|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
An open military invasion of the Baltics was never likely. The strategic importance relative to the costs are so ridiculously unfavorable that it wouldn't happen. I'm sure you could counter that "we thought the same thing about Crimea" but that would just be based on a naive and incorrect perception of the relative importance of each. I'm pretty sure the Baltic states themselves are well aware that they aren't under threat of being invaded.
The problem with air warfare against a neighboring nation-state with advanced military capabilities is actually a rather trivial-seeming one. It's not even the substantial AA capability that Russia could deploy against them or the fact that any conflict which could escalate into nuclear war would be severely noped by far too many Europeans worried for their own survival, unless it became truly existential. It's just that it's really easy to bomb airfields, carriers, and the like, making it hard to even deploy those aircraft in any substantial way.
Though given that there is no such thing as "no nukes war" the reality is that political and economic coercion is going to be 80% of the game, and most military involvement will be indirect. If it comes to that, of course.
Also, Russian military spending is far more efficient than European military spending. There is no useful way to have a direct comparison but you can't just think that more money means more success. Russian technology is much cheaper.
|
dude there were wargames made by yours truly the RAND Corporation: In a series of wargames conducted between summer 2014 and spring 2015, the RAND Corporation examined the shape and probable outcome of a near-term Russian invasion of the Baltic states. The games’ findings are unambiguous: As currently postured, NATO cannot successfully defend the territory of its most exposed members. Across multiple games using a wide range of expert participants in and out of uniform playing both sides, the longest it has taken Russian forces to reach the outskirts of the Estonian and/or Latvian capitals of Tallinn and Riga, respectively, is 60 hours. the shortest was 36 hours; that's one day and a half and the Baltics would be gone. it takes you longer to get out of bed in the morning.
and it goes on saying that it would take three whole days to take Eastern Europe so how about it Acrofales?, can the frenchies provide us with hundreds of jets in 3 days(and pilots for them)?.
also mind you, i never said that russians will actually attack you, just that EU(its individual countries) will panic and flee ever which way it makes them feel safe.
|
On November 11 2016 17:29 Noizhende wrote:
i don't think Trump's Nato stance is realistic anyway, US foreign policy has always been about defending themselves as far as possible away from their own country, it's about global military dominance, and Nato is the most important tool for that.
It would be very bad for US economic interests to question Nato, i mean, if he's crazy he might do what he said, but i don't think he's crazy, he just played the idiot to collect the votes of stupid people for him. Although, who knows... *shrug*
His NATO stance wasn't leave it was 'don't defend countries that don't pay their dues' (in the dues of 2% of GDP into defense)... so essentially rather than leaving NATO, he's saying there are other countries the US should effectively kick out of NATO. (as in it will say it has no NATO responsibilities to them)
|
Germany says time for African 'Marshall Plan'
Germany urged other developed countries on Friday to support a plan it is finalising to bolster the economies of Africa, create jobs and slow the flow of migrants from the continent to Europe.
Chancellor Angela Merkel and her officials, anxious to stop growing numbers of migrants risking their lives crossing the Mediterranean Sea, are pushing for increased public and private investment in Africa.
Development Minister Gerd Mueller said Germany would in coming weeks release details of what he called a new "Marshall Plan with Africa" - drawing a direct parallel with the huge U.S. investment programme that kick-started the ravaged German economy after World War Two.
"We have to invest in these countries and give people perspectives for the future," he told a news conference.
"If the youth of Africa can't find work or a future in their own countries, it won't be hundreds of thousands, but millions that make their way to Europe."
The International Organization for Migration last week said nearly 160,000 people had crossed the Mediterranean from Africa to Italy this year, while 4,220 had died trying.
Mueller noted that in addition to the migrants already looking to come to Europe, there were about 20 million displaced people in Africa.
He said these issues needed to be recognised by the international community, and Africa should have representation on the U.N. Security Council.
Mueller said his plan was aimed at developing joint solutions with African countries, with a big focus on programmes for youth, education and training and on strengthening economies and the rule of law.
Merkel raised similar issues during a visit to Africa last month, and during a meeting of the G20 industrialised countries in China.
Mueller said a significant share of his ministry's proposed budget increase of over 1 billion euros for 2017 would be earmarked for projects in Africa.
Germany this week pledged a 61-million-euro ($67 million) hike in funding for U.N. relief operations in Africa.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-africa-idUSKBN1361KN
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
To give you a bit of perspective that is simplistic but still better than raw military spending, here is a military hardware comparison of Russia, the US (10x spending), and the UK (0.85x spending), from the Telegraph.
+ Show Spoiler +
While on the naval/air side the US has Russia outgunned, on the land-based side it's not quite so certain. This also understates some of Russia's other advantages (cyber warfare, intelligence apparatus, AA capability). Russia's naval capabilities are certainly quite behind the US (10x spending, it does that), and it will take Russia a fairly decent amount of time to catch up (new carriers are expected to be made around 2035-2040), but in a land-based war (like what you would have in a theoretical invasion of Europe) you would run into trouble. And we're talking about the US here, rather than France plus Germany like you suggested. And France has always been quite cautious about committing itself to an anti-Russian agenda (since 2009 less so, but I expect they will ultimately move back from an Atlanticist outlook in the future) so the unity involved there would be disputable. And as you can see, even a particularly naval-focused nation like the UK has trouble keeping up with Russia on their most favorable front, with an equal budget.
Of course, a further story is technology. On that front, the advantages are mixed. A lot of both sides have weaponry upwards of 30 years old, but both sides also have a lot of pretty new stuff being deployed. US naval technology is mostly the best (Russia has some rather impressive feats in submarine tech, but the US mostly wins this one) but on land-based warfare this is less clear. The Russian land AA is probably the best, with tanks it's hard to tell, and on artillery there is stuff like this experimental MLRS.
+ Show Spoiler +
In terms of land-sea conflicts, carriers would be much more vulnerable than they are against countries that have nothing to attack them with. Even in Iran, a substantial military power but one that can't hold a candle to one like Russia, the US expects to lose 1-2 carriers under realistic military scenarios. And that's without something like the S-300 (or S-400) which the US did a lot under Bush to convince Russia not to sell to Iran.
So what's the point of all this? Just to say that, if it did come to a large-scale (conventional no-nukes) conflict between a European coalition that didn't include the US, and a coalition of Russia and its most willing allies, it would not look like a relatively simple European deflection of evil Russian aggression. It would look more like WWIII. West European leaders are rightly scared of being dragged into a war with Russia, and that's even before they really would sit down and consider to what extent they would even want to be dragged into a war like that. And when you do that, besides the UK the willingness of many nations to side against Russia in a conflict like that would be very questionable. Most would prefer to just sit that one out.
|
What strikes me the most is the weakness of the UK army. Holy shit.
I'll let the german fight, they're better than us.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
France is slightly better (while spending a little less) but ultimately that's more a testament to how cost-efficient Russian technology is than a statement on how bad the UK is. The US is the only country that can afford its own overpriced technology.
|
On November 12 2016 01:35 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +Germany says time for African 'Marshall Plan'
Germany urged other developed countries on Friday to support a plan it is finalising to bolster the economies of Africa, create jobs and slow the flow of migrants from the continent to Europe.
Chancellor Angela Merkel and her officials, anxious to stop growing numbers of migrants risking their lives crossing the Mediterranean Sea, are pushing for increased public and private investment in Africa.
Development Minister Gerd Mueller said Germany would in coming weeks release details of what he called a new "Marshall Plan with Africa" - drawing a direct parallel with the huge U.S. investment programme that kick-started the ravaged German economy after World War Two.
"We have to invest in these countries and give people perspectives for the future," he told a news conference.
"If the youth of Africa can't find work or a future in their own countries, it won't be hundreds of thousands, but millions that make their way to Europe."
The International Organization for Migration last week said nearly 160,000 people had crossed the Mediterranean from Africa to Italy this year, while 4,220 had died trying.
Mueller noted that in addition to the migrants already looking to come to Europe, there were about 20 million displaced people in Africa.
He said these issues needed to be recognised by the international community, and Africa should have representation on the U.N. Security Council.
Mueller said his plan was aimed at developing joint solutions with African countries, with a big focus on programmes for youth, education and training and on strengthening economies and the rule of law.
Merkel raised similar issues during a visit to Africa last month, and during a meeting of the G20 industrialised countries in China.
Mueller said a significant share of his ministry's proposed budget increase of over 1 billion euros for 2017 would be earmarked for projects in Africa.
Germany this week pledged a 61-million-euro ($67 million) hike in funding for U.N. relief operations in Africa. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-africa-idUSKBN1361KN
I agree with the general idea of europe trying to improve the situation in africa but at the same time the high corruption and violence and general political instability are a huge turn off. I feel like money spend in africa will be a waste if it is just given to african nations / politicians / organizations directly.
On the other hand europe cant just go there and "buy" countries. I personally do not know how a plan like this could be implemented effectively.
|
On November 11 2016 23:53 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 23:47 WhiteDog wrote:On November 11 2016 23:06 LegalLord wrote:
If there's anything American military aircraft isn't, it's cost-efficient. Rafales are no better but Eurofighters are pretty good on that front. So are MiG and Su for that matter, but Russia would never sell anything better than "export grade" to those countries so producing local is the better option. Because they're too expensive right ? Because I've heard they're ok from a technological standpoint. Kind of. It's because they aren't worth what they cost. Say that pilots are a flat cost of $10 million a pop; I think that is a reasonable estimate, and pilot skills are certainly not inelastic. If you have $400 million, would you rather use it on one top-of-the-line US craft like the F-22 or JSF, or 3-10 slightly worse craft like current/previous model Eurofighter, MiG, or Su craft? In realistic military operations, a lot of the time strength in numbers outdoes a slight technological advantage. More airplanes means more missions, and there is plenty of precedent for the best aircraft in the world getting owned by being outnumbered by slightly less advanced airplanes. Of course, in modern military operations it can seem ubiquitous because the enemies are usually peasants who aren't very good with the airplanes that they actually do have. Such is asymmetric warfare.
Can I get some more info on the modern precedents of the best aircraft in the world getting owned by being outnumbered?
Most of what I know about fighter planes came from a 1997 Mac game called F/A-18 Hornet where you flew missions over endless tan terrain and bombed shitty geometric shapes on the ground in Iraq.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 12 2016 02:12 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 23:53 LegalLord wrote:On November 11 2016 23:47 WhiteDog wrote:On November 11 2016 23:06 LegalLord wrote:
If there's anything American military aircraft isn't, it's cost-efficient. Rafales are no better but Eurofighters are pretty good on that front. So are MiG and Su for that matter, but Russia would never sell anything better than "export grade" to those countries so producing local is the better option. Because they're too expensive right ? Because I've heard they're ok from a technological standpoint. Kind of. It's because they aren't worth what they cost. Say that pilots are a flat cost of $10 million a pop; I think that is a reasonable estimate, and pilot skills are certainly not inelastic. If you have $400 million, would you rather use it on one top-of-the-line US craft like the F-22 or JSF, or 3-10 slightly worse craft like current/previous model Eurofighter, MiG, or Su craft? In realistic military operations, a lot of the time strength in numbers outdoes a slight technological advantage. More airplanes means more missions, and there is plenty of precedent for the best aircraft in the world getting owned by being outnumbered by slightly less advanced airplanes. Of course, in modern military operations it can seem ubiquitous because the enemies are usually peasants who aren't very good with the airplanes that they actually do have. Such is asymmetric warfare. Can I get some more info on the modern precedents of the best aircraft in the world getting owned by being outnumbered? Most of what I know about fighter planes came from a 1997 Mac game called F/A-18 Hornet where you flew missions over endless tan terrain and bombed shitty geometric shapes on the ground in Iraq.
No, because that hasn't happened in way too long. Almost all air conflicts are highly asymmetric, being something like Israel or the US fighting with the most modern airplanes and highly trained pilots against poorly trained MidEast pilots with 40-year-old "export grade" Soviet technology that they bought ages ago and didn't upgrade. The last real conventional war of any scale would be WWII, in which there are plenty of good examples. There were a fair few conflicts where German fighters (which were, by all means, among the most advanced) got owned by being severely outnumbered.
For a more modern example, try pitting something like six MiG-29's (most upgraded version) against one F-22, or like 60 vs 10. In terms of program cost that would be a fair ratio (per-unit cost is lower than that for F-22 but they produced very few so the R&D-per-unit costs are substantial relative to the per-unit cost). The F-22 is more advanced but not as much as it would need to be to be favored in a situation that lopsided by numbers. And besides that, dogfighting doesn't really happen much anymore, and more aircraft lets you complete more missions.
If there's one thing US technology isn't, it's cost-efficient. US aircraft are horrendously overpriced.
|
On November 12 2016 00:48 xM(Z wrote:dude there were wargames made by yours truly the RAND Corporation: Show nested quote +In a series of wargames conducted between summer 2014 and spring 2015, the RAND Corporation examined the shape and probable outcome of a near-term Russian invasion of the Baltic states. The games’ findings are unambiguous: As currently postured, NATO cannot successfully defend the territory of its most exposed members. Across multiple games using a wide range of expert participants in and out of uniform playing both sides, the longest it has taken Russian forces to reach the outskirts of the Estonian and/or Latvian capitals of Tallinn and Riga, respectively, is 60 hours. the shortest was 36 hours; that's one day and a half and the Baltics would be gone. it takes you longer to get out of bed in the morning. and it goes on saying that it would take three whole days to take Eastern Europe so how about it Acrofales?, can the frenchies provide us with hundreds of jets in 3 days(and pilots for them)?. also mind you, i never said that russians will actually attack you, just that EU(its individual countries) will panic and flee ever which way it makes them feel safe.
I still don't understand you. If the Russians don't instantly invade the Baltics, then there is no reason to scramble to build hundreds of Rafales in 3 days. There IS no imminent attack on Europe, so the EU countries will not panic and flee. However, they will overnight invest in more military. Anger and the feeling of betrayal will probably mean they won't be happy to buy that from the US industry. And while it would take a while to ramp up, the EU has all the knowhow it needs to produce top grade military equipment. In the meantime, I expect the Russians, more than invading, would be very happy to sell stuff instead and give their economy a much needed boost.
|
On November 12 2016 01:47 WhiteDog wrote:
What strikes me the most is the weakness of the UK army. Holy shit.
I'll let the german fight, they're better than us.
Yeah seriously, wtf UK??? I guess it's because they completely redesigned their army for asymmetric warfare (read: bombing third world countries) while Russian army is still focused on conventional. Either way it's still shocking how weak their numbers look.
I hope French numbers don't look that bad.
|
On November 12 2016 01:47 WhiteDog wrote:
What strikes me the most is the weakness of the UK army. Holy shit.
I'll let the german fight, they're better than us.
Not so sure about that, but De Gaulle was apparently right, you can't trust the Anglo-Saxons. Maybe all this stuff will lead the EU to get its shit together.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 12 2016 03:06 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 01:47 WhiteDog wrote:
What strikes me the most is the weakness of the UK army. Holy shit.
I'll let the german fight, they're better than us. Yeah seriously, wtf UK??? I guess it's because they completely redesigned their army for asymmetric warfare (read: bombing third world countries) while Russian army is still focused on conventional. Either way it's still shocking how weak their numbers look. I hope French numbers don't look that bad.
France is slightly better. Not by much. Germany is worse (but they have the capability to be the best), on par with Poland and Italy, though out of the three Italy has the best military because they have two carriers and therefore some modicum of force projection. None of the other countries in Europe have particularly relevant military strength. Mostly they've decided to scale back their war games and take a backseat role to military conflict in the world. And given how opposed many people are to the idea of a European army (IMO, for good reason) I really don't see that changing in the near future. A European empire probably isn't in the cards.
|
On November 12 2016 03:06 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 01:47 WhiteDog wrote:
What strikes me the most is the weakness of the UK army. Holy shit.
I'll let the german fight, they're better than us. Yeah seriously, wtf UK??? I guess it's because they completely redesigned their army for asymmetric warfare (read: bombing third world countries) while Russian army is still focused on conventional. Either way it's still shocking how weak their numbers look. I hope French numbers don't look that bad.
Russia has always been pretty much like China a continental power, therefore focusing on heavily ground army.
i'm quite surprised they have that many submarines, but i would like to know what type it is
UK and France always had numerous land overseas and need to rely more on being able to project forces and dispatch them, which is quite hard when you have not the budget for it
for instance out of the 60 000+ soldiers France has, half of it is overseas
|
On November 12 2016 03:04 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 00:48 xM(Z wrote:dude there were wargames made by yours truly the RAND Corporation: In a series of wargames conducted between summer 2014 and spring 2015, the RAND Corporation examined the shape and probable outcome of a near-term Russian invasion of the Baltic states. The games’ findings are unambiguous: As currently postured, NATO cannot successfully defend the territory of its most exposed members. Across multiple games using a wide range of expert participants in and out of uniform playing both sides, the longest it has taken Russian forces to reach the outskirts of the Estonian and/or Latvian capitals of Tallinn and Riga, respectively, is 60 hours. the shortest was 36 hours; that's one day and a half and the Baltics would be gone. it takes you longer to get out of bed in the morning. and it goes on saying that it would take three whole days to take Eastern Europe so how about it Acrofales?, can the frenchies provide us with hundreds of jets in 3 days(and pilots for them)?. also mind you, i never said that russians will actually attack you, just that EU(its individual countries) will panic and flee ever which way it makes them feel safe. I still don't understand you. If the Russians don't instantly invade the Baltics, then there is no reason to scramble to build hundreds of Rafales in 3 days. There IS no imminent attack on Europe, so the EU countries will not panic and flee. However, they will overnight invest in more military. Anger and the feeling of betrayal will probably mean they won't be happy to buy that from the US industry. And while it would take a while to ramp up, the EU has all the knowhow it needs to produce top grade military equipment. In the meantime, I expect the Russians, more than invading, would be very happy to sell stuff instead and give their economy a much needed boost. come on man, this is like beating a dead horse now.
you panic at the thought of an invasion(it's happening right now in EU) not at the actual fact.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 12 2016 03:57 Makro wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 03:06 Sent. wrote:On November 12 2016 01:47 WhiteDog wrote:
What strikes me the most is the weakness of the UK army. Holy shit.
I'll let the german fight, they're better than us. Yeah seriously, wtf UK??? I guess it's because they completely redesigned their army for asymmetric warfare (read: bombing third world countries) while Russian army is still focused on conventional. Either way it's still shocking how weak their numbers look. I hope French numbers don't look that bad. Russia has always been pretty much like China a continental power, therefore focusing on heavily ground army. i'm quite surprised they have that many submarines, but i would like to know what type it isUK and France always had numerous land overseas and need to rely more on being able to project forces and dispatch them, which is quite hard when you have not the budget for it for instance out of the 60 000+ soldiers France has, half of it is overseas
In one of the few cases, the US wiki page on this is actually pretty good. It's mostly older technology (1980ish), partially modernized, but about 1/4 is stuff commissioned since 2010. More in progress since Russia has yet to fully rebuild its navy.
|
I checked the French numbers and while they do look better than British they're still very low (e.g. only ~423 tanks). From my perspective NATO without the US looks useless because even if Western Europe wanted to help us in case of Russian agression it doesn't have the means to do so. Obviously French and British armies have different goals than ours so I'm not trying to "blame" them for anything.
On November 12 2016 03:57 Makro wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 03:06 Sent. wrote:On November 12 2016 01:47 WhiteDog wrote:
What strikes me the most is the weakness of the UK army. Holy shit.
I'll let the german fight, they're better than us. Yeah seriously, wtf UK??? I guess it's because they completely redesigned their army for asymmetric warfare (read: bombing third world countries) while Russian army is still focused on conventional. Either way it's still shocking how weak their numbers look. I hope French numbers don't look that bad. Russia has always been pretty much like China a continental power, therefore focusing on heavily ground army. i'm quite surprised they have that many submarines, but i would like to know what type it is UK and France always had numerous land overseas and need to rely more on being able to project forces and dispatch them, which is quite hard when you have not the budget for it for instance out of the 60 000+ soldiers France has, half of it is overseas
It makes sense to have that many submarines when you can't and don't need to compete with the American navy. World War 2 Germany was like that too.
|
numbers of tanks is really a matter of perspective in case of countries like UK and France because you don't focus on having a large conventional ground army like Russia, and you can have the number of tanks you want, if you can't project them where you want it's quite useless
about russian's submarines indeed, it makes sense
|
I'm aware and see nothing wrong with it not mattering to you but it was still surprising to see that the third strongest NATO member has less tanks (altough much better in quality) than Poland.
About Baltic States: I don't think anyone even considers defending them from day 1. It's more like "You can take Riga in 2 days but if you do that we'll take Moscow in one year". If I was in charge of some Baltic country I wouldn't even try to prepare defenses against Russian army. Some small force capable of dealing with "separatists" like those in Eastern Ukraine should be enough. I guess they could try to be like Finland and invest heavily into artillery and things like that but they'd still get destroyed in like 2 weeks at best while losing thousands of people in the process. Better just surrender and hope they aren't staying for too long.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3MHzjmP.png)
