MHO Home   Forum Home   Help   Register   Login
 
 
Welcome to MilitaryHistoryOnline.com.
You are not signed in.
The current time is: 10/17/2017 8:23:04 PM
 (2000-Pres) Current Day Military talk (No Partisan Politics)    
AuthorMessage
BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3296

Curious report re: military comparisons
Posted on: 2/9/2017 1:47:28 PM

Quote:
In 2014, Putin said he could take Kiev in two weeks. In 2015, a Czech general said Russia could take the Baltics in two days. The US and NATO have responded to Russia's rising aggression steadily but slowly, most recently by stationing 80 tanks in Poland.

But according to a presentation made at the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia by Senior International Research Analyst Michael Johnson of the RAND Corporation, Russian tanks outnumber NATO tanks at about 480 to 80.
[Read More]

 80? Okay, those are the U.S. tanks in the brigade at Zagan. Did someone forget to count the tanks in Poland's own army ? How about adding almost 250 Leopard-2 variants to that count ? Okay, Russia can probably deploy more than 480 tanks against Poland if it wanted to -- but still, the Polish armored troops are competent, and the Leopard-2 is an outstanding modern tank. And, one will recall Poland -is- a NATO country, so those Leopards count as "NATO tanks"

 Perhaps I misunderstood the comment in the article somehow.

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

Society's righteous paranoia lows profoundly. -- random wisdom of a computer

kaii
Edinburgh, UK
top 10
E-9 Sergeant Major


Posts: 1884

Re: Curious report re: military comparisons
Posted on: 2/9/2017 2:03:04 PM

Quote:

Quote:
In 2014, Putin said he could take Kiev in two weeks. In 2015, a Czech general said Russia could take the Baltics in two days. The US and NATO have responded to Russia's rising aggression steadily but slowly, most recently by stationing 80 tanks in Poland.

But according to a presentation made at the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia by Senior International Research Analyst Michael Johnson of the RAND Corporation, Russian tanks outnumber NATO tanks at about 480 to 80.
[Read More]

 80? Okay, those are the U.S. tanks in the brigade at Zagan. Did someone forget to count the tanks in Poland's own army ? How about adding almost 250 Leopard-2 variants to that count ? Okay, Russia can probably deploy more than 480 tanks against Poland if it wanted to -- but still, the Polish armored troops are competent, and the Leopard-2 is an outstanding modern tank. And, one will recall Poland -is- a NATO country, so those Leopards count as "NATO tanks"

 Perhaps I misunderstood the comment in the article somehow.

Cheers

BW
--BWilson


I agree Bill, strange way of counting. One should also note that the best defence against Russian tanks isn't necessarily own tanks, but rather AT weapons and helicopters. I see this as a "the US needs to increase our defence budget" article rather than a real analysis if capabilities. The fear mongering about the S-400 partly confirms that. yes, it is a good AA system, but it is not the massive game changer in the air war that analysts for some reason seem to assume.

The Russian forces tend to be over hyped as journalists look at the most modern units and assume the entire army is like that. In reality only a few units are of anywhere close to NATO standard, and the rest are still essentially soviet era type B units with equipment and training not suited to fight a modern enemy. The modernisation programme has all but stopped, and orders for new equipment are being postponed and cancelled. There is talk that the Armata tank will be shelved and that an upgunned T90 version will be introduced instead.
Given the size and training of the Ukrainian army, the Russian army would be hard pressed to capture Kyiv within two weeks now and they certainly would severely struggle to subdue the entire Ukraine if the Ukrainians decided to properly resist. That window of opportunity has closed. Russia could probably overrun the Baltic states, but after the positioning of the NATO trip wire forces I doubt they would realistically try it.
---------------
A fool and his money are soon elected.

kaii
Edinburgh, UK
top 10
E-9 Sergeant Major


Posts: 1884

Re: Curious report re: military comparisons
Posted on: 2/9/2017 10:09:08 PM
Incidentally, the entire Dutch 43rd Mechanised Brigade is also in Poland at the moment for training. The brigade can deploy to Poland with 72 hours notice after a new agreement was signed allowing rapid rail transport through Germany. A company of Dutch will also join the multi national battallion in Lithuania.
---------------
A fool and his money are soon elected.

Lightning
Glasgow, UK
top 20
E-7 Sgt First Class


Posts: 442

Re: Curious report re: military comparisons
Posted on: 2/10/2017 7:20:50 AM
It seems to me that NATO strategy is to deploy forces in the region that would probably not be able to stem the Russian onslaught overall, but could deliver highly visible damaging blows, allowing time for political/economic manouvering or serious military deployment if the Russians go on fighting. I back this strategy; it shows Putin that NATO has drawn the line in the sand, without ratcheting up tensions by full scale deployments of serious manpower and large amounts of kit.

Cheers,

Colin
---------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."

Riaindevoy
Geelong, Australia
top 10
E-9 Sergeant Major


Posts: 1070

Re: Curious report re: military comparisons
Posted on: 2/10/2017 4:47:09 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but given that logistics is the key to military success the deployment of 80 tanks would entail the setting up of a logistics supply chain that would be somewhat tenuous and fragile at first but over time would become more robust and thus capable of handling a much larger deployment. So sending insufficient tanks early and setting up sustainment systems is much better than sending sufficient tanks late because those tanks won't be able to be sustained in the field easily.

It's much cheaper too.
---------------
Vegetarian: the ancient tribal word for the villiage idiot; who was too stupid to hunt, fish and ride!

kaii
Edinburgh, UK
top 10
E-9 Sergeant Major


Posts: 1884

Re: Curious report re: military comparisons
Posted on: 2/10/2017 6:51:37 PM

Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but given that logistics is the key to military success the deployment of 80 tanks would entail the setting up of a logistics supply chain that would be somewhat tenuous and fragile at first but over time would become more robust and thus capable of handling a much larger deployment. So sending insufficient tanks early and setting up sustainment systems is much better than sending sufficient tanks late because those tanks won't be able to be sustained in the field easily.

It's much cheaper too.
--Riaindevoy


I think you are very correct Riain, this is very much about rebuilding the logistical capacity of NATO to field larger forces.

The key weakness of the Soviet Union's armed forces, and to a large extent Russian armed forces today,is the large tooth-to-tail ratio of their forces. So they can field a fairly large amount of equipment but struggle to keep it operationally supplied for more than a week at most before serious mobility issues arise.

For NATO, the idea is always to fight on own ground so there will be supply bases to fall back on - although this wouldnot apply in the Baltic states of course.
---------------
A fool and his money are soon elected.

 (2000-Pres) Current Day Military talk (No Partisan Politics)    
 Forum Ads from Google