Russian Invasion of the Baltic States

[shahadi]

Russia's Secret Weapon to Invade the Baltics and Crush NATO: Soldiers Falling from the Sky

http://nationalinterest.org/files/styles/main_image_on_posts/public/main_images/9may2015nnovgorod-17.jpg?itok=4c02p4m4

"How would such an invasion unfold? A missile barrage and air strikes at dawn, crippling the Baltic States’ defenses, would precede a large-scale airborne operation supported by a small-scale land intrusion into Lithuania from Russia’s enclave in Kaliningrad.

Before the alliance could understand — let alone react to — what was happening, it’d be over."

Source: The National Interest, (Ulc, Karol: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-secret-weapon-invade-the-baltics-crush-nato-soldiers-19083)

The article fashions a compelling narrative for the making of an interesting scenario or campaign. Check it out, especially those guys and gals into Nato/Russian scenarios.

=====

[IronDuke99]

Russia's Secret Weapon to Invade the Baltics and Crush NATO: Soldiers Falling from the Sky

http://nationalinterest.org/files/styles/main_image_on_posts/public/main_images/9may2015nnovgorod-17.jpg?itok=4c02p4m4

"How would such an invasion unfold? A missile barrage and air strikes at dawn, crippling the Baltic States’ defenses, would precede a large-scale airborne operation supported by a small-scale land intrusion into Lithuania from Russia’s enclave in Kaliningrad.

Before the alliance could understand — let alone react to — what was happening, it’d be over."

Source: The National Interest, (Ulc, Karol: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-secret-weapon-invade-the-baltics-crush-nato-soldiers-19083)

The article fashions a compelling narrative for the making of an interesting scenario or campaign. Check it out, especially those guys and gals into Nato/Russian scenarios.

=====


The Gods forbid that ever actually happening. I don't think the Baltics are defensible by conventional Western forces, most certainly not today, that leaves little choice but defeat and withdrawl or escalation to nucs. Not my cup of tea at all.

[DRG]

The Lithuanians have ( I am told ) long felt it was just a matter of time before the Russians returned and a lot of that is because of THIS

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14535&stc=1&d=1484854872

I don't think a lot of people know that is Russian territory

[wulfir]

Were Sweden and Finland to stay neutral, and neither are members of NATO, the Western alliance’s access to the air space over the Baltics would be severely limited within the first few hours, if not days, after the start of an invasion.


While not part of NATO Sweden no longer describes itself as neutral and something that was hardly true even during the cold war, or even WWII - it is likely that Moscow now count Sweden as part of the "enemy camp" (and probably did back then as well).

As of 2009 Sweden issued the so called declaration of solidarity where it is stated that Sweden will not remain passive in the event of an attack of an EU or Nordic country - which basically means Russia must factor in the possible basing of NATO air in Sweden if the Baltic states are attacked. Should NATO go "Pourquoi mourir pour Dantzig?" on the Baltic states Russia can pretty much ignore Sweden.

[IronDuke99]

I would strongly urge people to check out the very poor state of most NATO military forces today outside of the US.

Britain is probably, overall, the strongest of them and her military forces have never been weaker. The smaller Western European forces, with all due respect to those serving, are almost not worth having at all.

[DRG]

I would strongly urge people to check out the very poor state of most NATO military forces today outside of the US.

Britain is probably, overall, the strongest of them and her military forces have never been weaker. The smaller Western European forces, with all due respect to those serving, are almost not worth having at all.



Happy new year 1937.......goggle "george santayana history quote"

[IronDuke99]

UK military spending is supposedly around 2.5% GDP, but that includes a lot of creative accounting, including intelligence and police type stuff, that, while very important, would not make the single UK Armoured division any stronger in a actual fight.

In terms of numbers; men, tanks, ships, aircraft, helicopters, etc British forces today are roughly 50% as strong as they were in 2000 and more like 25-30% as strong as they were in 1982.

French defence spending is under 2% of GDP and a lot of that, as always, goes on stuff that is very specific to France and French interests rather than NATO.

German defence spending is not a whole lot more than 1.5% of GDP and Germany, because of her size, geographical position and economy, has to be the central pivot of European defence. The smaller Western European nations, as I said, are getting close to being almost worthless. While Canada has very good, but very small and very underfunded forces.

I don't actually see Russia under Putin as much of a threat to Western Europe. Another leader might be another story. As I see it at the moment, Western Europe wants to try to push Putin and Russia while entirely lacking the military means to back that up, short of full US backing. Happily I think Brexit will lead to a stronger US-British alliance, at the expense of EU ambitions.

China, well that is a different story...

[Aeraaa]

I would strongly urge people to check out the very poor state of most NATO military forces today outside of the US.

Britain is probably, overall, the strongest of them and her military forces have never been weaker. The smaller Western European forces, with all due respect to those serving, are almost not worth having at all.

Well nobody really believes that there will be a war with Russia, political BS aside. And many do not wish for any confrontation with Russia either, as it interferes with their own defense interests. Thus, NATO is less unified than ever before.

[IronDuke99]

I would strongly urge people to check out the very poor state of most NATO military forces today outside of the US.

Britain is probably, overall, the strongest of them and her military forces have never been weaker. The smaller Western European forces, with all due respect to those serving, are almost not worth having at all.

Well nobody really believes that there will be a war with Russia, political BS aside. And many do not wish for any confrontation with Russia either, as it interferes with their own defense interests. Thus, NATO is less unified than ever before.

Yes I think nations like Greece, with some justification, are a lot more worried about Nato member Turkey (with a rather Islamist leaning Government) than Russia.

On the other hand UK defence advocates are still using Russia as a bogey man, because she is realtively close to UK. While in actual fact a post Brexit, global trading nation, like UK has much more to worry about in China and maintaining unrestricted maritime free trade and putting a stop to Chinese influence and pressure on nations from the East coast of Africa, through the Indian Ocean, to the Pacific.

UK has vital interests in the Gulf, the Indian Ocean (where the British Indian Ocean Territory remains a very important base) allies like Brunei in Borneo and long term friends like Australia and Singapore and New Zealand in the far east.

One reason I was happy to see that an early QE Carrier deployment is widely expected to be to the Indian Ocean and the Pacific.

[Aeraaa]

^fair enough. I'd say that in general the world has become much more multipolar and complicated than the straighforwardness which dominated the Cold War. I think NATO in general struggles to find a role in this new world and the Russian threat is an attempt at appearing important even nowadays (and all troubles with the latter are amplified because of that).

[IronDuke99]

^fair enough. I'd say that in general the world has become much more multipolar and complicated than the straighforwardness which dominated the Cold War. I think NATO in general struggles to find a role in this new world and the Russian threat is an attempt at appearing important even nowadays (and all troubles with the latter are amplified because of that).

Much truth.

[wulfir]

I think NATO in general struggles to find a role in this new world and the Russian threat is an attempt at appearing important...

Although when viewed from the perspective of the Baltic states the Russian threat is the single most important factor for joining NATO. They are in NATO becasue the non-ethnic Russian majorities of those countries don't want to be in USSR v2.

[Suhiir]

And this is at all surprising?

[shahadi]

A political solution may exist.

However, if you were tasked with putting together a response to a Russian invasion is I think most interesting for this forum to consider.

=====

[IronDuke99]

A political solution may exist.

However, if you were tasked with putting together a response to a Russian invasion is I think most interesting for this forum to consider.

=====

I would still say don't bother. The Baltics are not defensible by NATO, in conventional terms, as of now.

What is more they could only be, perhaps, defensible if all Western European NATO nations increased their defence spending by at least 50% and the US made it a priority. Neither of which is very likely to happen.

[shahadi]

A political solution may exist.

However, if you were tasked with putting together a response to a Russian invasion is I think most interesting for this forum to consider.

=====

I would still say don't bother. The Baltics are not defensible by NATO, in conventional terms, as of now.

What is more they could only be, perhaps, defensible if all Western European NATO nations increased their defence spending by at least 50% and the US made it a priority. Neither of which is very likely to happen.

You maybe right about the Baltics being indefensible.

So, let's say they can not be defended by Nato or by themselves, then a scenario, a timed objective, of a Russian airborne assualt, say a company tasked to secure a com station at a crossroads, or a bridge maybe just what the doctor ordered.

=====

[Aeraaa]

How are the Baltics in terms of terrain? I thought that in addition to all other problems they have, their terrain is not very defensible as well. Is anyone more familiar with this topic?

[DRG]

How are the Baltics in terms of terrain? I thought that in addition to all other problems they have, their terrain is not very defensible as well. Is anyone more familiar with this topic?

There's this really nifty program called " Google maps " and it seems they have driven all over the Baltics.......:D

and then there's this

http://www.venhola.com/maps/

put in the lat and long and you have a game map

[Mobhack]

How are the Baltics in terms of terrain? I thought that in addition to all other problems they have, their terrain is not very defensible as well. Is anyone more familiar with this topic?

Generate a random map using batloc 123 or 124 or 125. (Finnish batlocs).

Run each batloc a reasonable amount of times to get the feel of each map code - say 6 times each.

Baltics may be a bit more urban than those Finnish maps, so you could edit in a paved road across the map, with a village or town plonked somewhere in the middle.

for the SP map tool, try
54.567687
25.623729

(dont bother saving the map for the editor - it is boringly flat!)

That was a randomish pick of a major road towards Vilnius (off map to the left) from the border (off map to the right) and for the country seems rather open - but towns and villages do seem to take up a lot of the non-field space that isn't pines.

[shahadi]

How are the Baltics in terms of terrain? I thought that in addition to all other problems they have, their terrain is not very defensible as well. Is anyone more familiar with this topic?

Generate a random map using batloc 123 or 124 or 125. (Finnish batlocs).

Run each batloc a reasonable amount of times to get the feel of each map code - say 6 times each.

Baltics may be a bit more urban than those Finnish maps, so you could edit in a paved road across the map, with a village or town plonked somewhere in the middle.

for the SP map tool, try
54.567687
25.623729

(dont bother saving the map for the editor - it is boringly flat!)

That was a randomish pick of a major road towards Vilnius (off map to the left) from the border (off map to the right) and for the country seems rather open - but towns and villages do seem to take up a lot of the non-field space that isn't pines.

HELP!

Okay I inserted the coordinates into the SP map tool at
http://www.venhola.com/maps/. It generated a flat map devoid of any features. What gives?

And the suggestion: "Generate a random map using batloc 123 or 124 or 125. (Finnish batlocs)." Batloc? Okay, Battle Location, got it.

So, back to the venhola generated maps. How are we to insert them in the game map editor? There is no .cmt file generated.

=====

[DRG]

HELP!

Okay I inserted the coordinates into the SP map tool at
http://www.venhola.com/maps/. It generated a flat map devoid of any features. What gives?

Did you flood fill the entire map with page two editor base terrain ?? ( editor--page 2-- top left button ) There is a how to guide out there for the program https://github.com/tvenhola/SPMBT-maps/blob/master/MANUAL.md

and a sticky thread full of info in this tread

IF you did do that and the map is still dead flat you have your answer to "what's the terrain in the Baltics like:

[Mobhack]

Oh, and looking at my random rectangle, I picked a large castle it seems, at Medininkai. An odd type - an enclosure castle, i.e. mainly a whacking great curtain wall with a keep tower tucked away in one corner.

[Mobhack]

The venhola maps have a button to save the data - and it saves to map999, which in 999.9% of all users saves is already titled "auto saved map" or whatever, since that is the auto-save slot. So that has a CMT file already associated.

It will open a save dialogue - usually save to your downloads folder.

Now, simply drop it in the game's maps folder (overwrite any existing map999) and then open map999, save off to another slot with appropriate name (if keeping it) ASAP.

If you dont have an auto saved map in 999 - go into the map editor, dont do anything, then save the blank map as map999 with a file name and do the above process.

[DRG]

This is the terrain Venhola creates for the game just east of the Coordinates Andy supplied...... the KEY is to look at the mini map.. the mini map was redone a couple years back so that every contour is a different tan/ brown with the darkest indicating the highest ....

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14553&stc=1&d=1485218009

......so if you see terrain showing on the mini map but it's not on the main map you haven't defined the contours using flood file.

This program is, IMHO, stellar top notch work. I am VERY impressed with what this can do:up::up::up:

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14552&stc=1&d=1485217640

[shahadi]

This is the terrain Venhola creates for the game just east of the Coordinates Andy supplied...... the KEY is to look at the mini map.. the mini map was redone a couple years back so that every contour is a different tan/ brown with the darkest indicating the highest ....

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14553&stc=1&d=1485218009

......so if you see terrain showing on the mini map but it's not on the main map you haven't defined the contours using flood file.

This program is, IMHO, stellar top notch work. I am VERY impressed with what this can do:up::up::up:

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14552&stc=1&d=1485217640

Indeed. Impressive. Thanks.

[Grant1pa]

=====

I would still say don't bother. The Baltics are not defensible by NATO, in conventional terms, as of now.

What is more they could only be, perhaps, defensible if all Western European NATO nations increased their defence spending by at least 50% and the US made it a priority. Neither of which is very likely to happen.

You maybe right about the Baltics being indefensible.

So, let's say they can not be defended by Nato or by themselves, then a scenario, a timed objective, of a Russian airborne assualt, say a company tasked to secure a com station at a crossroads, or a bridge maybe just what the doctor ordered.

=====

Sorry I came into this discussion late. As for the Baltic States being indefensible I would imagine that historically (and currently) this would be an accurate statement. The terrain offers immense opportunities for defense, but also affords open terrain for the offense (especially in the current infrastructure).

However, I don't consider the question of defensibility is pertinent to the potential of "if" it may occur. There are distinct strategic incentives for the Russians to stabilize their Baltic border, especially considering the Kaliningrad Oblast. Much as the Crimea gained tactical and strategic importance with the current Russian/Ukraine conflict, the Baltic states face similar pressure on the northern borders.

In gaming perspective, I consider the northern states a ripe zone for scenarios and I've spent much of my time focused on this region (Baltics, Finland, Norway). Perhaps it's my penchant for history, but history has a habit of repeating itself.

I believe the intrinsic forces in the Baltic would put up fierce resistance (much as seen in the Ukraine) but differing from the south, would soon be overrun due to their lack of substantive armor, air or anti-armor capabilities. Hence, in my scenarios, NATO falls into a support role with unfavorable odds.

In what I've developed to date, US participation is gauged on those rapid response units (GRF) able to deploy in theatre in 36-48 hours. Not a happy concept when you consider what we can conceivably get there quickest.

I have a second US scenario about ready to post (still not happy with it yet) based on this concept.

But, this is an interesting area and full of potential in this forum's context.

Tom

[Grant1pa]

[QUOTE=shahadi;836800
Indeed. Impressive. Thanks.[/QUOTE]

I've been using the map generator: http://www.venhola.com/maps/

almost exclusively to generate maps for scenarios. It is a perfect tool to get correct topography for locations and adds realism to scenarios based on specific locations or conflicts.

It has it's limitations though I consider them minimal. One of the problems is including streams or lakes into the topography. This is an issue with SPMBT and from previous discussions, I know it is one that we live with.

Therefore, when I generate a map that has what I consider essential waterways, you have to re-work the map a little (if possible due to the terrain), to lower terrain to zero for those streams you wish to include (essential if you want water crossings or bridges). Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

I used to spend significant time in exactly placing roadways and buildings as depicted in the venhola program map, into the SP map. Now I cheat. Unfortunately, the map generator hex numbers don't carry over to SP, so if you want to exactly place features, you have to mechanically count hexes in SP. So I'll put start and end points for the major roadways, and then find reference points between them to fill in the roadways from a visual inspection of the map. I do the same for the secondary roadways. You'll find that in counting hexes, you sometimes encounter what appears to be a incomprehensible route in reference to terrain (my geology background kicking in), so I move the road slightly to match the terrain.

I do the same with towns. The map generator's scale and that in SP is differing. I put in the general aspect of the town roadways visually. It works for me.

Cheating doesn't give you an exact representation of the map, but it provides the more general context of features to terrain. Plus, it's faster (now I do maps in a week that took me significantly more time in construction before).

Additionally, as provided previously by other posts, I use google maps and go to the roadway view to show me trees and other obstacles which I try to emulate in the map.

The best part of Venhola is the ability to rotate the map. This way, you can place the main roadway that you are using for your advance or the OPFOR's advance across the map lengthwise. This is a superb tool that gives you the best orientation for the scenario.

I've learned some other tricks of the trade in using the program such as obtaining the correct coordinates through google maps, screen printing the Vehnola map for reference later, and most importantly, writing down the coordinates you finally select ahead of time so as to re-draw the map at a later date. There are more.

I highly recommend scenario developers to use this tool.

Tom

[DRG]

Yes, I am very impressed with that tool as well. Superb work

Don

[Mobhack]

You dont need to screen print the Venhola map - I just right clicked on it and chose "save image as". It saves as canvas.png as default.

[Grant1pa]

You dont need to screen print the Venhola map - I just right clicked on it and chose "save image as". It saves as canvas.png as default.

Thanks for that. That saves more time!

Tom

[IronDuke99]

Since British film makers only tend to like gallant British defeats, if that ever kicks off I see a British film about the military at last...
;)

[DRG]

"for fun" I just tried 42 and 42 for coordinates then flood filled it with red earth

It would take HOURS to get that far by hand

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14555&stc=1&d=1485280446

[Grant1pa]

"for fun" I just tried 42 and 42 for coordinates then flood filled it with red earth

It would take HOURS to get that far by hand

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14555&stc=1&d=1485280446

That's a great base map. I don't care where it is in the world, but I may have to use that for a scenario!

Love this program.

Tom

[Mobhack]

The valley in the middle looks like a good place for a river, with a town and bridge in the middle of it.

[shahadi]

"for fun" I just tried 42 and 42 for coordinates then flood filled it with red earth

It would take HOURS to get that far by hand

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14555&stc=1&d=1485280446

Yeah, it would take me days (not hours), and still not get it as detailed as it is now. Close enough to represent the Fort Irwin National Training Center in the Mojave Desert, I'd say.

Ya never know where a thread will take you...from Ruskies invading to a great map tool, just remain calm, patient, and civil.

====

[shahadi]

The valley in the middle looks like a good place for a river, with a town and bridge in the middle of it.

Or, a perfect spot for an ambush!

=====

[DRG]

That's a great base map. I don't care where it is in the world, but I may have to use that for a scenario!

Love this program.

Tom

I will include it as is in the next patch but in the meantime...

[wulfir]

Additionally, as provided previously by other posts, I use google maps and go to the roadway view to show me trees and other obstacles which I try to emulate in the map.


I download the height map and send myself the mnap link. Then I open the map link on my spare computer so I won't have to move between the map program and the game - saves time, I guess it would be possible to solve with two screens as well.

I too like to compare with google earth for trees and fields.

For some countries there are other maps avaliable that will give you additional information not least on place names, like;

For Norway:

http://www.norgeskart.no/ (http://www.norgeskart.no/)

National Land Survey of Finland:

https://asiointi.maanmittauslaitos.fi/karttapaikka/?lang=en

They will pretty much give you the name of every stream and little hill.

[wulfir]

How are the Baltics in terms of terrain? I thought that in addition to all other problems they have, their terrain is not very defensible as well. Is anyone more familiar with this topic?

The Germans gave the Soviets a few black eyes at Narwa and later the Blue Mountains (hills really) in 1944. There were still sizable German forces in Kurland on May 8, 1945.

I think a Russian invasion of the Baltic states would be difficult against even modest NATO resistance. The current Russian leadership can probably plan ahead and move at a quicker pace than most democratic countries but against a unified Europe they can't IMHO win a conventional conflict that drags out. The European economy is larger.

I'm not convinced of the overall quality of Russian brigades vs western opponents. IIRC conscription was reduced significantly in order to try and combat the bulling of new troops.

IIRC Russia also used to have a hard time finding recruits to fill up all their numerous "elite" units (incl Ministry of Interior competing for bodies) as the health situation in Russia is not that great.

Assuming that Russia can probably not field everything they have against the Baltic states but need to keep their guard up in the north, the far east, the Caucasus etc I'm far from convinced that a defence of the Baltics is hopeless...

[IronDuke99]

How are the Baltics in terms of terrain? I thought that in addition to all other problems they have, their terrain is not very defensible as well. Is anyone more familiar with this topic?

The Germans gave the Soviets a few black eyes at Narwa and later the Blue Mountains (hills really) in 1944. There were still sizable German forces in Kurland on May 8, 1945.

I think a Russian invasion of the Baltic states would be difficult against even modest NATO resistance. The current Russian leadership can probably plan ahead and move at a quicker pace than most democratic countries but against a unified Europe they can't IMHO win a conventional conflict that drags out. The European economy is larger.

I'm not convinced of the overall quality of Russian brigades vs western opponents. IIRC conscription was reduced significantly in order to try and combat the bulling of new troops.

IIRC Russia also used to have a hard time finding recruits to fill up all their numerous "elite" units (incl Ministry of Interior competing for bodies) as the health situation in Russia is not that great.

Assuming that Russia can probably not field everything they have against the Baltic states but need to keep their guard up in the north, the far east, the Caucasus etc I'm far from convinced that a defence of the Baltics is hopeless...


The thing that worries military professionals at the moment is the great strength of Russian artillery, it can call down a lot of very heavy and destructive fire, relatively quickly. If advanced Russian SAM systems work and protect that artillery from Allied aircraft, NATO would have a big problem. Artillery has, of course, long been the best arm of the Russian Army.

Some NATO forces, Especially the US and UK, have a lot of recent experience of COIN, but very little of conventional warfare. How useful some of the smaller NATO forces would be, and how good their troops might be, also very much remains to be seen.

My own view is that even the best multi national force (especially if that force includes several different languages) will have disadvantages against a peer/near peer unified enemy.

Also I don't see how a modern first world Armoured conflict in a geographically limited area lasts long enough for the economy to matter much once it kicks off...

[scorpio_rocks]

Some NATO forces, Especially the US and UK, have a lot of recent experience of COIN, but very little of conventional warfare. How useful some of the smaller NATO forces would be, and how good their troops might be, also very much remains to be seen.

Hmmm... You are aware that ALL NATO countries deployed troops in Afghanistan?

[IronDuke99]

Some NATO forces, Especially the US and UK, have a lot of recent experience of COIN, but very little of conventional warfare. How useful some of the smaller NATO forces would be, and how good their troops might be, also very much remains to be seen.

Hmmm... You are aware that ALL NATO countries deployed troops in Afghanistan?

Yep, many of them not very many men and with limited orders -from their Governments/high command- to actually do very much, Canada being an honourable exception.

[Aeraaa]

Some NATO forces, Especially the US and UK, have a lot of recent experience of COIN, but very little of conventional warfare. How useful some of the smaller NATO forces would be, and how good their troops might be, also very much remains to be seen.

Hmmm... You are aware that ALL NATO countries deployed troops in Afghanistan?

Yep, many of them not very many men and with limited orders -from their Governments/high command- to actually do very much, Canada being an honourable exception.

True that. For example, we deployed a mixed engineer/medical company that didn't leave Kabul at all and stayed most of the time at the international airport. So our contribution was pretty much symbolic (although, despite our government's best efforts to keep the troops out of firefights, some soldiers were engaged by the attacking Talibans in spring of 2012 when the attacked Kabul, fortuntely with no casualties from our side). Others did deploy troops in combat, but with the mindset of not having casualties at all, essentially making operations with them difficult. Anyway, the willingness in the coaltion wasn't particularly high, which is Ironduke's point I assume and frankly there is no evidence that NATO countries that aren't directly threatened (like the Baltic States, maybe Poland as well) will show much eagerness to fight with Russia.

[Mobhack]

I just adjusted the batlocs for the following post 2014 if playing vs Russia to the Baltics: USA, USMC, UK, Germany, Denmark, Canada, UK, Netherlands.

Poland had Poland as a later batloc V Russia, now it has some chance of Ukraine (they would possibly be involved there) and the Baltics as well.

The Baltic batlocs use the Finnish ones with lots of river and marsh and lakelets as a base but add e.g. occasional urbanisation (town).

The other minor nations v Russia post break-up of the USSR usually had their home country as the batloc, and remain so.

[IronDuke99]

Hmmm... You are aware that ALL NATO countries deployed troops in Afghanistan?

Yep, many of them not very many men and with limited orders -from their Governments/high command- to actually do very much, Canada being an honourable exception.

True that. For example, we deployed a mixed engineer/medical company that didn't leave Kabul at all and stayed most of the time at the international airport. So our contribution was pretty much symbolic (although, despite our government's best efforts to keep the troops out of firefights, some soldiers were engaged by the attacking Talibans in spring of 2012 when the attacked Kabul, fortuntely with no casualties from our side). Others did deploy troops in combat, but with the mindset of not having casualties at all, essentially making operations with them difficult. Anyway, the willingness in the coaltion wasn't particularly high, which is Ironduke's point I assume and frankly there is no evidence that NATO countries that aren't directly threatened (like the Baltic States, maybe Poland as well) will show much eagerness to fight with Russia.

Very much my point.

I believe the German troops, for example, did not do much in the way of night patrols (kind of important in a military campaign). The troops from Canada fought hard. The relatively few troops from Australia and New Zealand fought hard (Check out the losses). Also bear in mind, as Suhiir pointed out on another thread, most nations have some good, elite units, how good the rest of that nations armed forces are depends...

Allied casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan (These first are dead).
http://icasualties.org/

[wulfir]

The thing that worries military professionals at the moment is the great strength of Russian artillery, it can call down a lot of very heavy and destructive fire, relatively quickly. If advanced Russian SAM systems work and protect that artillery from Allied aircraft, NATO would have a big problem. Artillery has, of course, long been the best arm of the Russian Army.


The Georgia war 2008 was a strategic Russian victory but did expose embarrassing Russian shortcomings in especially command and control, intelligence, comms, electronic warfare etc
The war lasted for only five days and they had problems with basic equipment as well as the troops understanding their actual mission prompting the ongoing reformation of the Russian armed forces - aiming at being finished by 2020, but how far have they come? How will they fare against a more qualified opponent like NATO?


My own view is that even the best multi national force (especially if that force includes several different languages) will have disadvantages against a peer/near peer unified enemy.

Are NATO nations of today not sufficiently coordinated that poses a problem. However there are over 100 languages spoken in the Russian federation. Supposedly the best soldier material is now increasingly to be found in non-Russian minorities where the birthrate is also higher.



Also I don't see how a modern first world Armoured conflict in a geographically limited area lasts long enough for the economy to matter much once it kicks off...

Assuming there is a will within NATO and the European Union to actually fight. Economy will tell should the conflict not be ended quickly. If Russia overruns most of the Baltic but NATO/EU does not yield and start to build up forces in Poland, maybe Scandinavia the odds will likely not be in Moscow's favour.

[Aeraaa]

I'm not convinced of the overall quality of Russian brigades vs western opponents. IIRC conscription was reduced significantly in order to try and combat the bulling of new troops.

IIRC Russia also used to have a hard time finding recruits to fill up all their numerous "elite" units (incl Ministry of Interior competing for bodies) as the health situation in Russia is not that great.



The decisive units of a Russian brigade are staffed by good quality personnel (the battalion tactical groups). Check this source:

http://mwi.usma.edu/russian-ukrainian-war-understanding-dust-clouds-battlefield/

At some point it says:

As the Russian–Ukrainian War illustrates, the battalion tactical group has proven to be a uniquely responsive and effective tool for conducting siege warfare. The formation’s versatility and success led Gen. Valery Gerasimov, chief of the Russian General Staff, to announce in September 2016 the Russian army would increase the number of battalion tactical groups from sixty-six to 125 by 2018. Additionally, professional soldiers will staff the formation, whereas conscripts will be assigned to rear-echelon formations—which will likely yield more effective battalion tactical groups. As a result, the US Army can expect to find Russian battalion tactical group continuing to emerge in areas in which Russia employs ground forces to achieve political objectives.

And I agree with the general concept. I do not think that Russia will fight like the stereotypical Soviet army (which was also misunderstood by many in the west) and there is a very good reason for that: it does not have the resources the former USSR had. Modern Russia has to fight much more smart and carefully if she wants to have any reasonable chance of success. And the first NATO forces in the area are undermanned, undergunned and ill trained for conventional or even the new form of hybrid warfare.

[IronDuke99]

The most recent stuff on Russia I saw was a talk from a former Royal Marine at RUSI, he had been observing Russian forces in Ukraine, and made much of both their very strong and flexible artillery, signals and electronic intelligence, etc. He made a particular point of how difficult it was to mass forces for a counter attack without getting a massive artillery stonk on top of you.

To my mind if there is a fight over the Baltics and NATO loses, they either quit and cut their losses or it goes nuclear and we are all likely to lose.

[wulfir]

Modern Russia has to fight much more smart and carefully if she wants to have any reasonable chance of success.

Old habits die hard.

Historically the Soviet/Russian art of warfare has been more amazing in theory than in practice. Maybe they have reached their 2020 goals etc ahead of time but I doubt it.

[Aeraaa]

Modern Russia has to fight much more smart and carefully if she wants to have any reasonable chance of success.

Old habits die hard.

Historically the Soviet/Russian art of warfare has been more amazing in theory than in practice. Maybe they have reached their 2020 goals etc ahead of time but I doubt it.

It was amazing in practise as well...when it was actually performed and not when Soviets were doing knee-jerk reactions to stop the Germans onslaught in the early years. Examples can be found in Operation Bagration, the Vistula-Oder offensive and Manchuria. In the Cold War they simply perfected an already proven system, while NATO was struggling to find a plan that didn't involve "push the red button after the Soviet tanks penetrate our lines". NATO finally found a doctrine that offered better chances of winning tactical victories, hoping that this would translate into operational success (something that they did not have as a concept until the late 80's IIRC) and relying on technological assets. Problem was that the Soviets were already thinking operationally and wars are won on the highest levels, not on the number of battles one side wins (and historical examples are abundant).
Having said that, modern Russia is not USSR. Because of the massive disadvantage in every field compared to the latter, they have to change the way they fight and actually it seems they are doing it. Yes, it won't be a smooth transition, but no country has that good fortune. And they did have a chance to see it in action in Ukraine. Will it be enough to enable them to fight the top tier NATO nations? I hope we won't have to see. But don't underestimate the bear.

[wulfir]

Anyways, a couple of years ago I started building a German/NATO vs Russia campaign set in southern Estonia.

The idea was a that the player would command a mixed battle group of somewhat unready NATO forces during the initial stages of a Russkie invasion...

I experimented with adding an element from a different OOB into the fixed German core force - here an attached Dutch mech inf coy - I did not intend for the player to be able to refit destroyed units and that the campaign would only last 5-6 battles...

Didn't really turn out that great. Stopped working on it halfway through. Buuut, if anyone wants to kill some time, here it is..., the Russians won't be all that problematic in this setup...

[Imp]

I have a feeling Russia has changed, to me it looks like they using the current situation as a testbed for both improving tactics & checking if weapon systems perform in combat as well as they did on the range. That's my take on why they are making limited use of high end expensive stuff just to check it performs as expected.
Russia took on board Western thinking of quality over quantity a while back & are mow seeing just how this works & trying to refine it, she is not the same animal she used to be.

[wulfir]

It was amazing in practise as well...when it was actually performed and not when Soviets were doing knee-jerk reactions to stop the Germans onslaught in the early years.

The massive initial Soviet losses in WWII were in part due to their inability to wage mobile war vs the Germans and lack of training (some training was done on the battlefield itself resulting in errors and losses). While they are later able to hold the overall initiative their offensives followed a set piece pattern and was for the most part uninspired at the tactical level.

Finland summer 1944 - the initial Soviet attack is delivered with such force and numbers that they need not care much about possible Finnish countermeassures and although being able to advance some they are unable to fully break the Finnish resistance - their offensive fails. The last Soviet effort against Finland (Illomantsi) ends in a clear Soviet defeat...

[IronDuke99]

Bear in mind a lot of good Russian offices died in the revolution or left the Soviet Service. Then in the 1930's the vile Stalin had a great many leading soldiers executed. None of which did the Soviet performance much good in the earlier part of World War Two, against a German Army with both high training, experience and morale...

[shahadi]

I wonder what form a Russian invasion would take. A full scale attack or a limited engagement akin to what we've witnessed in the Ukraine. There a good number of Russian speakers in the Baltic states, and organizations that could antagonize those governments then as a pretense Russia might invade on a limited scale to protect those Russian's rights.

Either way, what would be the response of Sweden and Finland, two countries not a part of NATO?

=====

[IronDuke99]

I wonder what form a Russian invasion would take. A full scale attack or a limited engagement akin to what we've witnessed in the Ukraine. There a good number of Russian speakers in the Baltic states, and organizations that could antagonize those governments then as a pretense Russia might invade on a limited scale to protect those Russian's rights.

Either way, what would be the response of Sweden and Finland, two countries not a part of NATO?

=====

I would be amazed, to put it mildly, if Sweden or Finland did a thing beyond some totally pointless verbal protest at the UN.

[Suhiir]

Half of NATO would probably lodge pointless verbal protests ...

[IronDuke99]

Half of NATO would probably lodge pointless verbal protests ...

100% Truth, sadly.

[Airborne Rifles]

I actually think NATO would respond strongly, though it would take time. Right now the Russians can overrun the Baltic States, though that is more difficult now with the heavy multi-national battalions rotating through those three countries, and a US armored BCT in Poland. I would think a war between Russia and NATO would unfold something like this:

-Surprise Russian push simultaneously into the three Baltic States in conjunction with "hybrid warfare" supplied by Russian minorities in those countries. The Russians overwhelm the Baltic militaries as well as the rotating NATO forces, though the fight is bloody.

-Next the Russians pause and dig in. They really don't have the capacity to go any further.

-Meanwhile, NATO gathers strength (mostly American, but also German, British, French, etc) in Poland for a counterattack while the air forces gain air superiority, with difficulty. This is the most dangerous point, because the Russians, knowing they can't win if they give NATO time to build up a powerful counteroffensive, will likely execute their strategy of "escalate to de-escalate," meaning they would launch a limited nuclear strike at some military target like a naval task force or assembly area in eastern Poland. Their thinking is that they can push across the nuclear thresh hold to bring NATO to the negotiating table, since NATO will be unwilling to cross the same threshold.

-Regardless, if the Russians think this course is too risk and decide not to go nuclear, or if a limited nuclear strike fails to bring NATO to the table, then after several months NATO would launch a powerful offensive into Kaliningrad and the Baltic states to reclaim the lost territory.

Regardless, I think this whole potential conflict is great fodder for SPMBT scenarios, especially the eventual NATO counter-offensive!

[Suhiir]

I really doubt anyone would go nuclear over the Baltics, and this I think is what the Russians would count on.

The real question in my mind is ... what's in the Baltics that's worth the trouble to Russia? A few people ... pffft. No rare materials I'm aware of. No vast tracts of land for agriculture. Seriously, if I were Russia I'd say why bother.

[Imp]

You might be surprised hopefully the build up would not go undetected but even with that the time it would take for the West to react is frightning, putting units in piecemeal will just cause there loss so the West needs time.
If we can win the air war that will be down to the airforce targeting logistics not the front line tonstop by cutting the supply line.
If that fails why do you think the West wont escalate the situation with nukes to gain time, if we lose the air war how do you propose stopping them.
Not looked at for years but most of the plans in cold war era including holding the Middle East if Russia decided to go for the oil resulted in the West being the one that escalated things.
Its all about getting your initial forces in place & then its down to logistics & supply especially if you want to advance.
How about initial strike being cruise missiles & everything the airforce can muster, take out there airforce before reinforcments arrive. Now as Russia I would get ready to take out the units transfering across the atlantic while they were vulnerable, dont let the forces mass. This is where Russia might escelate taking out the carrier groups is important, if needs the odd nuke in the sea would do the trick & is the least use of nukes, no collateral damage.
Over simplified obviosly but what happens now, full escalation by the West?
I cant remember the details but towards the end of the cold war the West was ready to launch when the Soviets were conducting exercises. Same happened in 83 when we conducted exercises though they did not get as close to it as we did.
I knew a guy in the signal core at the time he always joked he would never see the war as despite being mobile keeping track of the people listening to you was vital so you would be an initial target. If I remember they broke protocul & asked there conterparts just what the hell was going on.

Probably shouldnt say this but I got a wifi dongle off him that was excelent, had l would guess about 3 times the range of mine & could connect to anything, security protocul just meant waiting for around 30 seconds.. Doesnt do the latest protocul as its old but I bet the existing kit does.

[IronDuke99]

No one, with half a working brain, is going to use nuclear weapons over the Baltic States, I very much hope.

Hell I don't actually think NATO, and certainly not UK, should fight for them at all, since they are not a vital interest in any way shape or form.

[Airborne Rifles]

The Russians have two reasons for caring about the Baltics:

1. The first is defensive. Think about this from the Russian perspective: 70 years ago a coalition of western/Central European states invaded Russia and killed 30 million Russians. Thirty years before that, a coalition of Central European states (German and Austria-Hungary) invaded Russia and killed a whole bunch of Russian. Sixty years before that, a coalition of Western European States and The Ottoman Empire invaded Crimea and killed a bunch of Russians. Forty years before that, a coalition of western/Central European states under Napoleon invaded Russia and killed a whole bunch of Russians. And on and on. They look at history with a great deal of mistrust towards the west. Add that to the fact that the Baltic states were actually part of Russia from 1721-1918, and part of the USSR from 1945-1991, and the fact that all the previous invasions of Russia had to start much further west, and you can start understand why they care about the Baltics.

2. The second reason is offensive: how can Russia destroy NATO today? Not by marching to the Rhine. The way Russia can destroy NATO is by invading a NATO country and then by nuclear brinksmanship or other means demonstrate that the alliance is unwilling to defend its members, which is the organizations entire reason for existence. If they can do that, they destroy NATO's legitimacy and the alliance could unravel.

As far as willingness to use nukes, the Russians have been very open about the fact that they are. They recently refused to renew a treaty that pledged that they would not use nukes first, and they've been open about threatening states like Denmark with nukes for accepting US missile tracking sites. They ar banking on the fact that NATO is NOT willing to go that far, and that this unwillingness would bring Europe and the US to the peace table in the event of a shooting war. It's scary stuff.

[IronDuke99]

I am certain UK would use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack on British territory and, perhaps, on British forces. A large scale Chemical attack, that caused a lot of casualties, might also trigger that response. I am not sure much else would, outside an actual attempted invasion, or that it should.

I really cannot see why on earth the EU, or NATO, wants the Baltics to be in their orbit rather than being a more or less neutral buffer zone between Russia and the West. To me exactly the same thing applies to Ukraine. I would try to defend nothing further East than Poland.

To my mind the EU has many, huge, internal political problems, and next to no military muscle -especially since Brexit- to back it up its extravagant ambitions. The EU's, largely unelected, political elites attempts to create EU armed forces are not only almost certainly doomed to failure but are actually very dangerous from the point of view of NATO, that remains the actual cornerstone of Western European defence and security.

To put it bluntly if the USA loses interest in NATO, Europe is up s..t creek without a paddle.

[Suhiir]

IMHO the EU suffers primarily from a lack of cohesive interests aside from economic. And as you said if the US decides to quit footing the bill to defend Europe, which Trump may well do if Europe doesn't start meeting it's NATO commitments, things will get "interesting".

[shahadi]

Given a full-scale invasion of the Baltics, “The main Russian objectives would be securing control over the air and blockade the Baltic Sea. Kaliningrad region would be used to blockade the land route through Suwalki, Poland to Vilnius and Riga (my emphasis). Russia would not necessarily need to assault Suwalki itself, but rather secure control over Lithuanian towns of Kybartai, Marijumpole, Kalvarija and Druskinskai. First cities to fall would be Narva, Tartu, Balvi, Kārsava, Rēzekne, Krāslava and Daugavpils. Since Vilnius is close to Belarusian border it would be first Baltic capital to be attacked.”

Source:”Russian Invasion of the Baltics: Nightmare or Reality,” https://latvianhistory.com/2016/07/09/.

Blocking the route up front Suwalki would appear to be a likely objective of Russian planners. And, I would venture to say, a prime objective which must be achieved within the first hours of the conflict. Departing a bit from Grant1pa's scenario, I would envision Russian paratroopers tasked to hold the intersection of A7 and E67 at
Marijumpole until heavy mechanized and armor forces are brought out of the Kaliningrad.

I would not anticipate Belarus sending forces to capture Vilnius, but I could see a joint Russian Belarusian military exercise occurring just prior to the start of hostilities as a ruse to enable Russian forces from inside Belarus to attack the Lithuanian capital.


This is the basis of the scenario Grant1pa authored. You can find it here: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showp...41&postcount=1.

=====

[wulfir]

Either way, what would be the response of Sweden and Finland, two countries not a part of NATO?


Sweden has declared it will not remain neutral with the so called “declaration of solidarity” and participates in a number of NATO drills and NATO operations (Cold Response, Afghanistan, Libya). The Swedish ground forces are however in a pitiful state when compared to the large but less advanced cold war army. Sweden could I imagine contribute no more than a battle group of battalion(+) size as a sort of symbolic force at present. But could also open its borders and air fields to NATO air.

But, in Sweden there is an anti-immigration party which seems to steadily be gaining ground. This party views Putin/Russia in a favourable light. Should this party be in power at the time of a Russian invasion of the Baltics I assume there would be no Swedish reaction (assuming the invasion takes place a few years from now)...


Finland has retained the conscription army and can mobilise considerable conventional forces should Finland come under threat. Even if Finland does not deploy forces to the Baltic states I imagine Russia would not leave the northern flank completely open…

[Grant1pa]

Given a full-scale invasion of the Baltics, “The main Russian objectives would be securing control over the air and blockade the Baltic Sea. Kaliningrad region would be used to blockade the land route through Suwalki, Poland to Vilnius and Riga (my emphasis). Russia would not necessarily need to assault Suwalki itself, but rather secure control over Lithuanian towns of Kybartai, Marijumpole, Kalvarija and Druskinskai. First cities to fall would be Narva, Tartu, Balvi, Kārsava, Rēzekne, Krāslava and Daugavpils. Since Vilnius is close to Belarusian border it would be first Baltic capital to be attacked.”

Source:”Russian Invasion of the Baltics: Nightmare or Reality,” https://latvianhistory.com/2016/07/09/.

Blocking the route up front Suwalki would appear to be a likely objective of Russian planners. And, I would venture to say, a prime objective which must be achieved within the first hours of the conflict. Departing a bit from Grant1pa's scenario, I would envision Russian paratroopers tasked to hold the intersection of A7 and E67 at
Marijumpole until heavy mechanized and armor forces are brought out of the Kaliningrad.

I would not anticipate Belarus sending forces to capture Vilnius, but I could see a joint Russian Belarusian military exercise occurring just prior to the start of hostilities as a ruse to enable Russian forces from inside Belarus to attack the Lithuanian capital.


This is the basis of the scenario Grant1pa authored. You can find it here: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showp...41&postcount=1.

=====

Exactly the way I researched it. I agree with the use of paratroopers as a major element in any Russian incursion. I just went a different direction with the emphasis on NATO's defense from mechanized forces (one of the major concerns of the Baltic governments).

The inclusion of a "southern" axis of attack through Belarus is definitely an option and would be predictable. Kudos Shahadi!

Some further readings for those that are interested:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/suwalki-gap.htm

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1200/RR1253/RAND_RR1253.pdf

Tom

[IronDuke99]

Either way, what would be the response of Sweden and Finland, two countries not a part of NATO?


Sweden has declared it will not remain neutral with the so called “declaration of solidarity” and participates in a number of NATO drills and NATO operations (Cold Response, Afghanistan, Libya). The Swedish ground forces are however in a pitiful state when compared to the large but less advanced cold war army. Sweden could I imagine contribute no more than a battle group of battalion(+) size as a sort of symbolic force at present. But could also open its borders and air fields to NATO air.

But, in Sweden there is an anti-immigration party which seems to steadily be gaining ground. This party views Putin/Russia in a favourable light. Should this party be in power at the time of a Russian invasion of the Baltics I assume there would be no Swedish reaction (assuming the invasion takes place a few years from now)...


Finland has retained the conscription army and can mobilise considerable conventional forces should Finland come under threat. Even if Finland does not deploy forces to the Baltic states I imagine Russia would not leave the northern flank completely open…


At the risk of getting too political why would an anti immigration party in Sweden (and I presume it is anti Islamic immigration) be pro Putin and Russia? Or, to put it another way, why would a pro Islamist immigration party be anti Putin and Russia? Surely Putin's Russia is not the biggest threat to Sweden right now?

I am genuinely puzzled by this, given my own ideas about who the enemies of Western civilisation actually are: To my mind all forms of militant Islam, closely followed by China (actually a huge longer term threat) and, way back, North Korea.

I do think there is a window right now to make Russia much less of a potential enemy than she has been any time since the early 1900's. It may, or may not, get taken...

[shahadi]

<br>
Some further readings for those that are interested:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...uwalki-gap.htm

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/ran...AND_RR1253.pdf


I read the article by Rand on a Russian invasion of the Baltics. What I found most striking is the lack of attention to Lithuania, in particular the Sulwaki Gap. In fact, Sulwaki was not even mentioned in the analysis.

In my reading of the Rand report the absence of heavy armor and the lack of an army corp (at least three cited in the study are needed) is a recipe for failure. Now, here is the rub, “…one challenge NATO would face in the event of a Baltic crisis would be moving heavy equipment and supplies from storehouses and ports in Western Europe east to Poland and beyond .”

With the Kaliningrad to the Northwest and Belarus to the East that only leaves the rail line through Sulwaki to get heavy formations into the battle. The Sulwaki Gap is critical to any NATO strategy, yet it is not mentioned in the Rand report.

I do not believe Russia would enter into Poland at all, that would widen the hostilities to a nuclear tipping point in my opinion (tactical nukes.) So, the battle would take place at the Polish/Lithuanian border along route E67 and the rail line up from Sulwaki into Marijumpole. Else NATO cannot get the heavy stuff into the battle area. Game over.

Talking about games, Rand war gamed a NATO response. I found it most enlightening. For, the old school table top and board game guys with pencil and paper here is the link: https://paxsims.wordpress.com/2016/01/29/rand-wargaming-the-defense-of-the-baltics/

And, here is the game board

https://sites.google.com/site/mywinspmbt/config/pagetemplates/assets/randmap.png

=====

[shahadi]

The Russians may not roll the dice on a military incursion into the Baltics, however, that does not mean it is not beneficial to wargame that scenario. Having said that, I do believe Russia does not want NATO right up to its borders. And, it has been strongly suggested that the US may have broken her word when she advocated the admittance of the Baltic States to NATO.

“…in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make ‘iron-clad guarantees’ that NATO would not expand ‘one inch eastward’. Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion.” (Joshua R. Itzkowitz Shifrinson, Los Angeles Times, May 30, 2016: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html)

Now, we may begin to understand how Russia may feel aggrieved in a way that Putin may find it imperative to roll back NATO off of Russian borders.

Given the recent modus operandi of overthrowing governments from the start of the ‘Arab Spring’ in Tunisia, to Egypt, to Syrian demonstrations in Homs at a central square, to the failed attempt in Turkey during the Gezi park demonstrations in 2013, to the Georgian demonstrations, to the annexation of Crimea, all began with activists agitating for ‘human rights’ against the government.

I would argue, the most plausible course of Russian action would be a similar sort of indirect action by directing pro-Russian groups in Estonia and Latvia to stir up the pot and agitate those governments for ‘human rights’. I have not read of significant Russian speakers in Lithuania, so this type of action would not complete taking back the Baltics, therefore, in Lithuania, a military action maybe most plausible.

Again, it is the job of analyst to wargame all sorts of scenarios.

=====

[DRG]

The Russians may not roll the dice on a military incursion into the Baltics, however, that does not mean it is not beneficial to wargame that scenario. Having said that, I do believe Russia does not want NATO right up to its borders.
=====

......... anymore than the US would be happy with a Russian brigade on the Mexican border ( though that may put a damper on the cartels... but I digress ).

What is important to remember ( besides this is a GAME forum and many of these posts lately are beginning to stray a bit ) is that unlike the "west" in general..N.American in particular.....the Russians actually REMEMBER their history and react according to it. It's easy to say the Russians have nothing to fear re: a militarily aggressive NATO but every time NATO expands and signs on a state that was once in the sphere of the Warsaw pact that is seen as an aggressive action because IT IS..( passive-aggressive)

Stalin was more than a little surprised on June 22 1941 but he shouldn't have been. That lesson has been learned a very hard way

Don

[wulfir]

At the risk of getting too political why would an anti immigration party in Sweden (and I presume it is anti Islamic immigration) be pro Putin and Russia?

Shared national-conservative views – along with being anti-EU and NATO skeptical...


Surely Putin's Russia is not the biggest threat to Sweden right now?

When it comes to hybrid warfare/conventional military capability Russia is viewed as the only potential aggressor. I think that goes for the anti-immigration party as well. Sweden does not expect to be invaded by Finland, NATO (not even Denmark :D) or battalions of ISIS or Taliban Fighters...

Personally I think there are plenty of what-if scenarios involving Russia than could be made – and they wouldn't be all that far fetched.

[Airborne Rifles]

Personally I think there are plenty of what-if scenarios involving Russia than could be made – and they wouldn't be all that far fetched.

I agree. Lots of scenario options for both sides. Grant1pa's and SaS TrooP's are great. I'm really interested in the possibilities of a NATO counteroffensive into to wither liberate the occupied Baltics of seize Kaliningrad to act as a bargaining chip to get the Baltics back. I think both of these are not at all beyonf the realm of possibility.

[shahadi]

At the risk of getting too political why would an anti immigration party in Sweden (and I presume it is anti Islamic immigration) be pro Putin and Russia?

Shared national-conservative views – along with being anti-EU and NATO skeptical...


Surely Putin's Russia is not the biggest threat to Sweden right now?

When it comes to hybrid warfare/conventional military capability Russia is viewed as the only potential aggressor. I think that goes for the anti-immigration party as well. Sweden does not expect to be invaded by Finland, NATO (not even Denmark :D) or battalions of ISIS or Taliban Fighters...

Personally I think there are plenty of what-if scenarios involving Russia than could be made – and they wouldn't be all that far fetched.

With regard to EU right wing parties, those of Sweden as well, even as we may describe them as anti-immigration, what we, those living in America are beginning to realize is that Russia is acting to destabilize the republic and this view is gaining appreciation when we look across the Atlantic at France, Germany, Norway, and Sweden. That EU right wing groups share an animus for the EU and they do agitate against their government policy that rocks the fundamental notion of a democracy. It could very well be a page from the Cold War novels of John le Carre (a Brit no doubt) to weaken the EU and NATO.

So, it may not be that the EU right wing is pro Russian but rather they are handled by Russian operatives.

=====

[IronDuke99]

At the risk of getting too political why would an anti immigration party in Sweden (and I presume it is anti Islamic immigration) be pro Putin and Russia?

Shared national-conservative views – along with being anti-EU and NATO skeptical...


Surely Putin's Russia is not the biggest threat to Sweden right now?

When it comes to hybrid warfare/conventional military capability Russia is viewed as the only potential aggressor. I think that goes for the anti-immigration party as well. Sweden does not expect to be invaded by Finland, NATO (not even Denmark :D) or battalions of ISIS or Taliban Fighters...

Personally I think there are plenty of what-if scenarios involving Russia than could be made – and they wouldn't be all that far fetched.

With regard to EU right wing parties, those of Sweden as well, even as we may describe them as anti-immigration, what we, those living in America are beginning to realize is that Russia is acting to destabilize the republic and this view is gaining appreciation when we look across the Atlantic at France, Germany, Norway, and Sweden. That EU right wing groups share an animus for the EU and they do agitate against their government policy that rocks the fundamental notion of a democracy. It could very well be a page from the Cold War novels of John le Carre (a Brit no doubt) to weaken the EU and NATO.

So, it may not be that the EU right wing is pro Russian but rather they are handled by Russian operatives.

=====


I hope you will forgive me for saying this is really utter nonsense. Even more so than the idea that most of the huge mass of millions of Islamic economic migrants in Europe these days are supporters of the Islamic State, although, of course, some certainly are.

[DRG]

Shared national-conservative views – along with being anti-EU and NATO skeptical...




When it comes to hybrid warfare/conventional military capability Russia is viewed as the only potential aggressor. I think that goes for the anti-immigration party as well. Sweden does not expect to be invaded by Finland, NATO (not even Denmark :D) or battalions of ISIS or Taliban Fighters...

Personally I think there are plenty of what-if scenarios involving Russia than could be made – and they wouldn't be all that far fetched.

With regard to EU right wing parties, those of Sweden as well, even as we may describe them as anti-immigration, what we, those living in America are beginning to realize is that Russia is acting to destabilize the republic and this view is gaining appreciation when we look across the Atlantic at France, Germany, Norway, and Sweden. That EU right wing groups share an animus for the EU and they do agitate against their government policy that rocks the fundamental notion of a democracy. It could very well be a page from the Cold War novels of John le Carre (a Brit no doubt) to weaken the EU and NATO.

So, it may not be that the EU right wing is pro Russian but rather they are handled by Russian operatives.

=====


I hope you will forgive me for saying this is really utter nonsense.

I totally agree with IronDukes comment and I have already dropped subtle hints that threads like this are straying away from the game into politics. If you want to test reaction to paranoid conspiracy theories GO SOMEWHERE ELSE

....otherwise, if it continues it WILL end

[shahadi]

With regard to EU right wing parties, those of Sweden as well, even as we may describe them as anti-immigration, what we, those living in America are beginning to realize is that Russia is acting to destabilize the republic and this view is gaining appreciation when we look across the Atlantic at France, Germany, Norway, and Sweden. That EU right wing groups share an animus for the EU and they do agitate against their government policy that rocks the fundamental notion of a democracy. It could very well be a page from the Cold War novels of John le Carre (a Brit no doubt) to weaken the EU and NATO.

So, it may not be that the EU right wing is pro Russian but rather they are handled by Russian operatives.

=====


I hope you will forgive me for saying this is really utter nonsense.

I totally agree with IronDukes comment and I have already dropped subtle hints that threads like this are straying away from the game into politics. If you want to test reaction to paranoid conspiracy theories GO SOMEWHERE ELSE

....otherwise, if it continues it WILL end

I am not testing conspiracy theories, paranoid or otherwise. The intent of the post was to lay the foundation for a scenario where Russia takes in-direct military action in the Baltic countries as a result of activities to shape or influence opinion. It is not, most definitely not, a conspiracy theory. Simply read reputable journals and news organizations and you will come away with a different conclusion than the opinion expressed that Russia is actively engaged in activities to weaken the EU and NATO with influence operations by spies and cyber activities is a conspiracy theory.

In Newsweek, we have the following report,"...As in other European countries, radical groups in Lithuania often side with Russia, and Russia has often sided with environmental groups in Latvia and beyond in opposing fracking. “Not every radical group in Lithuania is connected to Russian intelligence services, but the Russians are taking advantage of them..." Source:http://www.newsweek.com/2014/12/19/spies-are-back-espionage-booming-new-cold-war-290686.html

In the UK's Telegraph we find the following, "...A dossier of “Russian influence activity” seen by The Sunday Telegraph identified Russian influence operations running in France, the Netherlands, Hungary as well as Austria and the Czech Republic, which has been identified by Russian agents as an entry-point into the Schengen free movement zone."
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/12103602/America-to-investigate-Russian-meddling-in-EU.html

In the US Time magazine we have a report on Russian influence operations in Latvia and Estonia, reading as follows, "They say he has established government-controlled humanitarian front organizations in their capitals, infiltrated their security services and energy industry companies, instigated nationalist riots and launched cyber attacks. The goal, says the Estonian Ambassador to the U.S., Marina Kaljurand, is 'to restore in one form or another the power of the Russian Federation on the lands where Russian people live.'" Source http://time.com/90752/inside-putins-east-european-spy-campaign/

Again, let me say, that I in no way peddle idle gossip or conspiracies. The talk here of politics, at least in this thread, as well as in others on the forum, as far as I understand, are intended to give background or context for a scenario.

Having said that, let me say, that I am working on producing how an Estonian or Latvian commander may order his forces to deter a massive armor assault. So, this thread may deal with the shape of a Russian invasion and alternately, possible Baltic states responses, in a way that designers may develop scenarios gaming those responses.

=====

[dmnt]

I've been using the map generator: http://www.venhola.com/maps/

I've learned some other tricks of the trade in using the program such as obtaining the correct coordinates through google maps, screen printing the Vehnola map for reference later, and most importantly, writing down the coordinates you finally select ahead of time so as to re-draw the map at a later date. There are more.


Thanks for the feedback! There's this L-button on top right corner that gives you the direct URL to the coordinates you picked. You can then bookmark that URL (open it in new tab for example and then bookmark) so you can always come back to the map later on. Current zoom and position aren't saved, though.

[Airborne Rifles]

Was thinking about this issue the other day, and an idea for a series of scenarios or a campaign popped into my mind. Here's what I was thinking:

Russia has invaded and occupied the Baltic States and is fortifying their gains. NATO is mobilizing in Poland to both prevent further aggression and to lay the groundwork for a counteroffensive into the Baltics and Kaliningrad. The threat of nuclear escalation has been stymied by unequivocal statements by the US, UK, and France that NATO will respond in kind of Russia crosses that threshold. So now what remains is for NATO to launch their difficult effort to reclaim its member states.

Except there may be another option. The NATO alliance manages to convince a nervous Finland to join the war against Russian aggression. The US, supported by several other NATO members, rapidly deploys a sizable force to Finland in order to launch an offensive towards St. Petersburg. If NATO forces can occupy Russia's second largest city, they will have a powerful bargaining chip to lay on the table to convince Russia to withdraw from the Baltics.

I think this would be a very interesting basis for a series of scenarios, with NATO on the offensive for a change. I might try to tackle this when life slows down. Thoughts?

[wulfir]

Thoughts?

I would play those scenarios. :D

[iln82]

Anyways, a couple of years ago I started building a German/NATO vs Russia campaign set in southern Estonia.

The idea was a that the player would command a mixed battle group of somewhat unready NATO forces during the initial stages of a Russkie invasion...

I experimented with adding an element from a different OOB into the fixed German core force - here an attached Dutch mech inf coy - I did not intend for the player to be able to refit destroyed units and that the campaign would only last 5-6 battles...

Didn't really turn out that great. Stopped working on it halfway through. Buuut, if anyone wants to kill some time, here it is..., the Russians won't be all that problematic in this setup...

The C023s000.dat, C023s002.dat & C023s003.dat files are missing. Campaign cannot be played.

Can't believe that 36 people downloaded it before me (two actually thanked you) and none noticed!!! :rolleyes:

[wulfir]

Campaign cannot be played.

No big loss, honestly. You'll live.

[Suhiir]

Balancing campaigns is very difficult if you want to have limited replacements/reinforcements. The designer can't really predict player losses, all you have to work off of is an educated guess. Since you're the one that designed it you know where everything is and when, and where, enemy reinforcements will arrive. It's impossible to test your own campaign and know what a player will experience.

If they take "excessive" losses early on they're screwed, if they don't take many it's a cakewalk. Neither is good.

[wulfir]

Balancing campaigns is very difficult...


I think I've said it before but I'm not a great believer in 'play balance'.

Some players are demons at this game, some are newbies - building a setup that challanges both is impossible.

I prefer to build scenarions/campaigns around larger size player and AI-enemy forces, but adding elements from various OOBs in a fixed core campaign is probably best avoided.

[Oche]

Balancing campaigns is very difficult...


I think I've said it before but I'm not a great believer in 'play balance'.

Some players are demons at this game, some are newbies - building a setup that challanges both is impossible.

I prefer to build scenarions/campaigns around larger size player and AI-enemy forces, but adding elements from various OOBs in a fixed core campaign is probably best avoided.

Exactly, to each its own. If you don't like a scenario/campaign just move along. Also, if you are not even a seasoned player/scenario builder please spare the complaint about force balance or other scenario aspect.

[Imp]

Balancing campaigns is very difficult...


I think I've said it before but I'm not a great believer in 'play balance'.

Some players are demons at this game, some are newbies - building a setup that challanges both is impossible.

I prefer to build scenarions/campaigns around larger size player and AI-enemy forces, but adding elements from various OOBs in a fixed core campaign is probably best avoided.

Just a thought here but a campaign with the majority of the units provided each battle as support units could be intresting. Core could just be a infantry or Mech Company plus perhaps a plattoon of tanks or the heavy weapons company or whatever.
Advantages are designer knows where most of the players force are deployed & can change the size of the battle as they wish by varrying support units as desired.

[shahadi]

Although, I have taken this opportunity to post my understanding of a fight with Russia in the Baltics here, please be aware of the thread by Aeraaa: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showpost.php?p=839468&postcount=1.

There remains several factors that must be taken into açcount when devising wargames to counter a Russian force (BTGs)in the baltics, or anywhere else:

1. Are the skies contested? US planning assumes US dominance.

2. Time. Transport, assembly, and deployment even if materials are pre-positioned, takes weeks not days to ready an American HBCT.

3. Light IBCTs and Stryker BCTs can be deployed into a fight within days, although to put those light forces against heavy Russian forces is merely heoric given clear or contested skies.

4. Readiness. Training, material, and maintenance readiness must support full ready divisions.

Check the online article: (Patrick Donahoe, "Heavy Armor: The Tank’s Role in the Future of War" http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/heavy-armor-the-tanks-role-the-future-war-16322?page=2)

The modern heavy tank is vulnerable to ATMGs in urban spaces and mountainous terrain. We saw what happened to the IDF at the Chinese Farm, at the Second Lebanese war, and the Iraqi Golden Division at Mosul (although the GD finally prevailed but after 50% casualties), and at the battle of Tskhinvali in the Georgia war, Georgian armor scattered under ATGMs.

"To Beat Russian Tanks, the Baltic States Study the Georgia War 2008 conflict with Russia proves that anti-tank missiles rule"

See: (Robert Beckhusen, https://medium.com/war-is-boring/to-beat-russian-tanks-the-baltic-states-study-another-war-710812d7e5b8, Oct 24, 2014)

"Later in the day, the tanks arrived at a crossroads near the command center of a local detachment of Russian peacekeepers. And that’s when the full force of the Russian 19th Motor Rifle Division—rushed to reinforce Tskhinvali—slammed into the battalion.

The Russians quickly destroyed four of the Georgian tanks—not with tanks of their own, but with anti-tank guided missiles launched from lighter armored vehicles. Demoralized, the surviving Georgian armor retreated."

Furthermore, the US forces have a lot of experience in counterinsurgency and fighting "near-peer" adversaries; nearly 26 years alone in Afghanistan and Iraq (Since the first Gulf War). However, there is no "breath" of experience fighting heavy maneuver formations.

Similar, to what has troubled the IDF going toe-to-toe against Hezbollah and Hamas, in that the IDF had a lot of experience fighting rock throwing knife wielding individuals in policing roles and nil experience or training in large bridgate and division exercises, hence their leadership realized soon after the fight, the IDF soldier had not the training to fight a disciplined foe, hence, the USA is now training to fight adversaries using Russian and Chinese equipment and tactics.

Check the online article here: http://scout.com/military/warrior/Article/Army-Analyst-We-Will-Fight-Russian-Chinese-Tanks-Weapons-101455712.

Finally, can the US Army ready sufficient arms after nearly 3 decades of warfare to counter Russian heavy formations in the Baltics or elsewhere?
<br>

[wulfir]

This could be interesting form a scenario making perspective as a possible what-if:

http://bilder.bild.de/fotos-skaliert/map-russias-zapad-2017-military-maneuver-how-vladimir-putin-sumulatet-on-attack-on-nato---infogr-200635164-54245580/2,w=993,q=high,c=0.bild.gif

Capturing the Baltic states within a week
According to the two sources, Kremlin forces rehearsed capturing NATO’s “region of vulnerability, according to the Russian view”, namely the three Baltic states. “To realize this, you would have to quickly do the Suwalki gap operation” in order to cut off Poland and NATO reinforcements from Lithuania. This is exactly what Russia did, creating the artificial state of “Veyshnoria” at the exact location of the 40-kilometre land bridge between Poland and Lithuania (carried out on Belarussian territory, however).

At the same time, Russia rehearsed “neutralizing or taking under control air fields and harbours (in the Baltic states), so there are no reinforcements arriving from other NATO states there”. The sources emphasized that, in the case of an emergency, this would, in the first few days, be a purely military operation. “This does not mean that you have to occupy the countries and declare ‘Peoples’ Republics’ or something like that, but that you have to occupy the harbours, airports and so on”.

source:
http://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/bild-international/zapad-2017-english-54233658.bild.html

[shahadi]

Is the article reporting (bild.de) that attacks on German, Polish, Norwegian, and Swedish targets are part of the initial operation to sieze harbours, airports,and the like, or are those attacks in response to NATO getting involved after the initial operation to control the Baltic states?
<br>

[Suhiir]

Unless the "Soviet" (yes I used that work on purpose) mindset has changed since the 1970's when I was in the Intelligence business they're big believers in "Fait Accompli", do something quickly then stop at a point of their choosing and tell the rest of the world to "get over it".

If they want the Baltic States their seizure of certain German, Polish, Norwegian, and Swedish targets while also making that objective easier also gives them something to "withdraw from and return" in order to create the illusion they're not getting to keep everything they want. But, of course, the reality is they only really wanted the parts they wind up keeping.

Take that analysis for what it's worth from someone that's been out of the Intel/Intentions business for over 40 years.

[DRG]

I would use the Crimea as an example of that analysis being absolutely correct

Don

[shahadi]

The article (bild.de) assets the recent Russian exercises not as a grab for the Baltic states, but rather as a strike against NATO. Furthermore, the attacks on Germany, Poland, Norway, and the other countries mentioned are bombing targets and missile strikes, nothing about seizing territory. Troubling.

If Putin wanted the Baltics, then taking control of harbors, airfields, etc would not require striking other NATO countries. I dare say, strikes on Poland or Sweden and Norway would plunge into WWW3. While taking control of methods of ingress (Baltics) would suffice with a lower chance of a military NATO response.

BTW, has anyone read of the number of heavy armor formations in the Baltics, and has America stationed an additional carrier strike group in the Baltic sea?

Great read and excellent post.
<br>

[wulfir]

Myself I'm not convinced the Russians are really ready to take the plunge, but there is enough stuff going on to make what-if scenarios that would not be too far fetched IMO(and some have already been made, like Grant1pa's Norwegian/Finnish ones :up:)



The Norwegian Home Guard base near Trondheim that houses the Marine rotational force was the first stop on Gen. Robert Neller's annual Christmas tour.

The stop was a new one for the tour. The first Norway rotation, from 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines, deployed in January and was replaced by a new unit from 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marines, in late August.

Neller emphasized to the Marines that they should remain ready to fight at all times, predicting a "big-*** fight" on the horizon.

"I hope I'm wrong, but there's a war coming," Neller said. " ... You're in a fight here, an informational fight, a political fight, by your presence."

Neller later told the Marines that he expects the Pacific and Russia to be the service's operational points of focus as the nation looks beyond the fights in the Middle East that have stretched into the better part of two decades.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/12/21/marine-leaders-highlight-norway-units-role-deterrent-russia.html/amp?__twitter_impression=true

[shahadi]

Myself I'm not convinced the Russians are really ready to take the plunge, but there is enough stuff going on to make what-if scenarios that would not be too far fetched IMO(and some have already been made, like Grant1pa's Norwegian/Finnish ones :up:)



Yeah, I think you're right,"...there is enough stuff going on..." and the context is right for scenarios.

I also noted that Sargent Major Green holds a masters in Cybersecurity Policy from the University of Maryland University College. And, that the article (military.com) refers to the recently released National Security Strategy wherein the document discussed Russia's practice of "using information tools" to interfere with other nations' democracies and militant aggression that crosses borders.

<br>

[shahadi]

Could Poland's Tanks Stop Russia in a War? (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/could-polands-tanks-stop-russia-war-25052?page=3)
(Gao, Johnny, Nationalinterest.org, 23 March 2018)

A very good article.

A commentator made the following comment: "Forget Russia, its payback time! How about Poland v Germany?"
Tongue in cheek, hopefully.

However, another commentor raised my eyebrow with the following: "...Pols are Slav and there is no way any real Russian will attack them." Wow, sounds like a Russian troll.
<Br>