Russian Paper Tiger

[Tasman]

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.

I don't think it is any secret that the Russian navy is in a bad state. I seriously doubt that many of the ships currently in reserve will ever be fit to return to effective service.

Having said that the Russian navy is still a force that can not be dismissed lightly. Its submarine force in particular could cause huge problems for European navies and could still cause some difficulties even for the USN. However, a NATO fleet built around the RN would be a formidable force for Russia to contend with. Overall, providing they are reasonably co-ordinated, I believe that the NATO navies could neutralise the Russian fleet, even if a large part of the USN was tied up with operations in the Gulf or in the Pacific.

Cheers

 

[Waylander]

In the end Turkey is able to close the Bosporus as well as Germany, Denmark and Poland the baltic sea. With Germany being able to split their naval forces between the baltic and north sea without decreasing europes ability to close the baltic sea.
So the rest of europes naval forces is free to counter everything which comes out of the russian atlantic ports.

This should be enough.

The problem I see is that NATO is not able to mobilise fast enough to safe the baltic countries before russia could grap them.
I have no doubt that europe is able to defend against a russian conventional assault (Without US help) but I seriously doubt our ability to stop them before they cross polands border.

 

[RoxFTW]

I don't think it is any secret that the Russian navy is in a bad state. I seriously doubt that many of the ships currently in reserve will ever be fit to return to effective service.

Having said that the Russian navy is still a force that can not be dismissed lightly. Its submarine force in particular could cause huge problems for European navies and could still cause some difficulties even for the USN. However, a NATO fleet built around the RN would be a formidable force for Russia to contend with. Overall, providing they are reasonably co-ordinated, I believe that the NATO navies could neutralise the Russian fleet, even if a large part of the USN was tied up with operations in the Gulf or in the Pacific.

Cheers

I agree , but Grand Denois , he said not NATO would defeat Russian navy EASLY , which i disagree with , but he said even Royal Navy would single handedly defeat Russian navy EASLY , thats why i posted these things.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

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.

Nope sounds like i got it spot on. 45~50 Divisions is what i said, and now its 50+. And how hard would it be given the ammount of equipment they have in stock even taking older equipment out of the equasion, to raise new units? Now i'm not too shure how the russians structure their armoured divisions, but if they have 2 armoured brigades (+ a mech infantry brigade ) with 3 armoured battalions each with 30 odd tanks per battalion, then T72 equped heavy/armoured divisions are going to field 200 odd tanks. Now even if they plan to put an armoured Battalion with every motor rifle/mechanised division they still have enough stockpiled armour "on the books" to equip 20+ heavy divisions. Then you have the mechanised inf/motor rifle divisions which need less kit. So i'm not to shure why you think that they have enough equipment to only equip the 50 divisions they allready have a structure for, a quick and conservative look shows they have a whole lot more.Thatas not to say theuy could actuall;y field any more than that. I said that at the start of this thread.

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.

Why? they could redeploy forces pretty quickley and i dont see why they wouldn't in a time of crisis like a conflict with NATO. They might need to keep a division or two in the caucasus but allmost all of the siberian units could be easily redeployed. The Chinese, kazaks or mongolians aren't going to try a land grab if they move units to europe, the russians have a huge insurance policy, 8000 strategic warheads.

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.

Thats on a bare bones peacetime footong, not exactly representative.

 

[Grand Danois]

I agree , but Grand Denois , he said not NATO would defeat Russian navy EASLY , which i disagree with , but he said even Royal Navy would single handedly defeat Russian navy EASLY , thats why i posted these things.

Ahem. Where did I say RN could easily defeat the Russian Navy?

Second is chronology. Mine was a response to yours - not the other way around as you say.

 

[swerve]

Nope sounds like i got it spot on. 45~50 Divisions is what i said, and now its 50+. And how hard would it be given the ammount of equipment they have in stock even taking older equipment out of the equasion, to raise new units? ....

You said 30-40 divisions for an assault on western Europe. Take away the training divisions, the forces which will have to stay in the Far East, the forces needed to cover the Caucasus frontier (BTW, I'm assuming Chechnya & the like can be covered by Interior Ministry units) & you're at the lower end of your range. Allow for the fact that the reserve system is a mess, & they'll have difficulty manning units.

Given the amount of equipment they have in stock, in theory they could raise new units. But that would take time - lots of it. The equipment would need a through overhaul: in some cases a rebuild. They're short of the manpower to do that, especially with you sending every man they do have West to fight, & unskilled new recruits (BTW, who's going to train them? - you've committed the training units to battle), or recalled reservists who haven't seen a tank or gun for 10-15 years, & weren't mechanics when they did, aren't going to be much help, even if they had the parts (the army's been living off Soviet stocks & cannibilisation since the early 1990s) to fix 'em.

Yes, the manpower figures are peacetime establishment, with many units being cadre. But these are active units! Do you see? Even most of the supposedly active units are just cadres, without reservists, & the reliability of the reservist system hasn't been tested since the mid-90s. It failed then, and by all accounts, subsequently got worse. They didn't even try using it next time they wanted more troops, but hired ex-soldiers on short-term contracts. Russia is now supposedly moving away from mass mobilisation towards a more professional army, so the decayed remnants of the old reserve system are withering even more. But they haven't been replaced by anything.

You're missing something crucial. Russia is spending about 3% of GDP on the armed forces, maybe up to 3.5% (the government says slightly less than 3%). The GDP (at purchasing power parity) is about the same as that of Italy, so real military expenditure is only a little more than in the UK or France, nowhere near enough to actually keep that huge military establishment functioning. It's kept in existence only by not maintaining anything which isn't being used, i.e. most of the equipment, & a large part of the (theoretically existing) administrative structure. A lot of that "stored" equipment is, in reality, scrap metal.

 

[Ares]

are you guys including the numbers for the VDV, Black Berets, and other forces ?

 

[nornavy]

Russias growing strenght

Interesting thread. As a Norwegian the status and intentions of the Russian military is of great interest. During the 90s, when Russia spiraled downwards, our Military was drasticly reduced. Calling Russia a threat to our security in the late 90s, you would be called a dinosaur. Still, even with the recent increase in rethoric and military activites, our military high command, refuses to accept the idea.

Our "New" military's goal was NATO and UN operations abroad, and this has had consequenses. The standing Army is of one Brigade ( 12 months conscription ), and our mobilisation army ( counting 165 000 men in the late 80s) is gone. We still have the Home Guard ( 55 000 now, down from 120 000 ), and they have now have modern equipment and more training than before.

The airforce has a total of 58 F-16s.

The Navy has fared worst.
In the late 80s we had 15 submarines, 5 small frigates and 40 FPB's. Now, before the 5 new Nansen class frigates and 6 Skjold class FPBs become operational, we have our 6 submarines and 4 FPBs really operational.
The new ships are not operational, atleast, until 2010.

Facing us is the Leningrad Military District and the Northern Fleet.
A bird wispered in my ear that two divisions and the naval infantry is now at higher alert than during the Cold War.

The most probable scenario for us is a confrontation in the Barents Sea over fishing rights or over Svalbard. Because of disagreements with the EU nations, we would possibly have to face the Russians alone, without NATO.

That would be David against Goliat.

 

[Manfred]

2 Divisions of Naval Infantry? No, I doubt they have 2 full dovisions, very much.

It is worriesome that you have such a small navy now, that is the one branch that Norway, of all places, should keep strong.

 

[nornavy]

Sorry for beeing unclear. What I ment is two divisions ( one motorized infantry and one airmobile ) and the naval infatry (is and always has been a brigade in Murmansk)