Russian Paper Tiger

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The average Muscovite doesn't "fear Americans".

And the average Muskovite sure as hell doesn't want to die in Vlads war of empire.

That kind of comes down to yourpoint of view doesent it?

The war would be one of maneuver and encirclement. It wouldn't last 2 weeks, or not much past.

Then what does the state of the russian economy have to do with anything?

They wouldn't be in "Russian waters". The North Atlantic, and the Pacific, are American Lakes.

I said barrents. That peace of water isnt going to be an american lake.

Boy the last place on earth I'd want to hang my hat would be a backfire base during time of war with NATO.:jump

Maybe, thats a long flight to murmansk, against S300/S400 IADS, unless there using B2's it'll take a pretty concerted air campaign to hit em' and i'd bet there'd be a few other critical targets for strategic air power.

Who says they can? And Saddam had us far outmanned and fat lot of good it did him.

Pedagree thats what. Were not talking about the iraqies, were talking about a former world superpower with 60yrs of experiance in large scale combined arms warfare. And i dont think the ruskies will sit there and wait for six months while NATO builds up sufficient force on the Bellorussian border, and then sit through a month long air campaign while NATO plans a land offencive. They're apt to be slightly more proactive.

Its true about Chechnya. If the Russians want to slaughter European civilians, and do so without INTL condemnation, then they have very experienced soldiers to do it with. Facing an armed and angry NATO, however, would be a different story.

i think the chechen campaign would have tought said russians a bit more than how to kill civilians, like how to handle battle, could the average frenchman or german say the same?

The Russian people have far more access to the worldwide media nowadays and no Government of theirs would be able to pull the wool over their eyes for any length of time.

Full controll of the press, russian nationalism and a pretext? I would imagine that would be pretty appealing to much of the russian populous, especially since they could claim that the yanks were attempting to gain a nuclear advantage that would lead to a first strike, therefore Vlad would actually be defending russia. The Russians are pretty used to believing authority, they've been doing it for the last 1000 years with only a 10 yr brake. Old habbits die hard. And if you think the internet is going to allow the average russian to see that the americans arnt trying to attain nuclear supremacy, well theres alot more anti american stuff out in cyberspace than pro american.

No, the eastern Europe mechanism for basing, transport, and support, of an attack on NATO was much more sound, the forward basing much more dependable, during the days of the Warsaw pact then it is nowadays. Back then the Soviets could count on a rolling offensive thru Warsaw pact countries, pretty much on the same page as they, regarding transportation/basing infrastructure. And now in 2007? They would have to traverse a hostile eastern Europe that is integrated more with NATO then it is with Russia.

Depending on the campaign. WARPAC & NATO were planning for a campaign on the north german plain, and they were both well prepared to fight it. However
i doubt the ruskies objective would be to reach the channell like it was in 85. It would probably be to invade parts of eastern europe to re-assert its dominance and give NATO a bloody nose, then play the nuclear card to stop the conflict before NATO could bring its full weight to bear. I'm guessing that would be the most likely plan, now i dont whant to get into the merrits of it, its the only objective that makes a little bit of sence to me. So the availability of basing in east germany is pretty irrelevent to this campaign.

As far as logistics is concerned. The russians may indeed be less prepared to fight a war in Belarus, the Baltic states and Poland than in germany, but so is NATO. How many forward bases are sutable for a large scale air campaign in NATO freindly nations? The whole basing issue cuts both ways.

Anyway i was quoting your point stating that these assets would be placed on fewer bases, when in reality its the same assets on the same bases, apart from the forward basing structure in east germany and so on which has been lost, but this war isnt going to be fought in germany anyway.

I never said I expected another Desert Storm/shield. And once the air war was won, and it would be in short order, the war would be over. The Russians still suffer from over-centralization, and lack of redundancy, in their air defense network, C&C, and important economic assets. A NATO air force using virtually a 100% precision weapons package would be merciless in bringing the Russians to their knees.

Your tone did. I dont think it would be that simple. Again were not talking about Iraq. For one thing "NATO" air forces would not be using 100% PGM's, NATO doesent = USAF. Are the germans or italians ready for a large scale air campaign, one that would make Kosovo look like Red flag? How many PGM's do they have stockpiled????? I've got a feeling that PGM use would be down to gulf war 1 levels in most air forces pretty soon, given the scope of such a conflict. They have plenty of redundency in there IADS, that many search radars and that many systems ensures that. Even with air superiority NATO is never going to eliminate the low-mid-high altitude SAM threat, and i'd reckon losses would be pretty high. So just defeating the russian air force doesent automaticaly=victory as you seem to think. It doesent grant NATO uncontested airspace over the battlefield. NATO has never faced a IADS all altitude SAM threat like this one, and i doubt they would be able to destroy the russian air force. They might be able do inflict large enough losses on the RAF to make them take a defencive posture, which might be a victory in the air campaign. However BID packages are going to be contending with a very capable IADS with airborne sensors and an air threat.

Economic targets are irrelevent to this campaign, and where is the lack of redundency anyway? If your talking about Oil refineries/oilfields i was under the impression there was heaps of redundency. What other economic choke points could NATO air forces strike at easily? And as far as C3/4I it would e pretty suseptable to USAF strategic air power i grant you, but again i dont see the lack of redundency.

Your American allies have the worlds largest arsenal. And the most nimble and redundant one. And believe me both the Russians and the Chinese know it.

Sorry, is it 10000 strategic warheads to 8000? Kind of academic dont you think???? And thats the thing about unstable government, whoever ends up in charge may not act in the same predictable way (in strategic arms terms) as their predesessor, and the yankies big arsenal may not prevent a nuclear exchange. So i cant see annother revoloution in russia as a nessesarily safe thing. US nuclear arsenal or not.

Why would we take steps to bring back the Cold War? Nor do the Europeans want any return to the days of nukes on tripwire. It just doesn't make any sense to upset the doctrine of MAD, especially with the reality that missile defense wouldn't work against the Russians and wouldn't protect anyone.

We can sit here and state how silly it is to think that the US would want to undermine the MAD doctorine. But what we think is irrelevent. What is relevent is what the old guard in the kremlin thinks, and all of them have grown up with the US as the enemy poised to destroy the motherland with a massive strategic nuclear attack. They grew up with the mighty soviet union with the most powerfull military on earth, who were defeated in the cold war, they served the soviet union, men like putin "defended" it from the americans. they relied on there nuclear arsenal to protect them from american imperialism. It does matter what they think. And now the old enemy is building a missile defence system that is capable of shooting down ICBMs and placing it close to russia's borders. How hard would it be for the americans to make this small scale missile defence a large scale one? they had plans for a comprehensive missile defence system didn't they???? You would think concernes like those have been discussed behind close doors in the Kremlin and dont seem that unreasonable to those doing the talking.

 

[RoxFTW]

First of all both US & NATO and Russia have each more than enough nuclear weapons to destroy this world many times over , dont think otherwise.

Now in a conventional war , if Russia would really plan an attack on NATO , without USA helping in any way , both sides would probably be heavly pounded , Russian industry is very capable of producing mass units quite fast , so i think NATO would be at a disadvantage soon , sure NATO has some nice airpower combined together , but Russians have S300/400 , and also they can pack a good punch with their airpower , they also have alot of bombers , and dont forget Russians could target NATO airports with missiles , so i think Russia could push NATO back to Germany but then alot of tanks and ground fighting would occure germany and france both have nice ground powers , but Russians artillery is very powerfull , after weeks of combats Russians would probably overpower german and french ground troops but there is little doubt that Russians wouldnt be capable of invading UK , UK's navy is powerfull , so is Russian but it would be a big combat RAF would proove very usefull also in defending UK , i doubt Russia's force projection is so strong to invade UK succesfully so here they would defenatly fail.

 

[metro]

Before I read the rest of the posts in this excellent thread I'd like to build more on this. The Russian economy is in no way, shape, or form, ready to take on the gravity of a shooting war. Not now and not in the next 10 to 20 years. They need the open marketplace far more then NATO does. Especially as GD points out they really cant use their fuel stocks as a weapon in a shooting war.

And why is that? Because NATO has the military means to secure its mideast oil spigot that's why. Most of all with the USN but our NATO allies also have important naval assets to contribute. Taken as a whole we can not only secure our oil supplies but we can also easily secure our North Atlantic convoy routes. Take a good look at Russian naval bases in google earth sometime to get a true sense of the predicament they are in.

Actually, oil wise, we are in better shape now then we were in the Cold war based simply on the reduced Russian threat to the supply lines.


-- If your going to make a statement like this then please detail exactly how the Russians would do so.

Hey Rich,

I apologize for not going into detail, the problem is so many assumptions have to be made in a hypothetical NATO-Russian war, with no nukes being used (Also, I was basing things on "if" something started "today").

For the most part, Russia "ownes" Iran (and has some military there). For Iran to complete any of its aspirations, it needs Russia (the reason for the mutual relationship). Russia likes Iran's money, but it's the influence over Iran's oil and ME/oil (Existance/Price of oil) that Russia likes even better. Most Pipelines leaving that region-- west or east-- either begin in or go through Iran, "Iranian waters," "Waters that can be 'closed off' by Iran, etc... Caspean Sea Oil has a Russia/Iran problem. Several othe pipeline go through Russian territory. The Russian/Iranian Influence on Syria and Lebanon are far from meaningless. Syria doesn't have the money to pay for all the weapons they've "bought," but they did for some reason give Russia open naval baising rights in Syria. The large underground Pipeline that brings Oil from the Caspean Sea to the Med. Sea, exits just south of Syria in Lebanon. Forget which "team" Lebanon will play for, an oil tanker filling up, isn't a big deal for a Russian sub (nor is the pipeline itself, and that's if it isn't eliinated where it begins).

The Saudis and Gulf State's have Iran facing them. It's one thing with 3 USN carrier fleets off their shore's, and the US military in Iraq, but if those assets are removed to go into a conflict with Russia, the Saudis and GCCs are "sitting ducks." It wouldn't take muc for Iran to close the straits either.
on the other side of Iran, there's Afghnistan...

China has signed something like a $70B contract with Iran for oil/gas.

Knowing that the US DoD/Pentagon (forget the wole US) is the largest oil buyer in ther world, and a significant% comes from the ME, how does the US get enough fuel to make things move around? How does the US get the Military out if it wants oil out too? A bombing campaign against Iran would help to quickly deplete weapon stockpiles, and lead to some Iranian (Russian) Response. Most likely anything to hurt the USN and open up on the Saudi Oil Fields. Syria and Hizbollah aren't going to be detered by UNIFIL and will also open up against the Saudis (if all of the countries don't just reccomend that the Princes find somewhere else to live and then take the oil).

It can go on and on, but without oil/fuel coming staight out of Europe and whatever is available in the US, NATO will have trouble moving assets around IMO. Or, sustaing a war effort. GWI looked good. Ksovo, so so IMO. GWII looked good until the Iraqi military said bye to sadaam and then put their "uniforms" back on... I mean, we're still fighting a war that many didn't see taking long. And if all went to perfection in Russia, the power vaccum that's left would most likely make things difficult, especially because all of the things that NEED to be secured, and countries in the neighborhood that see's Russia as tempting.

Again, I just don't think OIL/Economis/Today's Commitments can be discounted so easily. In 2001 oil was what ($21/bbl) today its triple that. Send the price to $200+/bbl and the russians can buy pilots/planes/ground forces, on the cheap froma gov't.

JMHO, but I don't see a quick NATO v:unknown ictory.

 

[riksavage]

The IRAN factor is an intersting one, any Russian / NATO conventional conflict may encourage the Iranians to lashout at selected adjacent states. The following was quoted in The UK Sunday Times - June 10, 2007

Iran threatens Gulf blitz if US hits nuclear plants - Michael Smith

"IRAN has threatened to launch a missile blitz against the Gulf states and plunge the entire Middle East into war if America attacks its nuclear facilities.

Admiral Ali Shamkhani, a senior defence adviser to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warned that Gulf states providing the US with military cooperation would be the key targets of a barrage of ballistic missiles.

Shamkhani told the US journal Defense News that missiles would be launched not only at US military bases but also at strategic targets such as oil refineries and power stations.

Qatar, Bahrain and Oman all host important US bases and British forces are based in all three countries. Any Iranian attack would be bound to draw in the other Gulf Cooperation Council states: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait.

The attacks on Arab states would be in addition to airstrikes on Israel, which have been threatened repeatedly. An Iranian foreign ministry official said: “The objective would be to overwhelm US missile defence systems with dozens and maybe hundreds of missiles fired simultaneously at specific targets.”

I doubt the Iranian airforce would get close to Israel before it got shot to pieces, however their determination to drag other Arab States in to a possible confrontation is interesting. Should they take sides with the Russians and adopt this 'all or bust' approach we would see the ME dragged into a major conflict.:shudder

 

[Grand Danois]

In this hypothetical, the NATO Europeans would be easily able to handle the Russians. So the Yanks are free to use all their resources in the ME. No need for withdrawal of CBG's The Euro navies can handle the Russian.

Seriously. Russia is so seriously outmatched, that even if Iran/China/whoever is added to the mix they are still vastly outgunned. NATO plus close associates expend 85% of the global mil expenditure.

IIRC NATO Europe has 1,800,000 active service personnel. The majority full time professionals.

Russia has, again IIRC, 700,000 active serving personnel, mostly conscripts.

If you want to expand an army rapidly, do you then do it on the basis of conscripts or professionals?

Remember how Nazi-Germany expanded from a basis of an army of 100,000 professionals.

There is so much wishful thinking...

 

[RoxFTW]

IIRC NATO Europe has 1,800,000 active service personnel. The majority full time professionals.

Russia has, again IIRC, 700,000 active serving personnel, mostly conscripts.

Actualy its 1,037,000 active personnel

and 2.5 milion in reserve

No need for withdrawal of CBG's The Euro navies can handle the Russian.

Ur joking right? Only country's with a strong navy are France and UK

And even so we are talking about Russian's Powerfull Missile Cruisers like Kirov and Slava which are same class as Ticonderoga cruiser. Do i need to mention world class submarines ,Destroyers and Frigates. There is no secret that Russia has very powerfull ships made , they got only the good working ship in service , many ships are in reserve..
Just look

Cruisers:
Active - 6
Reserve - 4
total - 10
Destroyers:
Active- 15
Reserve- 15
total - 30
Frigates:
Active- 11
Reserve- 14
total- 25
Subs:
Active- 60
Reserve- 17
total- 77
Do u seriusly think if Russia went in war they wouldnt use all their ships active and in reserve at this moment ? Sure maybe few ships wouldnt work so good but still a big navy.
so dont think Nato can handle Russian navy easly.

 

[Grand Danois]

Actualy its 1,037,000 active personnel

and 2.5 milion in reserve

1 million works for me. Doesn't change substance.

Ur joking right? Only country's with a strong navy are France and UK

UK alone could take on the Russian Navy. Seriously. The premises for your list are so flawed I hardly know where to start. Someone else will have to flesh this out, as I have done this topic ad nauseam.

And even so we are talking about Russian's Powerfull Missile Cruisers like Kirov and Slava which are same class as Ticonderoga cruiser. Do i need to mention world class submarines ,Destroyers and Frigates. There is no secret that Russia has very powerfull ships made , they got only the good working ship in service , many ships are in reserve..
Just look

Cruisers:
Active - 6
Reserve - 4
total - 10
Destroyers:
Active- 15
Reserve- 15
total - 30
Frigates:
Active- 11
Reserve- 14
total- 25
Subs:
Active- 60
Reserve- 17
total- 77
Do u seriusly think if Russia went in war they wouldnt use all their ships active and in reserve at this moment ? Sure maybe few ships wouldnt work so good but still a big navy.
so dont think Nato can handle Russian navy easly.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

In this hypothetical, the NATO Europeans would be easily able to handle the Russians. So the Yanks are free to use all their resources in the ME. No need for withdrawal of CBG's The Euro navies can handle the Russian.

You wanna make it EU vs the russians???? Things get a bit more interesting in such a case. No US strategic air power, no stealth aircraft, massive reduction in ISR capabilities, massive reduction in EW capabilities And NATO looses its largest air/ground/naval force by far. I'm not too shure how easily the europeans are going to "handle" the russians.

For one thing without the USN the EU is going to have trouble with the russian navy. The SSN's are a bit of a problem but your really big worry is russian naval aviation. The only EU nation with a conventional carrier is france and they've only got 2. I dont like their chances against a conserted backfire raid if the USN would have trouble. As for everyone else, imagine trying to intecept Backfires, or badgers for that matter, with harriers. Good luck. So i wouldnt venture out into the North Sea if i was you.

Seriously. Russia is so seriously outmatched, that even if Iran/China/whoever is added to the mix they are still vastly outgunned. NATO plus close associates expend 85% of the global mil expenditure.

How much of that is the US????? IIRC the US's agregate defence expenditure is close to the rest of the world combined. $500 odd billion dollars. And the EU is in the ballpark of $120bn (FY04USD$) thats double that of Russians at $50odd billion (number 3). But i'm shure we can judge the cource of this hypothetical conflict just by the money spent huh?

IIRC NATO Europe has 1,800,000 active service personnel. The majority full time professionals.

The majority full time personell????? Maybe in the german, french or danish army. But how about the 514 000 Turkish active service personell, or 177 000 greek, 163 000 polish or 230 000, italians, are they all professionals?????? id bet the vast majority are on 2-4 year stints, just like the russians.

Russia has, again IIRC, 700,000 active serving personnel, mostly conscripts.

wikki puts russian active service personell at 1 037 000, with 2 400 000 reserves at agrand total (including 300 000 odd paramilitaries) of 3 796 000.

If you want to expand an army rapidly, do you then do it on the basis of conscripts or professionals?

Remember how Nazi-Germany expanded from a basis of an army of 100,000 professionals.

There is so much wishful thinking...

Hang on, let me get this streight. Your saying that it would be easier for European NATO members with professional armies, (since a professional army is centrel to you theory) like the UK and france, can expand their military faster than the Russians with enough stored gear to equip 200+ divisions and over 2 million trained reservists? That makes heaps of sence. The "professional" NATO members, and non prefessional ones for that matter, are going to have to manufacture the munitions and arms to equip their new forces, and train a vast officer core to lead them. the Russian have both in place as we type.

And it took 6 years for the NAZI's to rebuild the Whermacht, the Red Army did it in 6 months. your right it is easier to have a rapid military expansion in a professional army, with its high training times, low personell turnover and therefore low levels of military trained personell in the population and low levels of stockpiled arms and munitions.

1 million works for me. Doesn't change substance.

Your right it doesent change the substance, what it does change is the tactical situation, quite a bit in fact. And as far as your substance of European NATO forces being so superior to the russians, 50%odd of EU NATO forces are from militaries of questionable quality (i.e. not better than the russians, i dont want to offend anyone here) like all of eastern europe and Turkey and in the former's case they wouldn't even have qualitative parity with the russians. Only the western european NATO members have Qualitative advantage over the ruskies, and the only ones of any consequence (in numerical terms vs the russians, no offence intended) are the UK, France, Germany and to a lesser extent Spain and italy. Numericaly they might have acieved parity if they all bring everything they have to the fight, but they are all equiped with different equipment, all speak different languages, all have their own lines of communication, all have their own national interests, all need individual repair facilities, all have their own chains of command. On the other hand your facing the russians with a single chain of command, army wide equipment standardisation, and is a SINGLE army. Logisticaly and operationaly, i see the europeans geting into one god damn nightmare of a mess.

UK alone could take on the Russian Navy.

Under UK based air power maybe. Out in the "blue" water, they dont stand a chance. For one thing the Oscar II is one bad ass SSN and a huge threat to this UK "CBG" out in the blue. One Oscar II's AShM payload alone would be able to devistate this deployed UK task force. Now lets look at Naval aviation. Sea harriers wouldnt stand a chance of intercepting SU 33's with shipbuster payloads before they reached launch points. they wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting to a backfire. now how much chance has a GR7 got??????nfloorl: Summs that one up.

The french are the only ones with a chance outside their own air cover.

Someone else will have to flesh this out, as I have done this topic ad nauseam.

Some (any) fleshing would be nice. All you have stated so far is a few missleading statistics that alone have allmost nothing to do with the scenario, made dismissive/nationalistic comments and then made no attempt whatsoever to expand/substantiate/support said statements. Yet in this two page thread with your two dismissive posts that made no attempt to actually discuss the topic you've had this thread Ad Nauseam, i.e. term used to describe something that has been continuing "to the point of nausea." For example "This topic has been discussed ad nauseam"; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_nauseam

i'd hate to see what makes you car sick. :drunk1

How about explaining exactly how EU NATO is going to defeat the russians, overcoming the huge logistical problem's they'll face, how exactly the RN could defeat the russian navy single handedly, how exactly these EU "professional" armies ore going to expand their militaries faster that the russians, how the campaign would be decidively won, how anything would be good.

 

[Grand Danois]

How about explaining exactly how EU NATO is going to defeat the russians, overcoming the huge logistical problem's they'll face, how exactly the RN could defeat the russian navy single handedly, how exactly these EU "professional" armies ore going to expand their militaries faster that the russians, how the campaign would be decidively won, how anything would be good.

Sure, call it nationalistic etc.

I'm not talking about defeating Russia ie invading them, but defending against Russia. I'm arguing they're not at threat.

Problem with fleshing it out would require more time than I have (this you could consider a cue for me to stay out instead of laying myself open to accusations of dismissiveness.). Currently we have these subtopics:

• Size and state of Russian navy plus Russian naval aviation.
  
• Context of naval engagement; will naval aviation matter? How much US support would Europe need? Is it a question of the Ruskies having to come out to play, rather than Euros going for the Barents?
  
• West Euro logistics under off/def circumstances compared to Russian ditto.
  
• Expansion of armies. How necessary are full time professionals as a core for conscripts rather than reaction force personnel.
  
• How much can the Euro armies be considered professional...
  
• [Fill in]

 

[Grand Danois]

How much of that is the US????? IIRC the US's agregate defence expenditure is close to the rest of the world combined. $500 odd billion dollars. And the EU is in the ballpark of $120bn (FY04USD$) thats double that of Russians at $50odd billion (number 3). But i'm shure we can judge the cource of this hypothetical conflict just by the money spent huh?

US is something like $540B, but a bit unclear as it depends on if you include some of the expenditure from the Iraq War. Decidedly, it is more than the rest of the world combined.

European expenditure is $265B, not the $120B suggested above.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Sure, call it nationalistic etc.

I'm not talking about defeating Russia ie invading them, but defending against Russia. I'm arguing they're not at threat.

Problem with fleshing it out would require more time than I have (this you could consider a cue for me to stay out instead of laying myself open to accusations of dismissiveness.). Currently we have these subtopics:

• Size and state of Russian navy plus Russian naval aviation.
  
• Context of naval engagement; will naval aviation matter? How much US support would Europe need? Is it a question of the Ruskies having to come out to play, rather than Euros going for the Barents?
  
• West Euro logistics under off/def circumstances compared to Russian ditto.
  
• Expansion of armies. How necessary are full time professionals as a core for conscripts rather than reaction force personnel.
  
• [Fill in]

Some general points to back up statements like "the RN could defeat the russian navy single handedly" would aviod acusations of dismissiveness. like "the state of russian naval aviation as it is they are much less of a threat" would do niclely. Or perhaps not making your points in a such a dismissive manner would help avoid such rediculous accusations in future???? Why not contribute even in a limited maner instead of sniping? I for one would enjoy your constructive input and this thread more if you did.

 

[Grand Danois]

Some general points to back up statements like "the RN could defeat the russian navy single handedly" would aviod acusations of dismissiveness. like "the state of russian naval aviation as it is they are much less of a threat" would do niclely. Or perhaps not making your points in a such a dismissive manner would help avoid such rediculous accusations in future???? Why not contribute even in a limited maner instead of sniping? I for one would enjoy your constructive input and this thread more if you did.

Hey! I'm not successful with each and every post I make.

I read your input on how both Europe and Russia would [relatively] quickly run of guided munitions [at least before running out of oil], and agree with it. So I responded to the first post on oil, but not on the follow up re PGMs. I had also in mind that such a war would be counted in weeks.

But what to make of "40 nuclear subs", when the Russian navy is having good year when they make 2 deterrence patrols [they have at best 6-7 SSBN, that are or will ever be operational]? Or an exercise with the Kuznetzov that is not cut short because equipment malfunction...?

So my reply get a tad sniping in its nature.

Btw, there is a chance you missed post #30.

 

[Ares]

You guys are clearly underestimating Russia's military muscle here. First off lets talk about the tanks that are in storage such as the T-55 and others. All these tanks have been modernized to a very large extent the main upgrades for the T-55 are the MV or the AM2PB. Russia is scrapping most of their T-55's that are in storage. The T-62 is still in active service (according to warfare.ru there are about 689 still in service being M/MV modifications with another 689 in reserve and 3000 being in storage). The MV modifications for the T-55/T-62 mount first-generation apron era (kontakt-1 ?). Its true that the Russian military budget is miniscule compared to the pre-1991 budget but over the past few years it has more than doubled. Most of the tanks that Russia has in active service are second-generation ERA equipped tanks such as the T-80/T-72 and around 300 T-90S (stationed near mongolia). The Russian navy will receive a Ulyanovsk type aircraft carrier in the near future and in case of a war they could recquisition the Admiral Gorshkov and use it to backup their only available nuclear aircraft carrier (Kuznetsov). The naval air arm mainly consists of Mig-29K and SU-33K but there has been recent interest in a navalised version of the SU-25 (there is already a two seat naval trainer for it).

I am sorry I can't be too specific here at the moment but I have a very busy personal life to attend to.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

You guys are clearly underestimating Russia's military muscle here. First off lets talk about the tanks that are in storage such as the T-55 and others. All these tanks have been modernized to a very large extent the main upgrades for the T-55 are the MV or the AM2PB. Russia is scrapping most of their T-55's that are in storage. The T-62 is still in active service (according to warfare.ru there are about 689 still in service being M/MV modifications with another 689 in reserve and 3000 being in storage). The MV modifications for the T-55/T-62 mount first-generation apron era (kontakt-1 ?). Its true that the Russian military budget is miniscule compared to the pre-1991 budget but over the past few years it has more than doubled. Most of the tanks that Russia has in active service are second-generation ERA equipped tanks such as the T-80/T-72 and around 300 T-90S (stationed near mongolia). The Russian navy will receive a Ulyanovsk type aircraft carrier in the near future and in case of a war they could recquisition the Admiral Gorshkov and use it to backup their only available nuclear aircraft carrier (Kuznetsov). The naval air arm mainly consists of Mig-29K and SU-33K but there has been recent interest in a navalised version of the SU-25 (there is already a two seat naval trainer for it).

Have you read my last 5 posts in this thread???? read the 2nd one. I dont think i'm underestimating them much with a 30~40 divisional push into eastern europe. And they have over 10 000 T72's in storage. But that dosent mean they could actually field 10 000 T72's. You need to look at more than numbers in a situation like this.

 

[Ares]

yes but the ones that are in storage are the modernized versions as well. Russia doesnt use first-generation for their T-72's they use the kontakt-5 and their T-72's are the BM not the BV. The BV became the S series which has been widely exported.

Really no matter how much debate there is on this topic you can't really predict how well a nation will stand against another nation. Sure Russia stands a smaller chance but once their full modernization by 2015-2020 is complete then we can talk. I do not want this to turn into a my nation vs ure nation thread.

 

[Grand Danois]

You wanna make it EU vs the russians????

Uhm, no. Do you think that would be the case. To be precise I commented on the concept that maintaining 3 USN CBGs in the Gulf would leave Europe defenceless. Will you allow for say 1 CBG plus some strat bombers?

Things get a bit more interesting in such a case. No US strategic air power, no stealth aircraft, massive reduction in ISR capabilities, massive reduction in EW capabilities And NATO looses its largest air/ground/naval force by far. I'm not too shure how easily the europeans are going to "handle" the russians.

The largest ground/air/naval force in the European Theatre is - the Europeans. EW will suffer heavily, though. Strat air power will be available from the US.

For one thing without the USN the EU is going to have trouble with the russian navy. The SSN's are a bit of a problem but your really big worry is russian naval aviation.

How many operational SSNs do they have. I haven't got a tally, but if the availability rates of the SSBN is anything to go by, then the RN would be able to deploy more in a war. I'm not intimately aware of the situation as far as Russian naval aviation goes, but will agree that this is potentially the real headache.

The only EU nation with a conventional carrier is france and they've only got 2.

I think you mean CVN. And France only has one. Not that it enhances my side of the argument.

I dont like their chances against a conserted backfire raid if the USN would have trouble. As for everyone else, imagine trying to intecept Backfires, or badgers for that matter, with harriers. Good luck. So i wouldnt venture out into the North Sea if i was you.

North Sea should be ok as it can be covered from land. But further north would be very troublesome. But one USN CBG would settle the issue?

Anyhow. ISR plays a role in these long range engagements.

How much of that is the US????? IIRC the US's agregate defence expenditure is close to the rest of the world combined. $500 odd billion dollars. And the EU is in the ballpark of $120bn (FY04USD$) thats double that of Russians at $50odd billion (number 3). But i'm shure we can judge the cource of this hypothetical conflict just by the money spent huh?

It is an indicator. Europe (265 b usd) expends 6 times the amount that Russia does. US (540 b usd) expends 13 times the amount that Russia does (42 b usd). Buys you lotsa first class kit, maintenance, training. All of which is available. Now. In fully established units.

The majority full time personell????? Maybe in the german, french or danish army. But how about the 514 000 Turkish active service personell, or 177 000 greek, 163 000 polish or 230 000, italians, are they all professionals?????? id bet the vast majority are on 2-4 year stints, just like the russians.

Uh. The 1.8 million number was sans the Turks and Norwegians. My apols to them.

Make it 2.4 million.

The French/UK/Italian/Spanish militaries are fully professional. Poles/Finns/Greek/Turks are "conscript". German/Danish have small elements of conscription (intended for recruitment to professional service). Most countries have a direct 10-25% mobilisation reserve plus a volunteer national guard type force. F.i. Denmark has, IIRC, a peacetime establishment of 23.000 man years allocated, of which 2.200 are conscript years, and reaction force personnel which doesn't count as full man years (brigade sized). Thus, with the 53.000 strong Home Guard (ex-army/navy/AF), you end up with a direct mobilisation force of trained, fully equipped force of 80,000. And it only counts nominally as 23.000 in the 2.4 million figure...

Just an example.

wikki puts russian active service personell at 1 037 000, with 2 400 000 reserves at agrand total (including 300 000 odd paramilitaries) of 3 796 000.

Europe is starting out with 2.4 million. Toss in direct reserves and paramilitaries...

Hang on, let me get this streight. Your saying that it would be easier for European NATO members with professional armies, (since a professional army is centrel to you theory) like the UK and france, can expand their military faster than the Russians with enough stored gear to equip 200+ divisions and over 2 million trained reservists? That makes heaps of sence. The "professional" NATO members, and non prefessional ones for that matter, are going to have to manufacture the munitions and arms to equip their new forces, and train a vast officer core to lead them. the Russian have both in place as we type.

Nope. NATO will not create new units. They flesh out the skeleton structure of the existing. The core is the professionals; not an already conscript army.

And it took 6 years for the NAZI's to rebuild the Whermacht, the Red Army did it in 6 months. your right it is easier to have a rapid military expansion in a professional army, with its high training times, low personell turnover and therefore low levels of military trained personell in the population and low levels of stockpiled arms and munitions.

Nope. You're talking rearmament, not expansion of personnel. You need a professional core for that. German doctrine was not just about application of panzers, but about the application of people. To take the initiative, to understand context; to respond correctly to training and orders; to have experienced people at all levels...

Your right it doesent change the substance, what it does change is the tactical situation, quite a bit in fact. And as far as your substance of European NATO forces being so superior to the russians, 50%odd of EU NATO forces are from militaries of questionable quality (i.e. not better than the russians, i dont want to offend anyone here) like all of eastern europe and Turkey and in the former's case they wouldn't even have qualitative parity with the russians. Only the western european NATO members have Qualitative advantage over the ruskies, and the only ones of any consequence (in numerical terms vs the russians, no offence intended) are the UK, France, Germany and to a lesser extent Spain and italy. Numericaly they might have acieved parity if they all bring everything they have to the fight, but they are all equiped with different equipment, all speak different languages, all have their own lines of communication, all have their own national interests, all need individual repair facilities, all have their own chains of command. On the other hand your facing the russians with a single chain of command, army wide equipment standardisation, and is a SINGLE army. Logisticaly and operationaly, i see the europeans geting into one god damn nightmare of a mess.

NATO has one command language: English. It has a well developed command structure. Extensive standardisation of just about everything. Cooperation, training and exercises for decades. Standing formations...

For instance during the Cold War, A division of the Danish Army would enter northern Germany and join up with a German Division and a UK Brigade, IIRC, to form a joint corps. Today it is a DK/GER/POL corps...

Under UK based air power maybe. Out in the "blue" water, they dont stand a chance. For one thing the Oscar II is one bad ass SSN and a huge threat to this UK "CBG" out in the blue. One Oscar II's AShM payload alone would be able to devistate this deployed UK task force. Now lets look at Naval aviation. Sea harriers wouldnt stand a chance of intercepting SU 33's with shipbuster payloads before they reached launch points. they wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting to a backfire. now how much chance has a GR7 got??????nfloorl: Summs that one up.

The french are the only ones with a chance outside their own air cover.

Some (any) fleshing would be nice. All you have stated so far is a few missleading statistics that alone have allmost nothing to do with the scenario, made dismissive/nationalistic comments and then made no attempt whatsoever to expand/substantiate/support said statements. Yet in this two page thread with your two dismissive posts that made no attempt to actually discuss the topic you've had this thread Ad Nauseam, i.e. term used to describe something that has been continuing "to the point of nausea." For example "This topic has been discussed ad nauseam"; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_nauseam

i'd hate to see what makes you car sick. :drunk1

How about explaining exactly how EU NATO is going to defeat the russians, overcoming the huge logistical problem's they'll face, how exactly the RN could defeat the russian navy single handedly, how exactly these EU "professional" armies ore going to expand their militaries faster that the russians, how the campaign would be decidively won, how anything would be good.

I'm cutting short here, already a long post.

Nope. The use of ad nauseam was directed at the use of treaty definitions to describe the actual amount of hardware in Russian inventory. Just because it is labelled cruiser/destroyer/T-55 and can be quickly upgraded in theory doesn't mean much if it is a rusty hulk, that has recieved no maintenance for two decades, with technology of the same vintage.

Most of it does not translate into real weaponry. Though I will agree that most of the stored T-72 and other reasonable modern armour should do ok. But older than that, and it is little worth at the pointy end, considering the logistical effort to get it there.

 

[swerve]

...

Does Europe produse oil "along with" Russia's tacit approval (i.e. pipe lines running through "Russian State's or the ME/Capian Sea) or are you talking about production within Europe?..

He's talking about production within Europe. The main production area is the North Sea, but there are lesser production areas elsewhere. Also, North African production areas are within reach of Europe, with transport across a European lake.

 

[Grand Danois]

Some general points to back up statements like "the RN could defeat the russian navy single handedly" would aviod acusations of dismissiveness. like "the state of russian naval aviation as it is they are much less of a threat" would do niclely. Or perhaps not making your points in a such a dismissive manner would help avoid such rediculous accusations in future???? Why not contribute even in a limited maner instead of sniping? I for one would enjoy your constructive input and this thread more if you did.

I think I said something along the lines of "the RN could take on the Russian Navy".

But I admit it was not constructive. So RoxFTW has my apols on that count.

 

[swerve]

I think I said something along the lines of "the RN could take on the Russian Navy".

But I admit it was not constructive. So RoxFTW has my apols on that count.

Well, it should be able to take on the Northern Fleet, which is the only part which could actually get at it.

2 operational STOVL carriers, 9 DDG, 17 FFG, 9 SSN, vs 16 SSN/SSGN & 6 SSK, 1 not-very-operational carrier, 3 cruisers, 5 DDG & 2 FFG, plus some missile boats. The RNs SSNs would be outnumbered >2:1 in theory, but in practice, given the low operational readiness of the Russian navy, would probably have superior operational numbers. And so on down the line . . .

 

[swerve]

Have you read my last 5 posts in this thread???? read the 2nd one. I dont think i'm underestimating them much with a 30~40 divisional push into eastern europe. ...

You're overestimating them. The Russian army now has a theoretical mobilised strength, including reserves for which there are shell units to receive them, of 44 divisions, 28 independent brigades, plus separate artillery formations (3 div, 13 bde, 17 regt). (Military Balance 2007). Which, interestingly enough, is probably about enough to use the equipment listed as allocated to MDs. Of the 23000 tanks declared, only 16000 appear on the books of the military districts: the others aren't even counted as available for mobilisation units. They're probably in unmaintained storage.

The standing army is down to 395000, including 190000 conscripts. In theory, reserve mobilisation could fill out gaps in their 29 divisions & 19 brigades, plus make up another 15 divisions & 8 brigades, but the reserve mobilisation system fell apart in the 1990s. But of all those units, 15 divisions & 8 brigades are in Siberia, & 4 divisions & 5 brigades are in the N. Caucasus. I reckon many of those would have to stay where they are.

BTW, to show you how well manned units are, the Far Eastern MD nominally has 10 motor rifle or "machine-gun" (converting to motor rifle) divisions, 1 artillery division, 3 brigades, 1 anti-tank brigade, 3 SSM brigades & 5 SAM brigades - all with 73500 men.