Europe under extreme duress

[Spekkio]

The Russians haven't employed their "A" game because their "A" game is the invasion force ready to seize the Suwarki Gap. Similar to when the U.S. fought in Vietnam with draftees while using volunteer forces to fortify Europe against a potential Soviet invasion, Russia needs to be mindful of NATO on its front door in the north.

It's a fool's errand to think that Russia is incapable of waging war because of Ukraine. Ukraine is an error of arrogance by Putin - it inherently belongs to Russia, and therefore they don't need to allocate undue resources to claiming it. And remember, whatever blunders they're making in 3rd generation maneuver warfare in Ukraine -- China's proficiency and quality of equipment are orders of magnitude worse than that.

It's a very American viewpoint that the strength of a military is measured by technological advantage, and not by how many 18-39 year old men you can throw into the meat grinder before the general public gets disgusted with the conflict. That's what allowed Russia to win WWII - the fact that German Blitzkrieg could inflict unprecedented casualties, but Russia would not quit. And after the cookie-cutter tactics didn't make the enemy crumble, Germany had no idea what to do.

Remember that we just lost a 20 year conflict to people who fuck goats for funsies and don't have electricity. Fat lot of good all our technological toys did in Afghanistan.

To that end, Russia has a very high tolerance for death that we do not have. No, Russia will never have the best jets, tanks, or whatever. But if Putin gets mad enough, he'll muster an infantry force that is 10x larger than what is currently being fielded. And it will win.

Anyway, I think we want to prevent a full annexation of Ukraine into Russia as a matter of national security strategy. If that's the end-state, a truce that gives the Donbas to Putin sooner than later is desirable. Otherwise, Russia will grind Ukraine into submission over the long-haul. Third COA is we commit 250,000 troops to repel Russia and recapture the Donbas...annnnnnd we're not gonna do that.

As a sidenote, we're delusional if we think a potential war with China begins and ends with a naval conflict. Ground forces will breach, and we have to be ready to commit at least 1,000,000 soldiers or Taiwan will fall, since they can reasonably muster over 5,000,000 additional soldiers to their current 2,000,000 AD strength in under 12 months. But I reiterate that this battle only happens in the minds of Raytheon and Lockheed-Martin executives.

 

[hscs]

The Russians haven't employed their "A" game because their "A" game is the invasion force ready to seize the Suwarki Gap. Similar to when the U.S. fought in Vietnam with draftees while using volunteer forces to fortify Europe against a potential Soviet invasion, Russia needs to be mindful of NATO on its front door in the north.

What units are they holding in reserve for this A game? Do they have a special bit of tactics they are holding in reserve? when did Putin start announcing draft numbers?

I’ll invoke SNL on this one.

 

[Random8145]

The Russians haven't employed their "A" game because their "A" game is the invasion force ready to seize the Suwarki Gap. Similar to when the U.S. fought in Vietnam with draftees while using volunteer forces to fortify Europe against a potential Soviet invasion, Russia needs to be mindful of NATO on its front door in the north.

It's a fool's errand to think that Russia is incapable of waging war because of Ukraine. Ukraine is an error of arrogance by Putin - it inherently belongs to Russia, and therefore they don't need to allocate undue resources to claiming it. And remember, whatever blunders they're making in 3rd generation maneuver warfare in Ukraine -- China's proficiency and quality of equipment are orders of magnitude worse than that.

What makes you so sure China's proficiency and equipment are worse? If history has taught us anything, it is that you NEVER underestimate your opponent. The Chinese have problems, but they might well surprise everyone in a future conflict. Also, are you saying in your view that Ukraine inherently belongs to Russia, or did you mean in Putin's view?

It's a very American viewpoint that the strength of a military is measured by technological advantage, and not by how many 18-39 year old men you can throw into the meat grinder before the general public gets disgusted with the conflict. That's what allowed Russia to win WWII - the fact that German Blitzkrieg could inflict unprecedented casualties, but Russia would not quit. And after the cookie-cutter tactics didn't make the enemy crumble, Germany had no idea what to do.

I don't think the American view is that military strength is determined strictly by technological advantage, the American view is that numbers absolutely do count, but that a small-er military that has a technological advantage can defeat a large-er but technologically more primitive one. Also I think you are oversimplifying what allowed Russia to win. Russia did not defeat Germany by just having lots of numbers to throw at them, nor did Germany per se have the numerical disadvantage that many assume. Remember, it was not Germany vs the Soviet Union, it was the German-led Axis, which consisted of German troops along with one million Finnish troops, then Italian, Hungarian, Romanian, and Czechoslovakian troops and equipment. The Soviets did achieve a solid numerical superiority as the Axis started to suffer severe losses, but even then, the Soviets never had enough numbers to just throw at the Germans up and down the entire front. What allowed the Soviets to ultimately prevail was a combination of large numbers themselves, a superior doctrine that made up for their tactical inferiority to the Germans, absolute mastery of deception tactics combined with German arrogance, which allowed the Soviets to repeatedly deceive the Germans and move large forces right in front of them without their knowing (this gave the Germans the impression that the Soviets had unlimited numbers to throw at them), and technological parity and superiority themselves.

Soviet technological superiority came from the Soviets themselves and then of course Lend-Lease. The Soviet T-34 tanks were very much a match for the German tanks, and then the Soviets had the KV-1 and IS-2 heavy tanks which were very much a match for the German heavy tanks (Tiger and Panther). Thanks to Lend-Lease, the Soviet Army became far more motorized then the German army, which was primarily horse-drawn and almost completely horse-drawn by 1944 due to fuel shortages, whereas the Soviets had the thousands of Studebaker trucks (initially, the Soviets had been very horse-drawn as well). Soviet aircraft also proved a match for German fighters, and the Soviets had the Ilyushin Il-2 "Sturmovik" ground attack planes that wreaked havoc with the Germans. Thanks to Lend-Lease, the Soviet aircraft operated with a higher-grade of aviation fuel than the German planes. Lend-Lease also provided the Soviets with a special extreme cold weather lubricant that was produced in New Jersey, that allowed them to operate their vehicles, weapons, and equipment much easier than the Germans could theirs in the extreme cold.

Remember that we just lost a 20 year conflict to people who fuck goats for funsies and don't have electricity. Fat lot of good all our technological toys did in Afghanistan.

We "lost" because the goal was to try and turn Afghanistan into a Middle Eastern version of Norway, not engage in conventional combined arms warfare and pound them into submission. And even if the latter had been the goal, doing that in Afghanistan is a very different fight compared to the Russians.

To that end, Russia has a very high tolerance for death that we do not have. No, Russia will never have the best jets, tanks, or whatever. But if Putin gets mad enough, he'll muster an infantry force that is 10x larger than what is currently being fielded. And it will win.

Will he have the logistics to feed and supply all of these troops?

Anyway, I think we want to prevent a full annexation of Ukraine into Russia as a matter of national security strategy. If that's the end-state, a truce that gives the Donbas to Putin sooner than later is desirable. Otherwise, Russia will grind Ukraine into submission over the long-haul. Third COA is we commit 250,000 troops to repel Russia and recapture the Donbas...annnnnnd we're not gonna do that.

As a sidenote, we're delusional if we think a potential war with China begins and ends with a naval conflict. Ground forces will breach, and we have to be ready to commit at least 1,000,000 soldiers or Taiwan will fall, since they can reasonably muster over 5,000,000 additional soldiers to their current 2,000,000 AD strength in under 12 months. But I reiterate that this battle only happens in the minds of Raytheon and Lockheed-Martin executives.

Or we could seek to grind Russia down if we supply the Ukrainians properly. Also I think you are contradicting yourself here: you say the Chinese are far more inept than the Russians, but then you say that ground forces absolutely will breach Taiwan...? China invading Taiwan will constitute one of the most complex naval operations ever conducted, and one the Chinese don't have much if any experience with. So you are saying this extremely inept military with shoddy equipment will execute such an operation masterfully and land right on Taiwan's shores...? Of course, the Chinese might do that, and surprise everybody, I don't know, but then they will be pretty professional as a military if they do.

 

[Griz882]

Anyway, I think we want to prevent a full annexation of Ukraine into Russia as a matter of national security strategy. If that's the end-state, a truce that gives the Donbas to Putin sooner than later is desirable. Otherwise, Russia will grind Ukraine into submission over the long-haul. Third COA is we commit 250,000 troops to repel Russia and recapture the Donbas...annnnnnd we're not gonna do that.

This is positively pointless. This is, essentially, a return to the status quo ante-bellum and Putin simply can’t accept that. It would signal to Moscow elites that Putin wasted billions upon billions in blood and treasure to “win” what he already had. And oh, by the way, he now gets to deal with an Ukraine that is, militarily, his near equal and close friends with his worst enemies. He won’t even bother looking at such a deal.
Moreover, there is zero evidence that Russia has the capability to grind Ukraine into submission. The arrival of NK troops is a sign that Putin has tapped his poor, drink, and country population to the end. He can’t draft city boys, they’ll riot, so he is stuck with foreign “volunteers.”

 

[Spekkio]

What makes you so sure China's proficiency and equipment are worse? If history has taught us anything, it is that you NEVER underestimate your opponent. The Chinese have problems, but they might well surprise everyone in a future conflict. Also, are you saying in your view that Ukraine inherently belongs to Russia, or did you mean in Putin's view?

I don't think the American view is that military strength is determined strictly by technological advantage, the American view is that numbers absolutely do count, but that a small-er military that has a technological advantage can defeat a large-er but technologically more primitive one. Also I think you are oversimplifying what allowed Russia to win. Russia did not defeat Germany by just having lots of numbers to throw at them, nor did Germany per se have the numerical disadvantage that many assume. Remember, it was not Germany vs the Soviet Union, it was the German-led Axis, which consisted of German troops along with one million Finnish troops, then Italian, Hungarian, Romanian, and Czechoslovakian troops and equipment. The Soviets did achieve a solid numerical superiority as the Axis started to suffer severe losses, but even then, the Soviets never had enough numbers to just throw at the Germans up and down the entire front. What allowed the Soviets to ultimately prevail was a combination of large numbers themselves, a superior doctrine that made up for their tactical inferiority to the Germans, absolute mastery of deception tactics combined with German arrogance, which allowed the Soviets to repeatedly deceive the Germans and move large forces right in front of them without their knowing (this gave the Germans the impression that the Soviets had unlimited numbers to throw at them), and technological parity and superiority themselves.

Soviet technological superiority came from the Soviets themselves and then of course Lend-Lease. The Soviet T-34 tanks were very much a match for the German tanks, and then the Soviets had the KV-1 and IS-2 heavy tanks which were very much a match for the German heavy tanks (Tiger and Panther). Thanks to Lend-Lease, the Soviet Army became far more motorized then the German army, which was primarily horse-drawn and almost completely horse-drawn by 1944 due to fuel shortages, whereas the Soviets had the thousands of Studebaker trucks (initially, the Soviets had been very horse-drawn as well). Soviet aircraft also proved a match for German fighters, and the Soviets had the Ilyushin Il-2 "Sturmovik" ground attack planes that wreaked havoc with the Germans. Thanks to Lend-Lease, the Soviet aircraft operated with a higher-grade of aviation fuel than the German planes. Lend-Lease also provided the Soviets with a special extreme cold weather lubricant that was produced in New Jersey, that allowed them to operate their vehicles, weapons, and equipment much easier than the Germans could theirs in the extreme cold.


We "lost" because the goal was to try and turn Afghanistan into a Middle Eastern version of Norway, not engage in conventional combined arms warfare and pound them into submission. And even if the latter had been the goal, doing that in Afghanistan is a very different fight compared to the Russians.

Will he have the logistics to feed and supply all of these troops?

Or we could seek to grind Russia down if we supply the Ukrainians properly. Also I think you are contradicting yourself here: you say the Chinese are far more inept than the Russians, but then you say that ground forces absolutely will breach Taiwan...? China invading Taiwan will constitute one of the most complex naval operations ever conducted, and one the Chinese don't have much if any experience with. So you are saying this extremely inept military with shoddy equipment will execute such an operation masterfully and land right on Taiwan's shores...? Of course, the Chinese might do that, and surprise everybody, I don't know, but then they will be pretty professional as a military if they do.

Transporting 1,000,000 troops over ~150 miles is not "one of the most complex naval operations ever conducted." It's an operation that could have been completed 700 years ago. Just stop believing the DoD hype here. Preventing a Chinese invasion is like being a member of the Wehrmacht trying to prevent the allied landings of France - you're not going to stop it at sea unless Taiwan lets us pre-position over 1,000,000 ground troops and robust land-based defenses. They won't.

Russia cannot be ground down. They do not appreciate human life the way that we do.

 

[JTS11]

Transporting 1,000,000 troops over ~150 miles is not "one of the most complex naval operations ever conducted." It's an operation that could have been completed 700 years ago

Where are you getting this stuff from? Seriously. That's approximately 50 divisions.

 

[Spekkio]

Where are you getting this stuff from? Seriously. That's approximately 50 divisions.

What year did mankind figure out how to build vessels capable of navigating a 150 mile strait?

 

[Griz882]

Transporting 1,000,000 troops over ~150 miles is not "one of the most complex naval operations ever conducted." It's an operation that could have been completed 700 years ago. Just stop believing the DoD hype here. Preventing a Chinese invasion is like being a member of the Wehrmacht trying to prevent the allied landings of France - you're not going to stop it at sea unless Taiwan lets us pre-position over 1,000,000 ground troops. They won't.

Russia cannot be ground down. They do not appreciate human life the way that we do.

Just stop believing the early ‘80’s Russian “superiority” hype. Russia has a shrinking population, watched hundreds of thousands of citizens flee the country rather than be drafted, and watched its best rated “guards” army shattered.

Also, why would we need 1,000,000 troops in Taiwan? We stopped a 700,000 man Chinese assault in 1951 with fewer than 175,000 troops costing them losses at a 12:1 ratio - and no - they couldn’t replace those men easily.

 

[Griz882]

What year did mankind figure out how to build vessels capable of navigating a 150 mile strait?

Dude….the largest seaborne invasion in global history crossed only 90 miles of water and carried a mere 156,000 combat troops. That took over 685 ships. The Chinese navy has 355 ships. It would take China a month to move 1,000,000 men only if they didn’t lose a single ship or a single soldier in combat. Highly unlikely.

 

[Hair Warrior]

Lots to unpack here.

Russia isn’t holding back some “A game” army or air force. Even their navy has lost ships to Ukraine. Russia is certainly holding back its SSBNs, road mobile ICBMs, far eastern forces, and other strategic assets - obviously since the news media hasn’t reported on these assets being employed in Ukraine - but Russia does want to win Ukraine decisively and quickly.

W/r/t the Suwalki gap topic, it’s a nonstarter for Russia. Russia simply wants to keep Kaliningrad intact, and molest non-NATO periphery neighbors Ukraine/ Georgia/ Moldova/ etc. just enough to prevent them from ever joining NATO. Putin is not so naive that he thinks he can invade Poland while still totally bogged down in the Ukraine SMO. It’s not part of the plan and Putin doesn’t need to possess the Suwalki to resupply Kaliningrad.

Somehow a China-Taiwan topic snuck into this thread, but I think Taiwan is basically a foregone conclusion. I predict the PRC will takeover ROC before the year 2099 - it’s just a matter of time. The CCP is simply too powerful and ambitious not to try; it’s literally part of the CCP talking points and not some hidden agenda. Now, whether they do it by force or other means, that’s the plot twist.

 

[cfam]

Dude….the largest seaborne invasion in global history crossed only 90 miles of water and carried a mere 156,000 combat troops. That took over 685 ships. The Chinese navy has 355 ships. It would take China a month to move 1,000,000 men only if they didn’t lose a single ship or a single soldier in combat. Highly unlikely.

Not to mention that the crossing for D-Day was essentially unopposed. That definitely wouldn’t be the case with the Taiwan Strait.

 

[Random8145]

Transporting 1,000,000 troops over ~150 miles is not "one of the most complex naval operations ever conducted." It's an operation that could have been completed 700 years ago. Just stop believing the DoD hype here. Preventing a Chinese invasion is like being a member of the Wehrmacht trying to prevent the allied landings of France - you're not going to stop it at sea unless Taiwan lets us pre-position over 1,000,000 ground troops and robust land-based defenses. They won't.

Russia cannot be ground down. They do not appreciate human life the way that we do.

The Wehrmacht by the time of D-Day had been heavily ground down and even then, a massive deception operation had to be conducted by the Allies in order to deceive the Germans on just where the landings would occur. The build up to such an invasion would be spotted by the United States and Taiwan a good deal before it occurred, and as cfam points out, the D-Day crossing was mostly unopposed. The Chinese would be dealing with the Taiwanese navy and air power. D-Day would have likely be unfathomable if German air and naval power could have wreaked havoc with it.

What year did mankind figure out how to build vessels capable of navigating a 150 mile strait?

I am no expert, but conducting a sea invasion is not so simple as just build ships that can cross the water and put troops on them.

 

[Random8145]

Somehow a China-Taiwan topic snuck into this thread, but I think Taiwan is basically a foregone conclusion. I predict the PRC will takeover ROC before the year 2099 - it’s just a matter of time. The CCP is simply too powerful and ambitious not to try; it’s literally part of the CCP talking points and not some hidden agenda. Now, whether they do it by force or other means, that’s the plot twist.

People also thought that it was a foregone conclusion that the Soviet Union would fall to Germany and that the Cold War would go nuclear.

 

[JTS11]

What year did mankind figure out how to build vessels capable of navigating a 150 mile strait?

I guess I'm perplexed at how you cired a 700 year window about how moving 1 million troops and the requisite equipment across 160 NMs is not a complex naval operation. Like from 1324 AD, can you cite some kind of analog?

You can't, bc it's a ridiculous assertion.

 

[MIDNJAC]

The Russians haven't employed their "A" game because their "A" game is the invasion force ready to seize the Suwarki Gap. Similar to when the U.S. fought in Vietnam with draftees while using volunteer forces to fortify Europe against a potential Soviet invasion, Russia needs to be mindful of NATO on its front door in the north.

It's a fool's errand to think that Russia is incapable of waging hwar because of Ukraine. Ukraine is an error of arrogance by Putin - it inherently belongs to Russia, and therefore they don't need to allocate undue resources to claiming it. And remember, whatever blunders they're making in 3rd generation maneuver warfare in Ukraine -- China's proficiency and quality of equipment are orders of magnitude worse than that.

It's a very American viewpoint that the strength of a military is measured by technological advantage, and not by how many 18-39 year old men you can throw into the meat grinder before the general public gets disgusted with the conflict. That's what allowed Russia to win WWII - the fact that German Blitzkrieg could inflict unprecedented casualties, but Russia would not quit. And after the cookie-cutter tactics didn't make the enemy crumble, Germany had no idea what to do.

Remember that we just lost a 20 year conflict to people who fuck goats for funsies and don't have electricity. Fat lot of good all our technological toys did in Afghanistan.

To that end, Russia has a very high tolerance for death that we do not have. No, Russia will never have the best jets, tanks, or whatever. But if Putin gets mad enough, he'll muster an infantry force that is 10x larger than what is currently being fielded. And it will win.

Anyway, I think we want to prevent a full annexation of Ukraine into Russia as a matter of national security strategy. If that's the end-state, a truce that gives the Donbas to Putin sooner than later is desirable. Otherwise, Russia will grind Ukraine into submission over the long-haul. Third COA is we commit 250,000 troops to repel Russia and recapture the Donbas...annnnnnd we're not gonna do that.

As a sidenote, we're delusional if we think a potential war with China begins and ends with a naval conflict. Ground forces will breach, and we have to be ready to commit at least 1,000,000 soldiers or Taiwan will fall, since they can reasonably muster over 5,000,000 additional soldiers to their current 2,000,000 AD strength in under 12 months. But I reiterate that this battle only happens in the minds of Raytheon and Lockheed-Martin executives.

Time for bed Tucker