Russia claims new tank invisible to radar/IR

[SteveDaPirate]

The commander of US troops in Europe says Nato cannot rapidly deploy large forces to Eastern Europe in the way that Russia can.
Lt-Gen Ben Hodges was speaking to the BBC's Hardtalk programme during large Nato exercises in north-western Poland.
"The Russians are able to move huge formations and lots of equipment a long distance very fast," he said.
Nato needs to have that speed too, he said. "Three days' notification, we ought to be able to do that," he said.

Gen Hodges said Nato should create a "military Schengen zone", to give the 28-nation alliance freedom of movement. Schengen is the EU's passport-free zone which encompasses most EU member states.
The general said it was "concerning" that Russia was able to deploy 20,000 troops and a lot of equipment "on the border of a Nato country, or maybe somewhere like Georgia or Ukraine".
"The Russians have what we call freedom of movement on the interior lines. They can move anywhere inside of Russia, as fast as they want."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36575180

[Officer of Engineers]

Sir ,a Bde dies in a few hours.For the sake of argument,the Romanian army dies in 3 days,the Poles in 4.
The Russians lose more or less the same.Is not something they can afford.
We can.We defend our land and the Russians are out of the country after 2 weeks.Meaning we "win".
Wrecking the place means staying long enough plus a good deal of urban combat.
Can't see their logic in such a COA.

Target a major army formation or a nearby town. Surround it and kill it with artillery. Go home.

[Officer of Engineers]

"The Russians have what we call freedom of movement on the interior lines. They can move anywhere inside of Russia, as fast as they want."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36575180

He's ignoring that we can bomb them to smithereens before they cross the border.

[Mihais]

Oversaturation


Flattens GDP.


Americans paid for that. The question is why you didn't?


How wise is that? I assume you talk their soft belly.


Which begs my previous question - "But, why would they do that in the first place?"

Damn if I know why would they do that.But little they do lately makes sense.
Wisdom tends to go away in a moment of urgency.

The Ro Military as a whole is only getting into investment mood late.But at least it is the benefit of an identified threat with reasonably known capabilities .
The Americans invested because : a. they had the $ and b.we wanted a permanent US establishment
By threaty it is under Ro command in case of a threat on our soil.

It took away from the Russians the ability to threaten limited nuclear war.Their conventional capabilities are on the other side of the Black Sea,while in the North they cannot conquer a major city fast enough and cheap enough.

GDP loss goes both way.

[Mihais]

Target a major army formation or a nearby town. Surround it and kill it with artillery. Go home.

We saw Ilovaisk before the Ukrainians did.
Thing with surrounding cities is that it takes time and they have to stop.They stop they become vulnerable.It is feasible what you say,but it also risky for them.
We may be the one looking for a major maneuver battle.Not even Putin can survive 10000 body bags in 2 weeks.

[Officer of Engineers]

We saw Ilovaisk before the Ukrainians did.

That's the beauty of being the attacker. Is the town the target ... or the relief force?

Thing with surrounding cities is that it takes time and they have to stop.They stop they become vulnerable.It is feasible what you say,but it also risky for them.
We may be the one looking for a major maneuver battle.Not even Putin can survive 10000 body bags in 2 weeks.

Of course, it's risky. That's what wars are but know your scenario. The Americans are busy elsewhere. You don't want German help. That means the Russians have air superiority. Even if their bombing is shits, they have eyes in the sky. You don't.

[Doktor]

Sir,

Are you saying Romania and Poland don't/won't get open channels with detailed Intel and images?

[Mihais]

The beauty of war is that both sides have a chance,if they play their cards right.
The beauty of the militia system is that it lets light infantry defending in towns against Russian mech forces.
And that frees the regulars.

With or without the Americans,they still have eyes in the sky.So do we.Drones have changed this aspect.They have a huge number,at all levels.
The big deal is the skill in maneuvering under these conditions,disinformation ,camo and C4I2
Another big deal is the ability to fight delays.The defender has some advantages in this.

Was thinking of your scenario of raiding.And recalled that the best way to fight Turks and Tatars was to let them come and hit them on their way out.Or give them a lucrative target,while having an ambush set.

[Officer of Engineers]

Are you saying Romania and Poland don't/won't get open channels with detailed Intel and images?

No, they get what the Americans give them. Unlike American Generals, Polish and Romanian Generals are not allowed to know everything American Generals do. That means it would take time for the Americans to decide what and when to give to the Poles and Romanians.

The beauty of war is that both sides have a chance,if they play their cards right.
The beauty of the militia system is that it lets light infantry defending in towns against Russian mech forces.
And that frees the regulars.

If you know their axis of advance and you have time for at least a hasty defence.

With or without the Americans,they still have eyes in the sky.So do we.Drones have changed this aspect.They have a huge number,at all levels.

I've asked the question many times. How are these drones going to operate in a signal polluted environment? These drones don't carry enough power for signal burn through. A pilot at least can use a compass.

The big deal is the skill in maneuvering under these conditions,disinformation ,camo and C4I2
Another big deal is the ability to fight delays.The defender has some advantages in this.

Again, if you know the axis of advance. Light infantry or militia searching for the mechanized enemy is a disaster and barely a speed bump. At the very least, they need to set up some sort of hasty defence to have any chance. In a meeting engagement between light infantry and mechanized troops? I'll bet on the mechanized troops.

Was thinking of your scenario of raiding.And recalled that the best way to fight Turks and Tatars was to let them come and hit them on their way out.Or give them a lucrative target,while having an ambush set.

When the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, they attacked in two directions. To drive the Afghans away and to clear their lines of withdrawl.

[Doktor]

And still lost 500 soldiers in the process. Can't say if that's good or bad, just wondering if today's moms have the stomach.

By all means I'd bet both Romanians and Poles would put a better fight than the Mujahedeens

[Officer of Engineers]

The actual fight is not the question here. The question is, without the Americans, can you deter the Russians from making a mess of things.

[SteveDaPirate]

The actual fight is not the question here. The question is, without the Americans, can you deter the Russians from making a mess of things.

Start a domestic sounding rocket program, construct pressurized heavy-water reactors, withdraw from the NPT and build out a modern IADS.

Granted, that will piss off the Americans right along with the Russians, but it's probably the most effective way for Eastern European countries to deter the Russians without American involvement.

If South Africa and Pakistan could afford it, presumably it wouldn't be out of reach for Poland or Romania. The Baltics would probably require a joint program of some nature.

[Officer of Engineers]

Tito did it without any of that. But mind you, he's got the balls and the knowhow to stand up to Brezhnev.

The more I think about this, there's a way to do it. But you do need leadership along the likes of Deng Xia Peng who

a) Made sure the Russians know you will fight and fight hard
b) Don't piss off the Russians.

[SteveDaPirate]

Deng had nukes and a billion people. The Russians would be terrified if such a situation existed in the Baltics.

Tito managed to play the Soviets and Americans off one another to his benefit. But he must have pissed the Russians off plenty, considering how many times they attempted to assassinate him! Yet he suffered from the same fault as so many competent authoritarian strongmen. He was unable to create a sustainable system that didn't require HIS hand on the wheel to stay on the road. His country barely made it 10 years without him at the helm.

To me, it is illustrative of the instrumental difference between the American and Russian systems of government. Americans have strong institutions with weaker leaders, while Russians have weak institutions but stronger leaders.

[Doktor]

Tito did it without any of that. But mind you, he's got the balls and the knowhow to stand up to Brezhnev.

The more I think about this, there's a way to do it. But you do need leadership along the likes of Deng Xia Peng who

a) Made sure the Russians know you will fight and fight hard
b) Don't piss off the Russians.

Tito stood up to Stalin and chilled it with Brezhnev