Hard Power and Soft Power

[JTS11]

His words, not mine.

You're on my ignore list now

 

[Randy Daytona]

The loss numbers come from Russia.

Let’s be clear…even Russians are chained to the fundamentals of logistics and administration. A force of 1.5 million does not mean a force of 1.5 combat arms types. With a tooth-to-tail ratio of 1:5 that means Russia is actually getting a front line force of some 300,000 to 500,000. As a former infantryman I am quite confident that an American mechanized division is equal to about 1.5 Russian divisions while our armored divisions are about 2 Russian divisions. Add to that you are seriously under counting the U.S. force structure where we have 8 additional divisions, 6 independent armored brigades, and 2 independent cavalry regiments. Oh…let’s not forget the 3 German divisions, 2 British divisions, 5 Polish divisions, 2 French divisions, and a host of independent brigades and maneuver units from smaller NATO allies. In basic numbers we have 2,000,000 available military members and Russia has 2,000,000. But we get to roll in approximately 1.5 million NATO allies. Just for fun…let’s roll in America’s 5800 plus military helicopters compared to Russia’s 1700.

The only concern from Russia is their nuclear force.

Griz, The article above gives an indication of how hollow the European forces in terms of equipment and ammunition.

As for US forces, I doubt if we have the same amount of sealift available. The last exercise of Reforger was in 1993.

 

[Spekkio]

But we are expected to assume that Russia is a master of war when their finest airborne Guards armored units were checked by a bunch of vodka swilling Ukrainian farmers with Mavic drones and left-over mortar shells?

Russia is on the eve of achieving their political and military objectives in Ukraine. Master of war? No. But sufficient enough to achieve its aims.

 

[Griz882]

Yes, on paper if we were to commit all of our available forces to the Russian theater we could match their numbers.

The key problem here is the concurrent conflict with PLAN.

Come on dude…we would need to commit about 1/3 of our aviation force to clear Russian skies. It is abundantly clear that you are not keeping abreast of what’s going on in Ukraine. Their entire air power model is to stand off and launch (nearly aimlessly) from the edge of the weapon envelope. They won’t have that luxury against a better prepared opponent.

 

[Spekkio]

Come on dude…we would need to commit about 1/3 of our aviation force to clear Russian skies. It is abundantly clear that you are not keeping abreast of what’s going on in Ukraine. Their entire air power model is to stand off and launch (nearly aimlessly) from the edge of the weapon envelope. They won’t have that luxury against a better prepared opponent.

The luftwaffe was combat ineffective in 1943 and the U.S. still lost 400,000 troops fighting Nazi Germany.

Again, I have no doubt that we will be far more lethal than the adversary. But the adversary is also willing to absorb significantly more losses than we are.

 

[Hotdogs]

His words, not mine.

I think you know what he was getting at.

 

[Griz882]

Griz, The article above gives an indication of how hollow the European forces in terms of equipment and ammunition.

As for US forces, I doubt if we have the same amount of sealift available. The last exercise of Reforger was in 1993.

I read the article, and it is jarring, but it is not a reflection of all of NATO. As of two years ago we had the maritime sealift capability to move one armored division a week to Europe. Now, I get it, there are those who still believe in the 1980’s almighty Russian, super-human, never miss army/navy team but actual facts dismiss that tripe. Russia’s navy is second world on its best day (excluding boomers) and their army has zero chance of advancing across all of Europe in six years much less six week.

The Ukraine war has laid bare Russia’s military prowess, especially in terms of ground and air conflict and their population is shrinking. All Russia has is a nuclear trigger.

 

[Spekkio]

I think you know what he was getting at.

Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't. That was a phrase that you used, and he seemed to get irrationally angry that I parroted it.

But okay.

 

[Griz882]

The luftwaffe was combat ineffective in 1943 and the U.S. still lost 400,000 troops fighting Nazi Germany.

Again, I have no doubt that we will be far more lethal than the adversary. But the adversary is also willing to absorb significantly more losses than we are.

You have an issue with math…Russia can’t absorb those losses. We could literally sit still and pound their front lines and bases for a single year and reduce their military aged population to 1/2. Sorry, unless Russian mothers can figure out a way to birth 18 year old men Russia is off the table as a serious conventional worry. Now to facts, not fantasy: Approximately 141,000 American ground troops were killed in Europe and the Mediterranean. An additional 42,500 were killed in the skies and at sea. That’s 182,500 killed.

Your air war analogy is pointless beyond contention. I am starting to question your basic knowledge of WWII as well.

 

[Spekkio]

You have an issue with math…they can’t absorb those losses. We could literally pound their front lines and bases for a single year and reduce their military population to 1/2.

I've yet to sit in a briefing where they say this is the likely outcome.

 

[Griz882]

I've yet to sit in a briefing where they say this is the likely outcome.

I have yet to sit in a briefing where anything you posit is even remotely considered.

 

[Spekkio]

The global 2 front war and how to manage forces across multiple cocoms is a fairly popular topic.

The punch line is that the outcome is anything but certain victory against Russia and our NATO allies currently don't meet force shaping requirements to ensure victory.

Which permeates into what you see on the news about US pressuring Europe to spend more on military stuff.

Although this administration seems content to just declare that we're not going to bother.

 

[Randy Daytona]

The global 2 front war and how to manage forces across multiple cocoms is a fairly popular topic.

The punch line is that the outcome is anything but certain victory against Russia and our NATO allies currently don't meet force shaping requirements to ensure victory.

Which permeates into what you see on the news about US pressuring Europe to spend more on military stuff.

Although this administration seems content to just declare that we're not going to bother.

Looks like ramping up artillery production is more difficult than expected.

Exclusive: Russia producing three times more artillery shells than US and Europe for Ukraine | CNN Politics

Russia appears on track to produce nearly three times more artillery munitions than the US and Europe, a key advantage ahead of what is expected to be another Russian offensive in Ukraine later this year.

amp.cnn.com

 

[Hotdogs]

The global 2 front war and how to manage forces across multiple cocoms is a fairly popular topic.

The punch line is that the outcome is anything but certain victory against Russia and our NATO allies currently don't meet force shaping requirements to ensure victory.

Which permeates into what you see on the news about US pressuring Europe to spend more on military stuff.

Although this administration seems content to just declare that we're not going to bother.

Unless I’m mistaken, The 2 MRC policy hasn’t been a thing since 2018.

How to read the 2018 National Defense Strategy

Yesterday, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis released the 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS).

www.brookings.edu

 

[Spekkio]

It's coming back after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, to the extent that it ever fully went away.