Page 9 of 34 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 498

Thread: Russia claims new tank invisible to radar/IR

  1. #121
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    I've been saying it since this whole sh*thole in Ukraine started but will repeat it again; at present the Baltic States are indefencible. You do not need any journos or retired Generals to look at the deployments and maps.
    You're right. The only way to defend the Baltics is to invade Russia. The small geographic boundaries precludes any meaningful defence en-depth and if you have enough force to stop the Russians cold, you have enough force to invade Russia.

    But that doesn't mean we can't drive the Russians out.
    Chimo

  2. #122
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    I've been saying it since this whole sh*thole in Ukraine started but will repeat it again; at present the Baltic States are indefencible. You do not need any journos or retired Generals to look at the deployments and maps.
    What in your view would make them defensible?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  3. #123
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    What in your view would make them defensible?
    I agree with OOE that NATO would have to likely have to retake the Baltics rather than keeping a determined force of Russians out entirely. I've often wondered if Riga and Tallinn might be held against a Russian attack however, even if the rest of the country is lost initially.

    Being located on the Baltic Sea, they are well situated to quickly receive large quantities of men and materials from CONUS to help hold the cities while taking advantage of naval fire support and aviation. MEUs and prepositioned stocks in Norway might even be able to beat the Russians to the Baltic capitals if the Baltic countries themselves can slow the Russians down even a little.

    Attacks on the Baltic countries could be met with naval bombardment of St. Petersburg and a counter invasion of Kaliningrad to raise the cost of doing business for the Russians. The Russian Baltic fleet doesn't appear to be in a condition to do more than die heroically, and Kaliningrad is geographically cut off from any Russian support.
    Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 14 Jun 16, at 16:24.

  4. #124
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Knowing the Russians, it's far better option to let the Russians in, than to defend it hoping for resuplies. Berlin and Grozny come to mind
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  5. #125
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,159

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    What in your view would make them defensible?
    A Finnish style army.

    However,the Russians are not going to attack without a severe crisis in the Pacific to distract the Americans.If even then...
    The Russians already lost a war on basically home ground,against an ad-hoc volunteer militia.
    They are however a threat.

    NATO deployments are in many ways psyops,to counter Russian Information ops."No green men will haunt you,we have American armor".

    The prospect of a few Russian Bde's invading the 3 Baltic nations is ludicrous.Yes,they might "win" ,but their own experience in Ukraine might make them more prudent.Strelkov held Slaviansk and surrounding arreas with 2000 lightly armed men.Being outnumbered initially 3/1 is not as bad as it seems.There are cities to defend and enough forrested terrain to organize delays and raids.
    National traits also play a role.Ukrainians are "little Russians".The idea of a brother war was repulsive.The rest of E. Euros are hardcore dislikers of Russians
    The few millions in the Baltics might provide more men to fight the invaders than Ukraine.Which makes the Ukrainian defense more worthy of respect.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  6. #126
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,043
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    A Finnish style army.
    I'm unfamiliar with the area. Do the baltic states have the hundreds of lakes and forests that Finland uses as part of it's defenses?

  7. #127
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,345
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    What in your view would make them defensible?
    It is a matter of having sufficient forces in the Baltic countries to buy enough time for reinforcements (via Poland and the 'Suwalki Gap' which may need to be forced) to arrive. It may entail crossing the Belarus border. Otherwise you will have to liberate them again with logistics against you.

    Name:  20160209_Google_Suwalki.JPG
Views: 175
Size:  146.8 KB

  8. #128
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    How many of those should be from the Baltics?

    Geez, they joined the club for protection, but what about their share in their own defense?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  9. #129
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,345
    The more you are worried the more you should spend on defence. But even if Estonia were to spend 5% (currently at 2.1%) of GDP on defence for the next 10yrs it would amount to relatively little, total GDP in 2015 being 20.5bn eur. Obviously some form of 'national reserve force' of most of the population - something like the IDF for example - and cooperation between the three Baltic States and Poland (and Finland/Sweden perhaps) would increase security as would 'winning over' Belarus, which is itself threatened (though on a different level) by the same potential aggressor.

  10. #130
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    The Battle for the Baltics isn't going to won in the Baltics. It's going to be won in Poland and Belarus/Russia.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 15 Jun 16, at 00:24.
    Chimo

  11. #131

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,829
    "...It's going to be won in Poland and Belarus/Russia."

    I'll pray it's won in Washington D.C. without a shot fired in anger.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

  12. #132
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by S2 View Post
    "...It's going to be won in Poland and Belarus/Russia."

    I'll pray it's won in Washington D.C. without a shot fired in anger.
    I want the like button.
    Chimo

  13. #133
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,345
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    The Battle for the Baltics isn't going to won in the Baltics. It's going to be won in Poland and Belarus/Russia.
    Of course the insanity is that while the Baltics are currently indefencible - and it seems that is unlikely to change; "We will agree on the deployment by rotation of four robust multinational battalions to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland." http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_132351.htm the Dnipro is defencible and currently being defended. The Straits at Constantinople could be closed - stifling Muscovite operations in Syria (this would not be illegal I am informed) - SWIFT cut off/North Stream 2 stopped/dirty Muscovite money (much of it in London) found and confiscated etc etc etc. We could cripple them without a shot while moving deterrent forces into CEE.

    To be fair S2 similar resolution as you require in Washington is needed in London, Berlin, Paris etc...

  14. #134
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    How mighty have we've fallen. 4 Battalions, actually Battle Groups. The Russians ain't that much better. They have 2 brigade groups over the border. If they scrounge, they might get another brigade group up. Using the traditional 3 attackers to every 1 defender, the odds are even but ...

    We were 73 NATO divisions against 172 Warsaw Pact Divisions. Hell, the Poles alone fields 4 divisions and 6 independent brigades today.

    I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing but this isn't WWIII, at least not the WWIII that we Cold Warriors knew.
    Chimo

  15. #135
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,043
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    (this would not be illegal I am informed)
    Cutting off naval shiping in the Bosphorus? There's a legal way for Turkey to do that?...

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post

    We were 73 NATO divisions against 172 Warsaw Pact Divisions. Hell, the Poles alone fields 4 divisions and 6 independent brigades today.

    I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing but this isn't WWIII, at least not the WWIII that we Cold Warriors knew.
    Otoh, guided munitions have completely transformed the way any war is fought. At the heigh of the Cold War, it would take (for example) a flight of our old A-7P a pass with a full dumb-bomb loads to cause serious damage to (for example) a mech platoon. Today, a single F-16MLU would fire LGBs or missiles from X miles away, 1 per tank...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Russia Invites U.S. To A 'Tank Biathlon'
    By Doktor in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 16 Aug 13,, 00:04
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14 Apr 12,, 18:14
  3. The Invisible Tank
    By Kernow in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 09 Dec 08,, 09:41
  4. Russia claims China backing in Georgia conflict
    By Nauticus in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 31 Aug 08,, 14:46
  5. Russia plays spoilsport in T-90S tank deal
    By Yusuf in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 25 Apr 08,, 10:56

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •