David A. Shlapak and Michael W. Johnson, War On The Rocks: Outnumbered, Outranged, and Outgunned: How Russia Defeats NATO
When asked two weeks ago in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee whether the Army was “outranged” by any adversary, U.S. Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley said: “Yes … the ones in Europe, really Russia. We don’t like it, we don’t want it, but yes, technically [we are] outranged, outgunned on the ground.”
Given Russia’s aggression in the Ukraine, this is sobering testimony. But is it accurate? Unfortunately, yes: Nearly two years of extensive wargaming and analysis shows that if Russia were to conduct a short-warning attack against the Baltic States, Moscow’s forces could roll to the outskirts of the Estonian capital of Tallinn and the Latvian capital of Riga in 36 to 60 hours. In such a scenario, the United States and its allies would not only be outranged and outgunned, but also outnumbered.
Outnumbered? While the Russian army is a fraction of the size of its Soviet predecessor and is maintained at a level of imperfect readiness, we found that it could — in 10 days or so — generate a force of as many as 27 fully ready battalions (30–50,000 soliders in their maneuver formations, depending on precisely how they were organized) for an attack on the Baltics while maintaining its ongoing coercive campaign against Ukraine.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: A sobering assessment.
9 comments:
A good analysis but the conclusion seems to be from the assumption that NATO has had or could have an advantage in a convential conflict with Russia IN Europe.
You could triple the US defense budget and I'd wager Russia still has the advantage in the Baltic scenario.
Look at Korea; the US RoK forces have a tremendous tech advantage on all levels but would not be able to quench the fire before getting 3rd degree burns.
This is why the Nuclear peace works (between certain states anyway)
Alex the RoK would win but at a heavy price due to Seouls closeness to the DMZ. The same in the Baltics, NATO would beat the Russians but at a high cost. NATO is far better than the Russians in everything from equipment, training to doctrine. It's not even close. Russia is good at talking itself up but after just basic research you would see it for the façade it really is. It just does not have the money, manpower, equipment and doctrine to win.
Outnumbered, outgunned, and outranged. They forgot one, out thought. Which unfortunately, in NATO's case is not hard to do.
How's that James? Ukraine has held them to a stand still with inferior equipment. The Chechens pummeled them, even the Georgians did well against them. What makes you think the Russians beat a well trained and equipped NATO army. I bet the Russians wouldn't even get 10 yards into any of the Baltic countries without stalling and getting pummeled by their armies.
You talk as stupid as you look Stephen. All your comments are only filled with your ridicolous hatred of russians and your praise of the fascists in Ukraine. Have you even served in the army?
The Russians beat the Chechens (even if it was a hard go for the post Soviet army at first) and the Georgians. Further to that, they beat them before the reform and modernization programs had been implemented. It got so bad for the Georgians that there was nothing stopping the Russians marching on Pristina after stupid Saakashvili pulled the stunt on S. Ossetia thinking te U.S./NATO had his back (they didn't). It took a visit from Sarkozy to convince Mr. Stupid that the gig was up and the cavalry was most certainly not on the way.
As for the Ukraine, the Ukrops aren't holding anyone back. In fact, it's Moscow that has held the free republics' forces from taking even more territory from the Ukrops by forcing them to sign on to Minsk 2. If the Russian army went in, like the newly stoop up 1st Guards Tank Army for instance, the Ukrops wouldn't last two days in the east or otherwise.
Want more proof Russia could put a would put a hurtin on NATO?
Under the auspices of ISAF, the alliance spent a decade trying to beat a bunch of Afghan guys in flip flops carrying all manner of old gear. They faiked to beat a Taliban that didn't have nearly the help the mujahedeen had against the Soviets during the eighties.
Another reason the Russians could woop NATO (and NATO knows it)?
They haven't tried invading her.
Past all the above, I'm always leary of "assessments" of an "enemy's" seemingly overwhelming strength from "our" (Canadians are no better) generals. All they do is reinforce a false narrative (Russia the enemy aggressor) and line pockets.
Tblisi not Pristina.
Post a Comment