategic department for this stuff, soo no big news, no worries, conclusions will be made by both sides.
We gonna war game your game even warrer.[/QUOTE]
k dude, keep up the hypocrisy
[QUOTE=Drury;49672555]USA and westerners in general have such a great track record of giving a shit about their allies being overrun by baddies I wouldn't be surprised if they just let Putin get away with it.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what you mean, in all the instances I can recall, we went balls deep, with the exception of Vietnam, due to domestic political pressure. The Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait. Massive forces still in Europe, Korea, and Japan in-case something happens.
[QUOTE=Drury;49672555]USA and westerners in general have such a great track record of giving a shit about their allies being overrun by baddies I wouldn't be surprised if they just let Putin get away with it.[/QUOTE]
yeah i mean what the hell is that Korean War all about anyway right??
[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;49672782]maybe you're getting these thoughts from yourself because literally no one here is saying or thinking this. a ground war with Russia would be terrible and I really hope it never comes to that
maybe you shouldn't come in these threads all the time if people talking about russia in a possibly negative light (we aren't really though here) rustles your jimmies so much
this is a videogame forum so what do you expect
the thing is though this thread has actually been really interesting and given perspectives from both sides and i havent seen a single "WAR BONER!!" in here
if there's any boners in here it's karimatrix for posting stuff like this when there's no issue in the first place
and literally the one post (at the very beginning) in the whole thread like that is an obvious joke
k dude, keep up the hypocrisy[/QUOTE]
Jesus christ you took my words soo close that they are getting pressed against your ribcage.
No "jimmies" were rustled on my side, while on contrary, ya feeling quite excited over a simple remark.
Enjoy your discussion, it's not like i am entitled to stop ya or something, thank you for noticing my opinion and giiving it a highlight but there is no need for such extreme attention of my words in this thread.
it's every thread though, stop trying to null discussion with your stupid "american warmongers!!!!" remarks. you're like a propaganda machine sometimes
why do you post here if you aren't expecting any sort of reply?
[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;49673029]it's every thread though, stop trying to null discussion with your stupid "american warmongers!!!!" remarks. you're like a propaganda machine sometimes
why do you post here if you aren't expecting any sort of reply?[/QUOTE]
Maybe it's self-satisfaction. Who knows. He was doing the same thing back in 2014 when the situation in the Ukraine was getting hot, after rebels shot down MH17,
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49666442]This is pointless clickbait. Just because the baltic states might crumple, the other various NATO states that actually give a shit (See: Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Croatia, etc.) about their militaries would give the Russians a hard bargain.
Not to mention it'd be beyond mega-retarded for Russia to even do that, her economy would disappear and she'd waste possibly millions of lives in the process.
I do not fear Russia in a sense that she has no reason to expand into NATO territory anymore. I fear her in a sense that she will turn assets and countries once friendly to the west against it.[/QUOTE]
The CZ, SK or Croatia would never be able to provide a significant deterrent alone. During the cold war potentially, since they had massive armies. But today. They can provide battlegroups, specialist units and similar.
But they generally speaking lack the airforce to do anything significant against Russian air control.
[QUOTE=GunFox;49672316][url]http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1200/RR1253/RAND_RR1253.pdf[/url]
A precursory glance at the actual report will tell you that yes, I am.
Their report includes aircraft that can respond immediately. It fails to include aircraft that can scramble, refuel, and launch from a different base.
Like the entirety of the French, UK, and German air forces, which are one hop away. It literally doesn't include or account for anything that can't launch inside combat range.
Not to mention it makes zero mention of the US deploying strategic bombers, which can respond to anywhere on the globe. Or the entire drone fleet. It also fails to account for paratroopers, which are apparently laid out to respond inside of 24 hours to anywhere in the world.
Their plan is to stick tanks in or near the Baltic states. Their plan is to fight Russian armor with western armor. Armored vehicles is what Russia does. We focus on air power because we know that going after their armor toe to toe is probably not a great plan.
There are so many resources that could be deployed to region inside a short time span, but aren't kept on station.
Read their methods. They made a turbo nerd tabletop wargame and made up a bunch of numbers that seemed right. They are a fucking joke.[/QUOTE]
Well Rand is fairly known for pushing on US politicians to spend more in military procuring. In that sense creating scenarios where the US is the weaker is favourable for them.
[QUOTE=Turing;49673487][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/x3GBj7M.png[/IMG]
stratfor analysis[/QUOTE]
This is for Ukraine and the [URL="http://www.slideshare.net/Stratfor/wargaming-ukraine"]report[/URL] two pages later explains that NATO would most likely come out more favourable. Actually read it and see how inching closer to the NATO big boys whilst pushing Ukraine closer to NATO and filling a whole lot of borders with pissed off troops will not end well for Russia.
I do like the reports conclusion for the Russian game plan though.
[T]http://image.slidesharecdn.com/ukrainewargames-slideshare-final-150814192849-lva1-app6892/95/wargaming-ukraine-53-638.jpg?cb=1441997304[/T]
[QUOTE=Jund;49669280]i hereby propose a new adage: the lightning 2 law
where amount of air force knowledge is inversely proportional to the number of uninformed f-35/a-10 articles posted
bonus points for foxtrotalpha or warisboring[/QUOTE]
Let me tell you why the A10 is perfect and the F35 is terrible
[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;49673029]it's every thread though, stop trying to null discussion with your stupid "american warmongers!!!!" remarks. you're like a propaganda machine sometimes
why do you post here if you aren't expecting any sort of reply?[/QUOTE]
how the hell did you end up turning my "wish vydia generation was less excited about war and apocalypse stuff, this thread has some reminiscence of that btw" into "american warmongers!"
Dude
[QUOTE=GunFox;49669363]It can't engage or destroy HARM missiles, which are AGM's. [/QUOTE]
It's very likely going to detect it and attempt to engage it if there is time.
Whether it hits it or not is up to chance, however it doesn't really mean much if the system is under barrage attack by HARMs and Tomahawks. You can get a few but not all.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.