Scenario: Russian Invasion of the Baltic States

[shahadi]

Given a full-scale invasion of the Baltics, “The main Russian objectives would be securing control over the air and blockade the Baltic Sea. Kaliningrad region would be used to blockade the land route through Suwalki, Poland to Vilnius and Riga (my emphasis). Russia would not necessarily need to assault Suwalki itself, but rather secure control over Lithuanian towns of Kybartai, Marijumpole, Kalvarija and Druskinskai. First cities to fall would be Narva, Tartu, Balvi, Kārsava, Rēzekne, Krāslava and Daugavpils. Since Vilnius is close to Belarusian border it would be first Baltic capital to be attacked.”

Source:”Russian Invasion of the Baltics: Nightmare or Reality,” https://latvianhistory.com/2016/07/09/.

Blocking the route up front Suwalki would appear to be a likely objective of Russian planners. And, I would venture to say, a prime objective which must be achieved within the first hours of the conflict. Departing a bit from Grant1pa's scenario, I would envision Russian paratroopers tasked to hold the intersection of A7 and E67 at
Marijumpole until heavy mechanized and armor forces are brought out of the Kaliningrad.

I would not anticipate Belarus sending forces to capture Vilnius, but I could see a joint Russian Belarusian military exercise occurring just prior to the start of hostilities as a ruse to enable Russian forces from inside Belarus to attack the Lithuanian capital.


This is the basis of the scenario Grant1pa authored. You can find it here: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showp...41&postcount=1.

=====

[Grant1pa]

Originally Posted by shahadi

Given a full-scale invasion of the Baltics, “The main Russian objectives would be securing control over the air and blockade the Baltic Sea. Kaliningrad region would be used to blockade the land route through Suwalki, Poland to Vilnius and Riga (my emphasis). Russia would not necessarily need to assault Suwalki itself, but rather secure control over Lithuanian towns of Kybartai, Marijumpole, Kalvarija and Druskinskai. First cities to fall would be Narva, Tartu, Balvi, Kārsava, Rēzekne, Krāslava and Daugavpils. Since Vilnius is close to Belarusian border it would be first Baltic capital to be attacked.”

Source:”Russian Invasion of the Baltics: Nightmare or Reality,” https://latvianhistory.com/2016/07/09/.

Blocking the route up front Suwalki would appear to be a likely objective of Russian planners. And, I would venture to say, a prime objective which must be achieved within the first hours of the conflict. Departing a bit from Grant1pa's scenario, I would envision Russian paratroopers tasked to hold the intersection of A7 and E67 at
Marijumpole until heavy mechanized and armor forces are brought out of the Kaliningrad.

I would not anticipate Belarus sending forces to capture Vilnius, but I could see a joint Russian Belarusian military exercise occurring just prior to the start of hostilities as a ruse to enable Russian forces from inside Belarus to attack the Lithuanian capital.


This is the basis of the scenario Grant1pa authored. You can find it here: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showp...41&postcount=1.

=====

Exactly the way I researched it. I agree with the use of paratroopers as a major element in any Russian incursion. I just went a different direction with the emphasis on NATO's defense from mechanized forces (one of the major concerns of the Baltic governments).

The inclusion of a "southern" axis of attack through Belarus is definitely an option and would be predictable. Kudos Shahadi!

Some further readings for those that are interested:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...uwalki-gap.htm

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/ran...AND_RR1253.pdf

Tom

[Airborne Rifles]

Was thinking about this issue the other day, and an idea for a series of scenarios or a campaign popped into my mind. Here's what I was thinking:

Russia has invaded and occupied the Baltic States and is fortifying their gains. NATO is mobilizing in Poland to both prevent further aggression and to lay the groundwork for a counteroffensive into the Baltics and Kaliningrad. The threat of nuclear escalation has been stymied by unequivocal statements by the US, UK, and France that NATO will respond in kind of Russia crosses that threshold. So now what remains is for NATO to launch their difficult effort to reclaim its member states.

Except there may be another option. The NATO alliance manages to convince a nervous Finland to join the war against Russian aggression. The US, supported by several other NATO members, rapidly deploys a sizable force to Finland in order to launch an offensive towards St. Petersburg. If NATO forces can occupy Russia's second largest city, they will have a powerful bargaining chip to lay on the table to convince Russia to withdraw from the Baltics.

I think this would be a very interesting basis for a series of scenarios, with NATO on the offensive for a change. I might try to tackle this when life slows down. Thoughts?

[wulfir]

Originally Posted by Airborne Rifles

Thoughts?

I would play those scenarios.

[Suhiir]

Balancing campaigns is very difficult if you want to have limited replacements/reinforcements. The designer can't really predict player losses, all you have to work off of is an educated guess. Since you're the one that designed it you know where everything is and when, and where, enemy reinforcements will arrive. It's impossible to test your own campaign and know what a player will experience.

If they take "excessive" losses early on they're screwed, if they don't take many it's a cakewalk. Neither is good.

[wulfir]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Balancing campaigns is very difficult...

I think I've said it before but I'm not a great believer in 'play balance'.

Some players are demons at this game, some are newbies - building a setup that challanges both is impossible.

I prefer to build scenarions/campaigns around larger size player and AI-enemy forces, but adding elements from various OOBs in a fixed core campaign is probably best avoided.

[Oche]

Originally Posted by wulfir

I think I've said it before but I'm not a great believer in 'play balance'.

Some players are demons at this game, some are newbies - building a setup that challanges both is impossible.

I prefer to build scenarions/campaigns around larger size player and AI-enemy forces, but adding elements from various OOBs in a fixed core campaign is probably best avoided.

Exactly, to each its own. If you don't like a scenario/campaign just move along. Also, if you are not even a seasoned player/scenario builder please spare the complaint about force balance or other scenario aspect.

[Imp]

Originally Posted by wulfir

I think I've said it before but I'm not a great believer in 'play balance'.

Some players are demons at this game, some are newbies - building a setup that challanges both is impossible.

I prefer to build scenarions/campaigns around larger size player and AI-enemy forces, but adding elements from various OOBs in a fixed core campaign is probably best avoided.

Just a thought here but a campaign with the majority of the units provided each battle as support units could be intresting. Core could just be a infantry or Mech Company plus perhaps a plattoon of tanks or the heavy weapons company or whatever.
Advantages are designer knows where most of the players force are deployed & can change the size of the battle as they wish by varrying support units as desired.

[shahadi]

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?

[wulfir]

This could be interesting form a scenario making perspective as a possible what-if:



Capturing the Baltic states within a week
According to the two sources, Kremlin forces rehearsed capturing NATO’s “region of vulnerability, according to the Russian view”, namely the three Baltic states. “To realize this, you would have to quickly do the Suwalki gap operation” in order to cut off Poland and NATO reinforcements from Lithuania. This is exactly what Russia did, creating the artificial state of “Veyshnoria” at the exact location of the 40-kilometre land bridge between Poland and Lithuania (carried out on Belarussian territory, however).

At the same time, Russia rehearsed “neutralizing or taking under control air fields and harbours (in the Baltic states), so there are no reinforcements arriving from other NATO states there”. The sources emphasized that, in the case of an emergency, this would, in the first few days, be a purely military operation. “This does not mean that you have to occupy the countries and declare ‘Peoples’ Republics’ or something like that, but that you have to occupy the harbours, airports and so on”.

source:
http://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/b...3658.bild.html