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/showp...68&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...r-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-...r-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/Ar...pons-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?