Europe under extreme duress

[Griz882]

And yet we're in the midst of recapitalizing our sub force, our DDGs and investing in a whole new class of FFGs. We spend our defense dollars on CVNs because they have adapted well to a variety of missions short of peer conflict, while being the best means of power projection available during those high end fights. It's not an addiction... it is what has worked for us consistently over the last 80 years.

I’ll grant you the continued efforts of the submarine folks (silent service and all) but the rest…come on. The first DDGX won’t feel the kiss of a champagne bottle for another 10 years and I can’t even imagine how long it will take any new amphibs to get on line. You are right to note that the carrier has worked for us consistently over the last 80 years…just as the battleship/dreadnaught worked for us for the previous 80.

Or…as the 1930’s quote goes…”You may hear people say that submarines have done away with the battleship, and that aircraft have annulled the mastery of the sea. That is what our pessimists say. But do you imagine that the clumsy submarine or the fragile aeroplane is really the last word of science?” I’d dare say that the CVN may well find itself far from being the last word of science.

 

[Brett327]

The first DDGX won’t feel the kiss of a champagne bottle for another 10 years

AEGIS IWS flight III and SPY-6 IOC is right around the corner, and is a major jump in DDG weapons system capabilities. That’s the recap I’m referring to. When it comes to fleet defense and theater BMD, we’re pretty addicted to our DDGs too. All of this to say that when people lament our use of CVNs, they may not have a full understanding of just how much we invest in other very capable platforms.

 

[hscs]

I'm sorry, but I don't follow your post. It seems maybe you aren't replying to the thing I'm saying. What I'm saying is this.. several people on here have said that if the US withdraws our troops from Europe, our NATO Allies could not handle a Russian attack by themselves until we got there. I am asking for the reasoning behind that assertion, given Ukraine's success by themselves and the currently impotent state of both the Russian military and economy.

Unanimity does not apply to a response to an attack. For example, If Poland is attacked, they don't need German permission to defend themselves, but Germany (and all the other Allies) are obligated to also declare war on the attacker and help as if they were attacked themselves. This is automatic, and no vote is required. Further, participation in the NATO command structure is voluntary.

Is your point that if Germany and France don't work together then they will fail separately? If so, why do you think that Germany could not do better even without any help than Ukraine has done? Let alone if the UK, France, Norway, etc are also contributing at least something, while the US would surely be wreaking havoc with our Navy and on the Russian east coast?

I was more trying to get at that I think it would be very hard to get the French and Germans to have a unified command structure, and without that, their more advanced equipment is all for naught.

I also believe that changing any sort of force structure in Europe would go thru the long process of unanimous agreement in NATO.

I concur that unanimity is not required in response to an attack, but I am curious how the western portion of NATO would respond if their were an attack on one of the smaller NATO nations that were formerly apart of the Soviet Union. I don't think it may be as clean cut as if we were back in the pre-expansion days.

 

[Mirage]

I was more trying to get at that I think it would be very hard to get the French and Germans to have a unified command structure, and without that, their more advanced equipment is all for naught.

I also believe that changing any sort of force structure in Europe would go thru the long process of unanimous agreement in NATO.

I concur that unanimity is not required in response to an attack, but I am curious how the western portion of NATO would respond if their were an attack on one of the smaller NATO nations that were formerly apart of the Soviet Union. I don't think it may be as clean cut as if we were back in the pre-expansion days.

Ok, so let's assume you're right and they don't have a joint command structure at all and fight independently. Why do you think the combined allied force without a unified command structure would lose to Russian T-52s employed by a military so incompetent they couldnt even make it to Kyiv without running out of supplies, and has failed to take even half of Ukraine despite Ukraine having basically no remaining air force? I'm sorry, but just saying "Because they might lack a unified command structure" is just more hand waiving. If you think logic supports that, then give more explanation.

It's also not even clear why you think that. The last 2 world wars the Allied forces were able to make unified command structures, and aside from NATO, the EU already has a command structure.

Lastly, why would our NATO allies not respond if the Baltics were attacked?

 

[Notanaviator]

Lastly, why would our NATO allies not respond if the Baltics were attacked?

Who do you think has more resolve - the Ukrainians whose homeland was actually invaded, or any of the Europeans being asked to defend the homeland of others.

In the case of Ukraine, I think many Europeans ‘got it’ and we saw probably a more robust response than many thought. And I’d bet if the Russians jumped off in the Baltics, you’d see incremental response from the EU. But don’t get it twisted - there’s a difference between funding and equipping a proxy war and World War III, which is what a bunch of EU militaries throwing down against RF in the Baltics would start to look like.

 

[sevenhelmet]

But don’t get it twisted - there’s a difference between funding and equipping a proxy war and World War III, which is what a bunch of EU militaries throwing down against RF in the Baltics would start to look like.

This is a really important point. regardless of the reality of Russian hardware, keeping this out of perceived “existential threat” territory for Europe is a valuable strategic goal, in my opinion. Proxy war puts guard rails on it and keeps Russia in a quagmire.

On the other hand… cluster munitions? Yikes. What say you, brain trust?

 

[Mirage]

Who do you think has more resolve - the Ukrainians whose homeland was actually invaded, or any of the Europeans being asked to defend the homeland of others.

In the case of Ukraine, I think many Europeans ‘got it’ and we saw probably a more robust response than many thought. And I’d bet if the Russians jumped off in the Baltics, you’d see incremental response from the EU. But don’t get it twisted - there’s a difference between funding and equipping a proxy war and World War III, which is what a bunch of EU militaries throwing down against RF in the Baltics would start to look like.

A couple of points:
1. The whole assertion made by others here is that Russia will not stop unless they are stopped, and it is only us that can stop them. That means the fighting wouldn't be limited to the Baltics, but the Germans would be fighting for ze fatherland and be well motivated.
2. Even if #1 wasn't the case, the Germans wouldn't be fighting Ukrainians, but Russians. So who do you think would be more motivated... Europeans fighting for the soul and future of the continent, or Russians plucked from jail, given obviously inferior equipment, and told to charge?

Regarding EU countries not fighting fully in the Baltics.. the only motivation I can see for them not declaring war on Russia and allowing NATO to dissolve and their own security guarantees to vanish (which is absolutely what would happen, without question), is if they were absolutely convinced they no longer needed NATO security guarantees. The only thing that would make them conclude that, is if Russia were so weak that they no longer felt greater Europe threatened, which would mean the whole basis for your argument that only US troops could stop Russia is outright incorrect. Not to mention, if you really believe Europeans wouldn't fight for Europe, then why should Americans?

Where is the fault in my logic?

 

[nittany03]

On the other hand… cluster munitions? Yikes. What say you, brain trust?

The Russians have already been chucking them downrange into purely civilian targets, so it's not like Ukraine isn't already going to have a massive UXO problem post-war. Plus it's not like they're not going to try to minimize collateral damage in their own country, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

 

[ChuckMK23]

Everything I've read indicates CBU's will provide a substantial edge given the trench situation. I have to think there is a set of ROE that we have given UKR on use (to satisfy UK and Germany political leadership).

The Funker YouTube channel has some very brutal helmet cam and drone footage of infantry engagements - its worth viewing for context.

 

[vxc961]

I think UKR is low on artillery, asking for them, and they’ll be useful. As said, they’re using them on their own territory, so it seems to me that the rest of the Europe clutching their pearls over this is a bit off base. Also, it seems like we want to get rid of them, and this Is an easy way to do so which will cause more good than harm to Ukraine.

 

[nittany03]

It doesn't seem they're going to be useful in the trenches, based on reporting. Just seems that using them in other places will free up other munitions which could be more useful in the trenches.

But I'm not an artilleryman, so what do I know?

 

[nittany03]

Thought of the day:

2007 and 2009 PC gamers: "Russian ultranationalists going to war against the West? Hahahahaha! But Modern Warfare is still a good game series, even with the absurd premise."

2023 PC gamers who were adult-ish in 2007 and 2009:

 

[MIDNJAC]

Thought of the day:

2007 and 2009 PC gamers: "Russian ultranationalists going to war against the West? Hahahahaha! But Modern Warfare is still a good game series, even with the absurd premise."

2023 PC gamers who were adult-ish in 2007 and 2009:

Nerds. Classic prowler reminiscence

 

[Random8145]

It doesn't seem they're going to be useful in the trenches, based on reporting. Just seems that using them in other places will free up other munitions which could be more useful in the trenches.

But I'm not an artilleryman, so what do I know?

The U.S. in WWII had artillery that would explode above ground so as to take out Germans hiding in trenches (German shells were less advanced and went boom upon impacting the ground). So maybe regular modern artillery is still best for such.

Thought of the day:

2007 and 2009 PC gamers: "Russian ultranationalists going to war against the West? Hahahahaha! But Modern Warfare is still a good game series, even with the absurd premise."

2023 PC gamers who were adult-ish in 2007 and 2009:

How do you know PC gamers thought Russia attacking was just a fantasy?

 

[Random8145]

Read an article saying the U.S. working to up 155 mm production to 85,000 a month by 2028 and modernizing the Scranton plant and building new plants. Right now production is about 24,000 a month but the Ukrainians are firing about 6,000 to 8,000 a day, so 180,000 to 240,000 a month. The Russians are firing about 40,000 a day (!)