Scenario: Russian Invasion of the Baltic States

[wulfir]

Originally Posted by Aeraaa

How are the Baltics in terms of terrain? I thought that in addition to all other problems they have, their terrain is not very defensible as well. Is anyone more familiar with this topic?

The Germans gave the Soviets a few black eyes at Narwa and later the Blue Mountains (hills really) in 1944. There were still sizable German forces in Kurland on May 8, 1945.

I think a Russian invasion of the Baltic states would be difficult against even modest NATO resistance. The current Russian leadership can probably plan ahead and move at a quicker pace than most democratic countries but against a unified Europe they can't IMHO win a conventional conflict that drags out. The European economy is larger.

I'm not convinced of the overall quality of Russian brigades vs western opponents. IIRC conscription was reduced significantly in order to try and combat the bulling of new troops.

IIRC Russia also used to have a hard time finding recruits to fill up all their numerous "elite" units (incl Ministry of Interior competing for bodies) as the health situation in Russia is not that great.

Assuming that Russia can probably not field everything they have against the Baltic states but need to keep their guard up in the north, the far east, the Caucasus etc I'm far from convinced that a defence of the Baltics is hopeless...

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by wulfir

The Germans gave the Soviets a few black eyes at Narwa and later the Blue Mountains (hills really) in 1944. There were still sizable German forces in Kurland on May 8, 1945.

I think a Russian invasion of the Baltic states would be difficult against even modest NATO resistance. The current Russian leadership can probably plan ahead and move at a quicker pace than most democratic countries but against a unified Europe they can't IMHO win a conventional conflict that drags out. The European economy is larger.

I'm not convinced of the overall quality of Russian brigades vs western opponents. IIRC conscription was reduced significantly in order to try and combat the bulling of new troops.

IIRC Russia also used to have a hard time finding recruits to fill up all their numerous "elite" units (incl Ministry of Interior competing for bodies) as the health situation in Russia is not that great.

Assuming that Russia can probably not field everything they have against the Baltic states but need to keep their guard up in the north, the far east, the Caucasus etc I'm far from convinced that a defence of the Baltics is hopeless...

The thing that worries military professionals at the moment is the great strength of Russian artillery, it can call down a lot of very heavy and destructive fire, relatively quickly. If advanced Russian SAM systems work and protect that artillery from Allied aircraft, NATO would have a big problem. Artillery has, of course, long been the best arm of the Russian Army.

Some NATO forces, Especially the US and UK, have a lot of recent experience of COIN, but very little of conventional warfare. How useful some of the smaller NATO forces would be, and how good their troops might be, also very much remains to be seen.

My own view is that even the best multi national force (especially if that force includes several different languages) will have disadvantages against a peer/near peer unified enemy.

Also I don't see how a modern first world Armoured conflict in a geographically limited area lasts long enough for the economy to matter much once it kicks off...

[scorpio_rocks]

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

Some NATO forces, Especially the US and UK, have a lot of recent experience of COIN, but very little of conventional warfare. How useful some of the smaller NATO forces would be, and how good their troops might be, also very much remains to be seen.

Hmmm... You are aware that ALL NATO countries deployed troops in Afghanistan?

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by scorpio_rocks

Hmmm... You are aware that ALL NATO countries deployed troops in Afghanistan?

Yep, many of them not very many men and with limited orders -from their Governments/high command- to actually do very much, Canada being an honourable exception.

[Aeraaa]

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

Yep, many of them not very many men and with limited orders -from their Governments/high command- to actually do very much, Canada being an honourable exception.

True that. For example, we deployed a mixed engineer/medical company that didn't leave Kabul at all and stayed most of the time at the international airport. So our contribution was pretty much symbolic (although, despite our government's best efforts to keep the troops out of firefights, some soldiers were engaged by the attacking Talibans in spring of 2012 when the attacked Kabul, fortuntely with no casualties from our side). Others did deploy troops in combat, but with the mindset of not having casualties at all, essentially making operations with them difficult. Anyway, the willingness in the coaltion wasn't particularly high, which is Ironduke's point I assume and frankly there is no evidence that NATO countries that aren't directly threatened (like the Baltic States, maybe Poland as well) will show much eagerness to fight with Russia.

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by Aeraaa

True that. For example, we deployed a mixed engineer/medical company that didn't leave Kabul at all and stayed most of the time at the international airport. So our contribution was pretty much symbolic (although, despite our government's best efforts to keep the troops out of firefights, some soldiers were engaged by the attacking Talibans in spring of 2012 when the attacked Kabul, fortuntely with no casualties from our side). Others did deploy troops in combat, but with the mindset of not having casualties at all, essentially making operations with them difficult. Anyway, the willingness in the coaltion wasn't particularly high, which is Ironduke's point I assume and frankly there is no evidence that NATO countries that aren't directly threatened (like the Baltic States, maybe Poland as well) will show much eagerness to fight with Russia.

Very much my point.

I believe the German troops, for example, did not do much in the way of night patrols (kind of important in a military campaign). The troops from Canada fought hard. The relatively few troops from Australia and New Zealand fought hard (Check out the losses). Also bear in mind, as Suhiir pointed out on another thread, most nations have some good, elite units, how good the rest of that nations armed forces are depends...

Allied casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan (These first are dead).
http://icasualties.org/

[wulfir]

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

The thing that worries military professionals at the moment is the great strength of Russian artillery, it can call down a lot of very heavy and destructive fire, relatively quickly. If advanced Russian SAM systems work and protect that artillery from Allied aircraft, NATO would have a big problem. Artillery has, of course, long been the best arm of the Russian Army.

The Georgia war 2008 was a strategic Russian victory but did expose embarrassing Russian shortcomings in especially command and control, intelligence, comms, electronic warfare etc
The war lasted for only five days and they had problems with basic equipment as well as the troops understanding their actual mission prompting the ongoing reformation of the Russian armed forces - aiming at being finished by 2020, but how far have they come? How will they fare against a more qualified opponent like NATO?

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

My own view is that even the best multi national force (especially if that force includes several different languages) will have disadvantages against a peer/near peer unified enemy.

Are NATO nations of today not sufficiently coordinated that poses a problem. However there are over 100 languages spoken in the Russian federation. Supposedly the best soldier material is now increasingly to be found in non-Russian minorities where the birthrate is also higher.

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

Also I don't see how a modern first world Armoured conflict in a geographically limited area lasts long enough for the economy to matter much once it kicks off...

Assuming there is a will within NATO and the European Union to actually fight. Economy will tell should the conflict not be ended quickly. If Russia overruns most of the Baltic but NATO/EU does not yield and start to build up forces in Poland, maybe Scandinavia the odds will likely not be in Moscow's favour.

[Aeraaa]

Originally Posted by wulfir

I'm not convinced of the overall quality of Russian brigades vs western opponents. IIRC conscription was reduced significantly in order to try and combat the bulling of new troops.

IIRC Russia also used to have a hard time finding recruits to fill up all their numerous "elite" units (incl Ministry of Interior competing for bodies) as the health situation in Russia is not that great.

The decisive units of a Russian brigade are staffed by good quality personnel (the battalion tactical groups). Check this source:

http://mwi.usma.edu/russian-ukrainia...s-battlefield/

At some point it says:

As the Russian–Ukrainian War illustrates, the battalion tactical group has proven to be a uniquely responsive and effective tool for conducting siege warfare. The formation’s versatility and success led Gen. Valery Gerasimov, chief of the Russian General Staff, to announce in September 2016 the Russian army would increase the number of battalion tactical groups from sixty-six to 125 by 2018. Additionally, professional soldiers will staff the formation, whereas conscripts will be assigned to rear-echelon formations—which will likely yield more effective battalion tactical groups. As a result, the US Army can expect to find Russian battalion tactical group continuing to emerge in areas in which Russia employs ground forces to achieve political objectives.

And I agree with the general concept. I do not think that Russia will fight like the stereotypical Soviet army (which was also misunderstood by many in the west) and there is a very good reason for that: it does not have the resources the former USSR had. Modern Russia has to fight much more smart and carefully if she wants to have any reasonable chance of success. And the first NATO forces in the area are undermanned, undergunned and ill trained for conventional or even the new form of hybrid warfare.

[IronDuke99]

The most recent stuff on Russia I saw was a talk from a former Royal Marine at RUSI, he had been observing Russian forces in Ukraine, and made much of both their very strong and flexible artillery, signals and electronic intelligence, etc. He made a particular point of how difficult it was to mass forces for a counter attack without getting a massive artillery stonk on top of you.

To my mind if there is a fight over the Baltics and NATO loses, they either quit and cut their losses or it goes nuclear and we are all likely to lose.

[wulfir]

Originally Posted by Aeraaa

Modern Russia has to fight much more smart and carefully if she wants to have any reasonable chance of success.

Old habits die hard.

Historically the Soviet/Russian art of warfare has been more amazing in theory than in practice. Maybe they have reached their 2020 goals etc ahead of time but I doubt it.