Meanwhile In The Baltic Republics And Poland...

[glenn239]

Chris Glenn, that's just it, I don't think we have a conventional deterrent thanks to non-survivable basing, Russian pre-emptive strike and SAM capabilities. The deterrent I described is deliberately limited in range to 500km and would not be dual nuclear/conventional. We were trying to avoid hitting deep inside continental Russia

 

 

Conventional deterrent is fine – personally I think we have plenty, but more can't hurt. We should not hold the Russian power grid hostage to the outcome to a conventional naval campaign in the Atlantic. If the Russians invade NATO territory we could have a doctrine along the lines of that the depth to which we air attack in Russia is exactly the depth to which they have invaded inside NATO territory going the other way from the border where the breach occurred. But that’s about it.

 

Modern Russia has a very dubious record of keeping to conventions, rules, treaties etc. so I'm really don't think we could rely on them to keep to a modern version of18th Century rules of warfare. For example, they are conducting highly indiscriminate bombing in Syria now.

 

 

Sure, and we have a record of selective enforcement of international law – laws that are enforced on the basis of interest and not principle are inherently corrupt and therefore unworkable as the only principle of a system. Would you be happy if the police enforced the speed limit against you but never your neighbor? Russia is not a peach and we need deterrence because throughout history Russia on the march tends to forget boundries, (WW1 was caused in large part by ridiculous Russian pretensions in the Balkans) but it is also true no Great Power can be expected to follow international law when it has the capacity to otherwise secure its vital interests.

 

Dark Falcon Waterloo is not the best analogy to use, since had France won that battle the war surely would have gone on. The Russians and the Hapsburg Empire would not have accepted an Anglo-Prussian defeat as having resolved the war.

 

 

True. The idea is that if the British had lost Waterloo they weren’t going to ‘flip the table’ and nuke Paris - even if they could have. The French lost and Nappy went into exile. The world turned rightside up with Paris, London, Vienna, Berlin and St. Petersburg all intact.

Edited July 11, 2016 by glenn239

[Gregory]

Bit expensive, and a bit awkward to maintain I gather, or so it seems to suggest on US Army Air Defence lecture I listed above. Apparently they had to bring in Navy Corpsman to help train the Army on how to use it when it was initially fielded. Troops seemed to love it though, with a blimp mounted radar it seemed effectively to deal with the mortar threat in Afghanistan. Apparently they didnt even fired until the radar blimp was on the ground so effective did it turn out to be.

Not Corpsmen, unless the Army had a lot of injuries from training on this system.

[lastdingo]

Poles use 98mm in their light battalions, I always thought that was an interesting solution between mobility and firepower.

 

The 98 mm designs were meant to stay below the threshold of the CFE treaty, which begins to limit numbers at 100 mm calibre.

 

The CFE treaty was at first largely unimportant because ground forces were voluntarily cut below CFE maximums, and now it's pretty much dead, so 98 mm went nowhere really.

[Chris Werb]

Successful convoy campaign vs Western Europe - particularly the UK = existential threat. The Russians can't turn around and say "sorry, we weren't stupid enough to live on an island" and not expect a response. Instead, we make it obvious, in advance, that a deliberate conventional attempt at ending us will be met with something equivalently disastrous for them, but conventionally delivered. In WW2, we didn't have nerve gas, so the Germans presumably would have cried foul on us if they had used it, or biotoxins, on our coastal cities only to discover that we responded by drenching them with weaponised anthrax. I'm not sure there would have been much sympathy for the German interpretation of the rules here had they done so.

[DB]

A picture search on "Foden DROPS" will get you lots of pics of examples in civilian hands. Any idea what this one (then still in military hands) was carrying?

 

Sorry, fair point Stuart. I didn't mean to imply that the entire Georgian and Russian armed forces were incompetent. I should have made that more clear.

 

Presumably that's a rhetorical question, Chris, but for the avoidance of doubt, it's COBRA.

[DB]

Also, the idea that "we" have no effective conventional deterrent is flawed because t is difficult to conceive of a sufficiently large conventional pre-emptive strike on any one NATO nation that wouldn't invite the others to counter it. Does Russia have the ability to conventionally neutralise all NATO states on day one? It's not Independence Day II we're looking at.

 

Now, you can strain at gnats and say "but what about <insert new member state that you claim nobody cares about>?" and then you get Belgium in 1914 and Poland in 1939.

[lastdingo]

Belgium 1914 was a mere pretence for the UK government to enter the war. They wanted it anyway.

Poland 1939 was merely a trigger as well, the will to go to war was built up when the Czechs were annexed. From then on war was a question of "when" rather than "if". besides, I'd like to point out that the USSR invaded Poland in September 1939 and despite French and UK guarantees to Poland the USSR was not declared war upon.

 

The Russians could overrun the three Baltic countries with airborne troops, Russian interior troops mop up the scattered resistance, Russia fuses a 100 kg nuke on some NATO CVBG in the Atlantic to signal a readiness to go to nuclear war.

 

Who would claim that NATO would till mount a conventional ground offensive to liberate the Baltic members?

Much more likely NATO would negotiate behind the scenes some combat actions to save face and then settle on some permanent ceasefire compromise that allows the Baltic people to flee if they wish, for example.

 

 

The biggest flaw in this scenario is that Putin appears rational, a drunk like Yeltsin would be more believable (regarding nuclear war).

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Bit expensive, and a bit awkward to maintain I gather, or so it seems to suggest on US Army Air Defence lecture I listed above. Apparently they had to bring in Navy Corpsman to help train the Army on how to use it when it was initially fielded. Troops seemed to love it though, with a blimp mounted radar it seemed effectively to deal with the mortar threat in Afghanistan. Apparently they didnt even fired until the radar blimp was on the ground so effective did it turn out to be.

Not Corpsmen, unless the Army had a lot of injuries from training on this system.

 

I knew I was going to get that wrong.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Poles use 98mm in their light battalions, I always thought that was an interesting solution between mobility and firepower.

 

The 98 mm designs were meant to stay below the threshold of the CFE treaty, which begins to limit numbers at 100 mm calibre.

 

The CFE treaty was at first largely unimportant because ground forces were voluntarily cut below CFE maximums, and now it's pretty much dead, so 98 mm went nowhere really.

 

Oh, is that the reason? I figured it was just to have firepower approaching a 120mm with the mobility akin to an 81mm. Your explanation makes more sense.

 

I was reading of a US Paratrooper Company in Afghanistan that took a 120mm mortar with them on an operation, but could only carry about 4 rounds for it. At which point you begin to think for light infantry its a law of diminishing returns. For AFVs though, I dont see any reason not to. And even Stryker Battalions seem to cover both bets by carrying both.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Also, the idea that "we" have no effective conventional deterrent is flawed because t is difficult to conceive of a sufficiently large conventional pre-emptive strike on any one NATO nation that wouldn't invite the others to counter it. Does Russia have the ability to conventionally neutralise all NATO states on day one? It's not Independence Day II we're looking at.

 

Now, you can strain at gnats and say "but what about <insert new member state that you claim nobody cares about>?" and then you get Belgium in 1914 and Poland in 1939.

It doesnt need to. It just needs to create a suitable pretext for its action that everyone else can say 'well jesus we didnt sign up for that' and back out of their treaty commitments. And Hybrid war arguably can be successful in that kind of thing, look at all the people claiming MH17 was shot down by Ukrainians, and the East Ukrainian campaign and Crimean annexation were popular with the locals. When actually when you look at the evidence, the locals were asked last, if at all. People believed that. I mean look at the Ukrainian thread, and many still do despite evidence to the contrary. Or Georgia in which we still argue 8 years later about whom actually started it. If Georgia had been part of NATO and called an article 5, how many would have turned up? Even the US might have looked askance at fighting a war that close to Russia with no allies and no solid base of support.

 

A large scale invasion is unlikely (at least initially) because of the central point that its clear and unambiguous. Even Italy would feel a compulsion to do something, even if its to send along Berlusconis wine cellar to NATO command.

 

Basically its the old 1980s view of deterrence turned on its head, with Russia now occupying the ambiguous response we once advocated. At what point do we know Russia goes nuclear, or exactly how its going to react conventionally with cruise missiles on soft targets if we react? And we dont. So how many when it comes to it are going to turn up and fight, and how many are going to use the Czechoslovak defence, ie, its a far off country of which we know little.

 

NATO is solid because it has never been tested. I cant shake off the awkward feeling that if it was seriously put to a test, the wheels would come off.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

Perhaps this sounds a bit cracked, but I can relate that some of this has already said by far better qualified and smarter people than myself.

 

The objective is not to try to fight a war, but to not fight it at all by effective deterrence. Which we ARE moving towards, but very slowly, and it remains to be seen if it will in fact deter or just enhance Russias grievences. if it comes to a fight, its probably already all over for NATO.

 

Anyway, another lecture on the run up to the Warsaw summit. Some good viewpoints in this IMHO.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Thought this was interesting. Are they preparing for intercepting low level incursions, or practising for operating in a non permissive air environment dominated by S400?

http://news.err.ee/v/news/be99d70d-60e8-4566-a775-2ba05b7cde09/allied-military-jets-to-conduct-test-flights-low-altitude-flyovers-in-estonian-airspace

This week, Royal Air Force (RAF) Eurofighter Typhoons based at Ämari Air Base will be conducting test flights, including low-altitude flyovers, in Estonian airspace.

The RAF jets will fly over the Gulf of Riga, southern parts of Pärnu County, Viljandi County as well as Central and Eastern Estonian airspace at altitudes no lower than 152 meters, or just under 500 feet, and preferably away from populated areas.

NATO member states, including all three Baltic States, allocate specific areas of their respective airspace for use for air force drills and exercises, inlcuding low-altitude flyovers. Low-altitude flyovers in Estonia are conducted in collaboration with the Estonian Civil Aviation Administration (CIAA) and Air Traffic Services.

According to a North-Atlantic Council decision, allied air forces have contributed to the aerial defense of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania on a rotational basis since the three Baltic States joined the alliance on March 29, 2004.

The Baltic Air Policing mission makes up a part of the NATO Integrated Air Defence System (NATINADS) and is also part of the alliance's Smart Defence concept of cooperation in the maintenance of NATO's military capabilities necessary to undertake its core tasks as agreed upon in NATO's Strategic Concept.

Together with the Portuguese Air Force, whose F-16 Fighting Falcons are based at Šiauliai Air Base in Lithuania, the RAF took over the air policing mission on April 28 of this year.

[carrierlost]

 

Thought this was interesting. Are they preparing for intercepting low level incursions, or practising for operating in a non permissive air environment dominated by S400?

http://news.err.ee/v/news/be99d70d-60e8-4566-a775-2ba05b7cde09/allied-military-jets-to-conduct-test-flights-low-altitude-flyovers-in-estonian-airspace

This week, Royal Air Force (RAF) Eurofighter Typhoons based at Ämari Air Base will be conducting test flights, including low-altitude flyovers, in Estonian airspace.

The RAF jets will fly over the Gulf of Riga, southern parts of Pärnu County, Viljandi County as well as Central and Eastern Estonian airspace at altitudes no lower than 152 meters, or just under 500 feet, and preferably away from populated areas.

NATO member states, including all three Baltic States, allocate specific areas of their respective airspace for use for air force drills and exercises, inlcuding low-altitude flyovers. Low-altitude flyovers in Estonia are conducted in collaboration with the Estonian Civil Aviation Administration (CIAA) and Air Traffic Services.

According to a North-Atlantic Council decision, allied air forces have contributed to the aerial defense of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania on a rotational basis since the three Baltic States joined the alliance on March 29, 2004.

The Baltic Air Policing mission makes up a part of the NATO Integrated Air Defence System (NATINADS) and is also part of the alliance's Smart Defence concept of cooperation in the maintenance of NATO's military capabilities necessary to undertake its core tasks as agreed upon in NATO's Strategic Concept.

Together with the Portuguese Air Force, whose F-16 Fighting Falcons are based at Šiauliai Air Base in Lithuania, the RAF took over the air policing mission on April 28 of this year.

 

 

Low-level drills are done in Estonia all the time and this is just standard message. I counted 65 messages from MOD web-site for past few years of similar sorts, with dates, zones and participating aircraft / countries varying,

These were practiced even when Ämari was not in use by BAP mission. Some random overflight video from Viljandi.

 

[carrierlost]

Boxers in Estonia

 

 

 

Note the camo difference.

[carrierlost]

And Polish in disused quarry in Sirgala, Estonia

 

 

 

 

[Josh]

Interesting that they use some flavor of RGP-7. I assume at least the ammo is locally sourced?

[Damian]

It's standard RPG-7, and it is intended to replace it ASAP with a single shot RPG on the squad level, and maybe something like M3 CG at higher level (company?).

 

We had some designs of new granades for RPG-7, including tandem HEAT, but they were never purchased by MoD.

[Josh]

What are those cute stryker looking vehicles with the autocannon? It occurs to me I know almost nothing of Polish equipment, or any of the Eastern NATO membors for that matter. I suspect its quite a mix match country to country.

[bojan]

Patria/Rosomak

[Chris Werb]

DB, by conventional deterrent, I was thinking in terms of two levels.

 

1. The ability to seriously screw up any attempt to invade a NATO country by hitting targets deep behind the front line. Logistics, IADS, command centres etc. which they have invested a lot of money in SAMS and FCS to stop us hitting with aircraft.

 

2. The ability to go after civilian infrastructure deep inside Western Russia conventionally to deter them from taking out our power grid, air traffic control centres, stock exchange etc.

 

The former could deliberately be limited to 500km range to avoid treaty violation. The latter would need to be air or submarine delivered. SAMs and geography make this problematic and is very much in the Russians favour, unfortunately.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

Thought this was interesting. Are they preparing for intercepting low level incursions, or practising for operating in a non permissive air environment dominated by S400?

http://news.err.ee/v/news/be99d70d-60e8-4566-a775-2ba05b7cde09/allied-military-jets-to-conduct-test-flights-low-altitude-flyovers-in-estonian-airspace

This week, Royal Air Force (RAF) Eurofighter Typhoons based at Ämari Air Base will be conducting test flights, including low-altitude flyovers, in Estonian airspace.

The RAF jets will fly over the Gulf of Riga, southern parts of Pärnu County, Viljandi County as well as Central and Eastern Estonian airspace at altitudes no lower than 152 meters, or just under 500 feet, and preferably away from populated areas.

NATO member states, including all three Baltic States, allocate specific areas of their respective airspace for use for air force drills and exercises, inlcuding low-altitude flyovers. Low-altitude flyovers in Estonia are conducted in collaboration with the Estonian Civil Aviation Administration (CIAA) and Air Traffic Services.

According to a North-Atlantic Council decision, allied air forces have contributed to the aerial defense of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania on a rotational basis since the three Baltic States joined the alliance on March 29, 2004.

The Baltic Air Policing mission makes up a part of the NATO Integrated Air Defence System (NATINADS) and is also part of the alliance's Smart Defence concept of cooperation in the maintenance of NATO's military capabilities necessary to undertake its core tasks as agreed upon in NATO's Strategic Concept.

Together with the Portuguese Air Force, whose F-16 Fighting Falcons are based at Šiauliai Air Base in Lithuania, the RAF took over the air policing mission on April 28 of this year.

 

 

Low-level drills are done in Estonia all the time and this is just standard message. I counted 65 messages from MOD web-site for past few years of similar sorts, with dates, zones and participating aircraft / countries varying,

These were practiced even when Ämari was not in use by BAP mission. Some random overflight video from Viljandi.

 

 

Thanks for that, I had thought the Baltic air patrol was just escorting lost Russians out of NATO airspace, but clearly they are putting more effort in than that.

[Stuart Galbraith]

DB, by conventional deterrent, I was thinking in terms of two levels.

 

1. The ability to seriously screw up any attempt to invade a NATO country by hitting targets deep behind the front line. Logistics, IADS, command centres etc. which they have invested a lot of money in SAMS and FCS to stop us hitting with aircraft.

 

2. The ability to go after civilian infrastructure deep inside Western Russia conventionally to deter them from taking out our power grid, air traffic control centres, stock exchange etc.

 

The former could deliberately be limited to 500km range to avoid treaty violation. The latter would need to be air or submarine delivered. SAMs and geography make this problematic and is very much in the Russians favour, unfortunately.

The lecture I linked up a few days ago talked of 'de-escalatory strikes' as not solely limited to nuclear release. So assuming we started responding in a way they didnt like, its conceivable that long range strikes using cruise missiles could be used to try and make us back down. A sort of 'Shock and Aweski' if you will, in much the manner you conceive I guess.

 

And with cyber attacks, there is a degree of vulnerability in most European nations that is hard to quantify. So much so you kind of wonder if we would take the chance of finding out, lacking any really integrated air defence system in NATO.

 

Problem is when you look at Western Russia, I mean no disrespect, but you dont see first class roads. You dont see much high speed rail. There are not masses of bridges you can destroy. Just lots and lots of forest. What exactly are we targeting? And to be honest, if we did have good civilian infrastructure targets, can you think of the back-flips NATO will have to go through to justify like for like strikes? I could see the Russians doing such things in part of a war they see as an existential threat, but can you see an Italian NATO ambassador endorsing deep strike to go after civie infrastructure? I mean the average joe in the street might, witnessing their country being slowly dismantled, but can you see any bureaucrat taking the chance of a journey to the Hague?

 

Strictly military targets, well ok. We can take out airfield in range, we can hit command and control centres (Probably best not the Moscow one though) and logistics hubs. Im in two minds how useful logistic centres are going to be. Last I heard Russia was constructing 56 new ones to replace some of the old Soviet era ones that better suited the mobilisation army I guess. They are going to be fairly easy to defend from the air I think. if the Russians have already embarked on long range strikes against NATO states, then its a slam dunk to try to tackle this. But against a Russian conventional threat to do the same that they have not yet employed, again, you have to ask how likely are we to do this? If it was me, I would take the chance. You have to conceive of the likelihood there are a lot of NATO nations that wont. At which point you have the Americans doing it by themselves, and consequent cracks in NATO over the net results on Europe.

 

There is no realistic way you can harm Russia legally and with limited risk of retaliation short of a decapitation strike. Which is risky in an entirely other way, ie an unconventional response.

[Stuart Galbraith]

What are those cute stryker looking vehicles with the autocannon? It occurs to me I know almost nothing of Polish equipment, or any of the Eastern NATO membors for that matter. I suspect its quite a mix match country to country.

 

They are also building a 120mm mortar vehicle, I believe also on this chassis and on a tracked vehicle.

 

 

Im getting increasingly annoyed at how good the Poles are at supporting their defence industry and procuring equipment quickly, wheras our still seem to think they are gearing up for the Boer war. Meh.

[Panzermann]

 

 

What are those cute stryker looking vehicles with the autocannon? It occurs to me I know almost nothing of Polish equipment, or any of the Eastern NATO membors for that matter. I suspect its quite a mix match country to country.

They are also building a 120mm mortar vehicle, I believe also on this chassis and on a tracked vehicle.

we actually have a thread for that: http://tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=37523

 

 

 

 

Im getting increasingly annoyed at how good the Poles are at supporting their defence industry and procuring equipment quickly, wheras our still seem to think they are gearing up for the Boer war. Meh.

At least you are preparing for some war, even if it is the totally wrong one. Germany prepares, ehm, well...

 

The poles have obviously an idea what they want their army to do and equip for that. Totally silly idea to equip your army for territorial defence, when your neighbour is russia.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Panzermann

[glenn239]

Chris Werb Successful convoy campaign vs Western Europe - particularly the UK = existential threat. The Russians can't turn around and say "sorry, we weren't stupid enough to live on an island" and not expect a response. Instead, we make it obvious, in advance, that a deliberate conventional attempt at ending us will be met with something equivalently disastrous for them, but conventionally delivered. In WW2, we didn't have nerve gas, so the Germans presumably would have cried foul on us if they had used it, or biotoxins, on our coastal cities only to discover that we responded by drenching them with weaponised anthrax. I'm not sure there would have been much sympathy for the German interpretation of the rules here had they done so.

 

 

That’s mapping out an escalation cycle which could rapidly expand into conventional MAD, whereas national security is to try and drill down on basic rules of self restraint that the other side can understand and use - sort of like live and let live unspoken rules in the trenches of WW1. The Russian Navy seems to hold to a sea denial strategy for its coastal waters. In the far north and Pacific to protect their SSBN’s and attack any US naval forces approaching. In the Black Sea and Baltic, for coastal defense. In the Atlantic TU-95 flights to show off their cruise missiles. If wartime patterns hold they will go after US warships approaching the coasts. Note that Putin is acting aggressively with US warships in the Black and Baltic Seas. This could be a message that US warships don’t belong there and will be singled out. Don’t be too surprised if in a war NATO discovers that that the Russians are sinking mostly NATO ships that don’t “belong” in the Baltic, while at the same time, they ignore NATO warships that do “belong there”, and ignore US ships that mind their own business stay where they “belong” in the Atlantic, Pacific and Med.

Edited July 13, 2016 by glenn239