Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ketara wrote:

The General Secretary of NATO has an agenda, and that is to get as much money pumped into various defence budgets as possible. The best tried and tested way to do that is by overhyping potential threats. Pointing at troop numbers is a bad way of estimating capabilities, otherwise North Korea would rate as one of the most powerful nations on the planet. I would suggest taking a glance at defence expenditure and then overall GDP of each nation before making any generalised statements about their ability to take Russia on.

You are right, but I did so.
Troop numbers are not everything, and that is why North Korea is not the strongest nation. I looked at this list, which takes into consideration an large amount of different factors for each nation. Notice how North Korea is only on place 35, while Russia is on place 2, even above China. Russia has larger defense expenditure than any individual European nation, a large indigenous defense industry (critical in prolonged warfare) that most European nations lack and much less debts than most European nations (though I highly doubt money would be very important in a WW2-style total war. After all, many soldiers in WW2 were never paid.)
In any case, numbers are not everything, but when you have numbers like 400 tanks vs 150000, there is little doubt.
I highly doubt Russia would be able to knock on the door of Buckingham Palace in 21 days, but when they strike first and catch the EU before it can organise, mobilise its troops and set up a system of conscription, I have no doubt they can at least reach Berlin and maybe even the Channel.
An invasion of Britain would be hard though, annoying island weirdos they are Russia lacks the naval power.



Also suprised that no one mentioned it yet, but things are really escalating in Ukraine now.:
http://rt.com/news/154472-gunmen-slavyansk-attack-defense/

 loki old fart wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

loki old fart wrote:They did some war games to work out the result of Russia invading the west. 21 days and Russia would be knocking at Buckingham palace, and asking for the keys. Unless the west went nuclear, you don't want to know how that went.

Source? Because that sounds like one of the most ridiculous analysis I've ever heard of. The Russians would most likely be able to roll through most of Eastern Europe, but to make an educated guess, I would pin their offensive as halting somewhere in the middle of Germany at the absolute furthest.

Not to mention that the concept of them somehow crossing the Channel is patently ludicrous to begin with. Even if they somehow managed to land a force on our shores, they'd be cut off from supply by the combined NATO fleets before they could say 'Sdacha Angliyskiy!'

It was a NATO wargame some years ago. to old for me to find the source. Scared the feth out of me. nato came to the conclusion to stop the Russians long enough for the Americans to get more troops to Europe, they would have to use tactical nukes to slow them down.
The thought of using nukes on German soil didn't go down to well.

Dude thats been NATO policy and doctrine for decades.

Think Fulda Gap with the Black Horse Cav there was expected to hold the onslaught for like four hours

Things get back to normal RAF Jet Chases Russian Planes Away From UK

http://news.sky.com/story/1247985/raf-jet-chases-russian-planes-away-from-uk

Back to the old days

Dutch fighter jets were also dispatched on Wednesday when the two Russian planes entered their airspace.

A pair of Dutch F-16 jets intercepted the Tu-95s at about 4pm after they strayed half a mile into the country's territory.

The incidents come amid heightened international tensions over the situation in Ukraine, following the annexation of Crimea by Russia last month.

It also follows the arrival of a Russian warship, the Vice Admiral Kulakov, in waters off the coast of Britain.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) said the vessel was met by the Royal Navy destroyer HMS Dragon, which is "keeping an eye" on the ship's movement.

Sky's Defence Correspondent Alistair Bunkall said foreign planes often fly close to UK airspace, with eight similar incidents reported in 2013.

so, the NY times is now redacting their article about the keiv regeime claiming "confirmed russian military" guys leading the pro russian protestors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/world/europe/scrutiny-over-photos-said-to-tie-russia-units-to-ukraine.html




as to above, it is kind of interesting that flybys are routinely done by and to every nation with jets and such, same with ships.

" "These sorts of events happen quite regularly and that maybe surprising for some people.

"It's all about testing defences and seeing exactly what your 'enemy' is capable of."

The two Russian planes were escorted by the Typhoon, as well as military aircraft from the Netherlands and Denmark, until they flew off towards Scandinavia.

The aircraft - turboprop-powered bombers which also conduct airborne surveillance - have been in service for more than 50 years.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: "The Russian military aircraft remained in international airspace at all times and they are perfectly entitled to do so.

"Russian military flights have never entered UK sovereign airspace without authorisation.""


I am a bit more concerned with the lack of the kievs willingness to disarm its paramilitary groups in accordance with the accord (which is in shambles since right sector shot people)

Now we have regular people against tanks, artillery, radical paramilitary groups with military grade weapons and so on.

Once kiev starts racking up the body count, its really just going to get worse.


spoiler for possible bad language



Kiev has some serious logistcal problems, and is losing control of its armed forces, let alone its paramilitary groups like right sector.

It makes you wonder, if all these people saying "they're going to start a war because the economies screwed" have a point.
I usually ignore them, but now I"m not so sure. If it does kick off, I'll never get a new ork codex

 Iron_Captain wrote:
You are right, but I did so.
Troop numbers are not everything, and that is why North Korea is not the strongest nation. I looked at this list, which takes into consideration an large amount of different factors for each nation. Notice how North Korea is only on place 35, while Russia is on place 2, even above China. Russia has larger defense expenditure than any individual European nation, a large indigenous defense industry (critical in prolonged warfare) that most European nations lack and much less debts than most European nations (though I highly doubt money would be very important in a WW2-style total war. After all, many soldiers in WW2 were never paid.)
In any case, numbers are not everything, but when you have numbers like 400 tanks vs 150000, there is little doubt.

There are many other factors not so easily broken down in websites like those you gave. For example, there's no examination of industry. If you have a tractor factory industry that can be easily converted into tank factories, you're in a far better position to prep for a major war than a primarily commercial based economy. You have also have to account for intangibles, such as social cohesion (so a country like Germany would probably fight on after the loss of one or two important cities or important figures, whereas the average Afgan wouldn't give a damn about dying for King and country).

On top of that, you also have to consider the basic logistics of a war. Russia may well decide to invade Europe, but smashing armies in the field is the easy part. You need troops to garrison newly taken territory and supply convoys. The more territory you take, the harder this becomes. You have to account for partisan attacks, regrouping enemy units, and maintaining enough troops along the coast to repel any seaborne landing. Not to mention keeping enough soldiers remaining in the home country to deter any opportunistic invasion by other countries uninvolved thus far.

In short, you might have 700,000 men up against smaller numbers, but by the time you hit Germany, you'll have probably lost at least a quarter in casualties and wounded, you'll have another quarter in active garrison duty, and you'll need another quarter hanging back at home and hugging the coast. That doesn't leave many men to invade and pacify a country like Germany. Now you might argue that you could drum up the reserves or conscript to pull in the necessary manpower, but that's only half the problem.

The other half is that by now, Germany will have seen you coming for the last fortnight at least. Which means that the industry will be being geared up and switching into wartime production, the British and French forces will be advancing to meet Russia through Germany, and the US will be repositioning half a dozen carrier fleets off the coast and starting to ship men over. Not to mention that the aerial war will be pretty fierce by this stage of the game.

Now you might argue that Russian material superiority would be enough to carry the day, but again, things are not so simple. As things stand, Putin's military reforms are still in the works. Barely anything of the newer tank and aircraft models have been deployed. What IS in the field is primarily Soviet era technology. And Western forces will rip the bulk of it to shreds. You might have a crapload of old tanks, but if they can't protect themselves from newer handheld infantry rockets, they're not worth much. You might have 1,500 aircraft to fight 400, but if 1,300 of them have serious difficulty engaging with and targeting Western aircraft, the superiority in numbers is not so handy.

I am exaggerating those numbers somewhat, but it should hopefully illustrate the point; namely that whilst Russia has a crapload of material, most of it is heavily dated. The newer stuff is more up to scratch and able to go toe to toe with Western equipment, but the vast bulk of it isn't in the same category.

As such, my educated guess would be that if Russia tried to roll forward now, they'd get to mid-Germany at best before being halted, then thrown back, and then utterly ruined one step at a time. Russia is powerful, but it is simply no match for the combined armies and economic muscle of NATO. Not even close.

What British forces do we have in Germany?

none of that will happen though, mutually assured destruction is thankfully still a thing.

Unless the states actually got their anti ballistic missile stuff working after they unilaterally withdrew from that very sensible and peace fostering agreement.

There is no doubt that Russia would lose, but lets be honest everyone loses in these situations. Everybody knows this, and yet we all continue to dick with each other. The west is definitely the aggressors here, and after sitting back too long, maybe Russia is over reacting, but I still can't really blame them, they have watched as Europe rolls up to its boarders, and the process hasn't really been organic.

I can't see how 408 challenger 2s sitting at their base in England (mothballed last time I heard) is much of a deterrent.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
The west is definitely the aggressors here.

Citation needed.

 easysauce wrote:
none of that will happen though, mutually assured destruction is thankfully still a thing.

Unless the states actually got their anti ballistic missile stuff working after they unilaterally withdrew from that very sensible and peace fostering agreement.

Indeed, let us thank nuclear missiles for securing peace, and let us pray that it will remain that way and that wars will be confined to our tabletops and computers.

Blessed be our glorious nuclear missiles, that they may ensure peace in the name of Jesus Christ Son of God, amen.

Why did I watch that, and think imperial guard

 loki old fart wrote:
I can't see how 408 challenger 2s sitting at their base in England (mothballed last time I heard) is much of a deterrent.

We have a massive naval shipping capacity for our armed forces. Larger than anyone but the Americans. I think we could move our tanks over to Germany within a few weeks, along with the rest of our forces, without any major issues. Especially since we wouldn't have to be too concerned about logistics (the Germans would be more than happy to stockpile fuel, rations, and parts for our incipient arrival).

Forgot the Bay Tunnel eh 8)

UK.....you have some.interesting Vehicles...of assorted types....in.certain preposition storage areas in American sector of Germany....incase you make use of Gawfenwer(sp) MPRC/base/camp

Paper exercises are fun....training exercises are fun with other nations vehicles..Movement Coordinators have to deal with wide range of countries unit movements...


Edit

Movement Teams have to stay on top of all forms, capabilities, Customs, Transport, and whatever to make international moves

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
The west is definitely the aggressors here.

Citation needed.

You don't see insighting revolution as aggression? Your average Ukrainian, should be pissed that we destabilized there country.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
You don't see insighting revolution as aggression? Your average Ukrainian, should be pissed that we destabilized there country.

You seem to know an awful lot about covert US actions in Ukraine.

You're not violating your TS/SCI terms, are you?

Throw in OPSEC to

Oh dear, this could be Russia creating a casus belli: http://rt.com/news/154844-life-news-donetsk-journalists/

 Seaward wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
You don't see insighting revolution as aggression? Your average Ukrainian, should be pissed that we destabilized there country.

You seem to know an awful lot about covert US actions in Ukraine.

You're not violating your TS/SCI terms, are you?

Not at all, I just know history and know who was funding the revolution, this information is not hard to find.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Not at all, I just know history and know who was funding the revolution, this information is not hard to find.

I had a hard time finding it, so I'd be delighted if you could hook a brother up.

well the US gets to unilaterally declare russia behind it,

so why cant russia do the same in reverse?

In reality, its pretty obvious who is backing what...

I mean the US didnt send all these military assets, the CIA head or mr kerry to ukraine because they are NOT supporting them.

Same with russia, they used assets already in place in crimea (although NEITHER side has confirmed active combat assets, just advisers)

Both sides have overtly supported... well their side.

 easysauce wrote:
well the US gets to unilaterally declare russia behind it,

You don't know what you're talking about, do you?

The US didn't "unilaterally declare Russia behind it". The Ukraine declared that Russia was behind it first--and that has been verified to a pretty exacting degree. Even before that though it was pretty blatantly obvious that it was Russia backing these "green men" that have been acting as linebreakers essentially, since they did something similar in Georgia and Chechnya.

so why cant russia do the same in reverse?

They can claim it all they want. It doesn't mean it's true. Until we start getting photos of CIA operatives wearing clean uniforms participating in the fighting though, this isn't the same thing.

In reality, its pretty obvious who is backing what...
I mean the US didnt send all these military assets, the CIA head or mr kerry to ukraine because they are NOT supporting them.
Same with russia, they used assets already in place in crimea (although NEITHER side has confirmed active combat assets, just advisers)
Both sides have overtly supported... well their side.

Sure they have, but at this point there is evidence that only one side is covertly supplying soldiers to prop up their side.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
well the US gets to unilaterally declare russia behind it,

You don't know what you're talking about, do you?

The US didn't "unilaterally declare Russia behind it". The Ukraine declared that Russia was behind it first--and that has been verified to a pretty exacting degree. Even before that though it was pretty blatantly obvious that it was Russia backing these "green men" that have been acting as linebreakers essentially, since they did something similar in Georgia and Chechnya.

so why cant russia do the same in reverse?

They can claim it all they want. It doesn't mean it's true. Until we start getting photos of CIA operatives wearing clean uniforms participating in the fighting though, this isn't the same thing.

In reality, its pretty obvious who is backing what...
I mean the US didnt send all these military assets, the CIA head or mr kerry to ukraine because they are NOT supporting them.
Same with russia, they used assets already in place in crimea (although NEITHER side has confirmed active combat assets, just advisers)
Both sides have overtly supported... well their side.

Sure they have, but at this point there is evidence that only one side is covertly supplying soldiers to prop up their side.

I agree...

But what do you think the US/NATO should do? This isn't a black & white situation...right?

Or, am I missing something very obvious?

Continue exerting political influence over the new government?

 Kanluwen wrote:

Spoiler:

 easysauce wrote:
well the US gets to unilaterally declare russia behind it,

You don't know what you're talking about, do you?

The US didn't "unilaterally declare Russia behind it". The Ukraine declared that Russia was behind it first--and that has been verified to a pretty exacting degree. Even before that though it was pretty blatantly obvious that it was Russia backing these "green men" that have been acting as linebreakers essentially, since they did something similar in Georgia and Chechnya.

so why cant russia do the same in reverse?

They can claim it all they want. It doesn't mean it's true. Until we start getting photos of CIA operatives wearing clean uniforms participating in the fighting though, this isn't the same thing.

In reality, its pretty obvious who is backing what...
I mean the US didnt send all these military assets, the CIA head or mr kerry to ukraine because they are NOT supporting them.
Same with russia, they used assets already in place in crimea (although NEITHER side has confirmed active combat assets, just advisers)
Both sides have overtly supported... well their side.

Sure they have, but at this point there is evidence that only one side is covertly supplying soldiers to prop up their side.

russia started it?

citation needed please.

also, citation on russian troops in active combat role please, as only the troops that were already in crimea were actually there...

or are you still under the impression that the ukraine report of such is true? because its a total load of BS and any reputable paper has already issued retractions on it.

 easysauce wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Spoiler:

 easysauce wrote:
well the US gets to unilaterally declare russia behind it,

You don't know what you're talking about, do you?

The US didn't "unilaterally declare Russia behind it". The Ukraine declared that Russia was behind it first--and that has been verified to a pretty exacting degree. Even before that though it was pretty blatantly obvious that it was Russia backing these "green men" that have been acting as linebreakers essentially, since they did something similar in Georgia and Chechnya.

so why cant russia do the same in reverse?

They can claim it all they want. It doesn't mean it's true. Until we start getting photos of CIA operatives wearing clean uniforms participating in the fighting though, this isn't the same thing.

In reality, its pretty obvious who is backing what...
I mean the US didnt send all these military assets, the CIA head or mr kerry to ukraine because they are NOT supporting them.
Same with russia, they used assets already in place in crimea (although NEITHER side has confirmed active combat assets, just advisers)
Both sides have overtly supported... well their side.

Sure they have, but at this point there is evidence that only one side is covertly supplying soldiers to prop up their side.

russia started it?

citation needed please.

also, citation on russian troops in active combat role please, as only the troops that were already in crimea were actually there...

or are you still under the impression that the ukraine report of such is true? because its a total load of BS and any reputable paper has already issued retractions on it.

Didn't Russia send unmarked troops/vehicles to that base through Ukraine into Crimea?

 -Shrike- wrote:
Continue exerting political influence over the new government?

yeah.. it would be nice if the west actually pressured the kiev regime to hold up its side of the agreement, disband its paramilitary groups and give up any seized buildings (which includes the ones rightsector has been outside "protecting")

but that time has come and gone, kiev and pro russia parties in the ukraine came to the truce deal, and right sector promptly shot some pro russians, breaking the truce, and completly destroying any trust that the pro russian people had that the kiev regime will deal with them fairly.

The west could have easily pressured kiev , or at least condemned the attacks, but no, its more of the same, they in fact just claim it was random criminals shooting the pro russians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

Didn't Russia send unmarked troops/vehicles to that base through Ukraine into Crimea?

They maintain a garrison there 100% of the time, hence why all the cries of "OMGURD RUSSIA HAS INVADED CRIMEA" are just silly, as they have ~10k troops and support elements there legally almost all the time.

thats why they had advisors already in place to organise the crimean troops (not russian, crimean, yes, russians advised them, just as the US advised maiden groups)


at this point, Kiev has ther body count, is aligned with factions that have already made attempts at sabatoging gas lines, and have aligned with groups like right sector that have shot and killed civilians on several occasions, the easter weekend truce breaking shooting being the most recent, and the one that destroyed whatever credibility (in the pro russian civvies minds) that the kiev regeime had.

While the west's media calling right sectors shooting "a random clash between criminal elements" is just insulting, and will simply polarise the area even further.

now we have reports of ukrainian troops, not just the paramilitary guys in right sector, raiding homes in the country for food because kiev is too disorganized to feed them.

I mean, how can we defend kiev, when its a violent revolution that threw out an elected leader, and now has tacitly supported the murder of cililians, and the theft of their property by their military?


Why is russia the bad guy for not killing/stealing, but kiev gets a total blanket free pass for killing/stealing?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
The west is definitely the aggressors here.

Citation needed.

Pages 1 - 59.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Shrike- wrote:
Continue exerting political influence over the new government?

Like...advising them to be less fascist?