Please note: This is a technical question only - I don't think this is the place for getting into political debates or diatribes.
Gentlemen
With the aparent escalation in tension between Russia and the UK, I was pondering what would happen if NATO invaded Russia. Famously both Napoleon and that Austrian chappie were both somewhat stymied by the size of Russia and their unpreparedness for a severe winter.
Modern armies have the benefits of helicopters, full mechanisation and massive cargo carrying aircraft. I assume the roads in Russia have improved a bit since 1945. However, armies are now comparatively smaller, but demands on the supply tails have increased. Would an M1 be capable of fully operating in harsh Russian winter conditons? What about rifles and those oh-so-technical artillery pieces? Is the Russian army as formidable as RT makes out? Is it more 1941 than 1945? Would the Russian people take to the woods with Molotov cocktails, or take to the streets with vodka bottles? What would the Ukraine do? Would those other ex-Soviet states support Russia or join in on the NATO side? Has global warming taken the edge off General Winter?
So, could NATO successfully invade Russia?
Again, please keep your answers to the military, and leave the political to Twitter.
Thank you.
Quote from: fsn on 16 March 2018, 08:04:22 AM
Please note: This is a technical question only - I don't think this is the place for getting into political debates or diatribes.
So, could NATO successfully invade Russia?
Again, please keep your answers to the military, and leave the political to Twitter.
Thank you.
My gut feeling is absolutely NO, Nobby.
I'm sure if something like that kicked off. (And please, NOT in my lifetime !) We'd find most of the world a radioactive wasteland !
Cheers - Phil
Didn't think you were in to Fantasy, Nobby. :P
have you read this?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/War-Russia-urgent-warning-immediate/dp/1473632250/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1521195561&sr=1-1&keywords=war+with+russia
Terrible book but couldn't put it down.
I just read the synopsis and got depressed. :(
Quote from: Westmarcher on 16 March 2018, 09:26:48 AM
Didn't think you were in to Fantasy, Nobby. :P
My seconds will call upon your seconds, Sirrah.
It's about technology. Would a 2018 soldier be better able to withstand the rigours a such a harsh campaign? I know the Royal Marines do all that Arctic Training in Norway, but even they would need a bit of support to reach Moscow.
The Poles got away with it once, and without modern tech.
Hah, that book is amusing, in all the wrong ways. He describes Cameron & co. as social democrats obsessed with shovelling money into wealth redistribution to the poor :D After that i kind of found anything in it to be very reliable !
Well. The Russians acknowledged in the 80's they'd made the wrong choice in army and economic structure and would get roundly beaten by NATO in a stand up conventional fight, so refocused on "end of the world" weapons. We know they've tried to redress that more recently, but without a lot of success. Their new "Wunder Weapons" appear to be a tad duff. See recent comments on Armata re:not building any (translating to "we tested them and they don;t work, and we can't afford them anyway"), which seems to have translated to the rest of their kit and kaboodle.
So could NATO beat the Russian Army? I suspect yes (assuming the reports that the Bundeswehr is barely 30% operational are things that can be rectified or are actually true at all and not hyperbole).
I also suspect it will then be just like Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria/Libya. At best there'd be a massive chaotic power vacuum and everywhere from the Polish border to the Chinese border goes up in fratricidal flames, or NATO would end up bogged down in a continuing multi fraction "peace keeping" and "nation building" disaster that's geographically impossible to resolve.
Mind, nearly two thirds of Russians appear to be deeply unsatisfied with Vlad and Co., so it might be a joyous freeing of the masses with "our" tanks shooting peace and democracy across the land, welcomed with open arms and flower bouquets as the whole rotten house falls down when we kick in the door. We all know how that hopeful thinking goes, though.
Interesting question, fsn. Could you first define "successfully"? If it's simply get over the border in Winter - maybe, if it is to accomplish anything lasting more than two weeks, unlikely. Have you imagined China's stance on this?
Quote from: d_Guy on 16 March 2018, 01:21:12 PM
Interesting question, fsn. Could you first define "successfully"? If it's simply get over the border in Winter - maybe, if it is to accomplish anything lasting more than two weeks, unlikely. Have you imagined China's stance on this?
Don't worry, it'll be an easy in-out, maximum profit and then everything will be fiiiiine. Just like last time.
China's stance? "Why don't you and him fight? We'll just hoover up everything else in the world and then foreclose on your loans whilst you're too busy to do anything more than collapse" is my best guess :D
The reality would probably be China's knocking politely on doors on both sides and saying "What'll you give us for our support?".
Pixie - your post came in while I was posting - I think your take on the response of Russian population is maybe the deciding factor. Need to rely on the various intelligence services of the West - nothing could go wrong with that. :D
Likely Kitty is right on China - although in my mind the PRC could apply much more non-military pressure on US than Russia.
It is REALLY hard to separate out the political. From a technology standpoint I'm still going with everything other than a few specially trained units (with proper TO&E) breaks down within two weeks in that environment.
I'm enjoying reading the comments in this debate
Take care
Andy
I really think that succes would depend on "who supports who".
I also believe that the hardest part will be keeping it occupied if you defeat it. It is a vast piece of land!
For a successful invasion you need air support, for air support you need superiority over Russian territory. Can't see that happening, Russia has pretty effective anti-air capability on it's own territory it would take a terrible toll in pilots and aircraft. Someone would have to use tactical nukes.
I don't think weather conditions would have much effect on modern warfare. Lines aren't static, everything is so much more mobile, helicopter brigades etc.
QuoteI don't think weather conditions would have much effect on modern warfare. Lines aren't static, everything is so much more mobile, helicopter brigades etc.
That's what the Russians acknowledged in the early 80's (even if said generals ended up counting trees) - the "train everyone up in simplest way and bung them into as many tanks as possible that work ok-ish" approach was not going to work - at point of contact they'd get mullered, which wasn't an issue as they'd be able to switch on an operational level to different axis and anywhere NATO won tactically would just fix those units to be screened, locked down & avoided, then left to wither on the vine as in '43-45. Except now that wouldn't work, as NATO could effectively read their mail, destroy their operational command, and nip up and down the battle space 24 hours a day in all directions including the vertical, and they simply couldn't cope with that - so they felt they'd get a situation like '41 - balkanised units all over flailing madly away, operational reserves thrown away into the wrong places at the wrong times even if they hadn't been pummelled into uselessness, and a command structure that was dead or running.
Hence the shift of focus to nuclear arms, followed by the panic over Star Wars - they simply couldn't afford to match that, and it kicked the skids out from under them. Couldn't win a conventional fight, and they were overawed into thinking they wouldn't have a working nuclear option :D
I suspect if push came to it we'd see a military win on the conventional battle but that would drag on just down to space and logistics (barring a massive expansion of NATO militaries to even greater than WW2 levels of manning and kit in a virtual instant timeframe!), and then you'd end up with a massive Iraq like situation where no one wins very, very messily for a long time. And then the Siberian rump becomes a Chinese protectorate and we get anew cold war along the Urals to Baku and across the Middle East and into Africa except "we" have a massive festering insurgency across European Russia to occupy and fight at the same time.
I expect that both sides would use up men & material at such a rate that there'd soon be a stalemate in conventional military terms.
I do like a fine handkerchief. I find the lacy corners very charming - the Russians? I thought we were fighting the French.
=D> ;D Anyhoo .......
Quote from: fsn on 16 March 2018, 08:04:22 AM
Would an M1 be capable of fully operating in harsh Russian winter conditons?
Wheeeeeeeee ... !!!
That's a wicket Mario Kart mod. Must be running on an emulator that allows for very high resolution textures.
Interesting debate, and I know that the focus of NATO planning is coming back to the European scenario and away from the side theatres.
As someone says, define success but also define war goals: a general invasion/conquest is a non-starter as it always was - nobody is prepared for THAT sort of mass war anymore and as a society I don't think we would or could take it. A limited, 'bite and hold' campaign, perhaps a 21st Century 'Crimean' campaign? A possibility - and the attitude and deployments of Former Soviet Republic's like the Ukraine will have a bearing.
A key factor is not the no of what the Russians have of anything but also quality. I remember the stories we believed about the implacable Russian steamroller waiting to crush us in the 70s and 80s before 1989. We weren't told the missiles would probably rattle apart on their launch pads, the Soviet Navy couldn't put most of their ships to see and the multi-ethnic conscript Soviet Red Army was not trusted by its leaders. I think the outcome outlined by Gen sir John Hackett in his book 'world war 3' was the most likely for that time. It happened anyway, but without the need for war.
As with every major conflict we'd start off fighting the last-war-but-one until we found out what made this one different. I suspect that heavy armour might be the first casualty, and we'd find helicopters were more important than we had realised. We'd still need boots on the ground, which only the US can provide but even they don't have enough manpower to overwhelm and control such vast paces.
But Russia's GDP is less than Italy - how long could the country afford a war? Would China bankroll them for influence? It might go nuclear sooner rather than later unfortunately. How could asymmetric warfare influence any outcome? Should we look to the Boer War as a potential model? Would we see enhanced 'terrorist/guerilla' wars outside combat areas in home states and in back areas?
Let's hope it never happens.
Great discussion peace and though provoking
Quote from: urbancohort on 18 March 2018, 05:12:42 PM
the Soviet Navy couldn't put most of their ships to see
Illiterate fool. Sea
I would blame spell check
I wonder what the modern day EW capabilities of the respective sides would be, even without going into the infrastructure level cyber warfare capabilities? Weren't the cold war era warpac forces quite good at it?
Quote from: urbancohort on 18 March 2018, 05:12:42 PM
Great discussion peace and though provoking
And another one. honestly, in 1980, Brother Kelly would have sent this article back for a rewrite covered in red ink. Piece, of course....