Re: WW3: Dutch interception
You could make a strong case that Russian military doctrine has not changed all that much in a very long time: Use a lot of men, use relatively simple weapons, but in large numbers. Have as large a force of supporting artillery as you can.
The crucial questions today v a Western Force, especially if it is trying to fight in Russia's 'back yard': Who wins air superiority? (Lots of Russians or smaller numbers of, more or less, more advanced Western fighters)?
Strongly related to the above, do advanced Russian SAM's and other AAA drive off Western Air sooner rather than later? Or do Western aircraft, etc take them out?
Without overwhelming air support how do Western Forces counter very heavy Russian artillery support?
Other things (see above) being equal I would like to think that the best Western troops would beat the Russians in a defensive battle at about 2-3 to 1 against and would certainly support the British Army at those odds v any likely potential enemy (yep I am a patriotic, if informed, type). Offensive battle against the likes of Russia, close to Russia, in my view, with current forces, not something I would like to do at all.
Final point why fight Russia? She is not capable of, or aiming to, reach the English channel any more. She presents no real threat to Western Europe, although she wants,legitimately enough, influence in her own back yard, including the Baltic States and Ukraine.
As for the Middle East, the Rise of the so called 'Islamic State' and the generally baleful influence of Saudi Arabia in the world lead me to think of 'the pot calling the kettle black' in terms of US v Russian policy in that region.
|
Threaded Mode