Perhaps Naval War chose the wrong geographical area for the current popular focus :P

[ikalugin]

I try to compromise, however I do tend to engage in lengthy discussions. So if you would be so kind, as to expand your points I would be glad do discuss those in civilized and sensible manner.

The training issues that you have refered to were indeed within 90s and the earlier 00s due to many reasons. Including the lack of fuel and money to do so. However in recent times those issues were negated and this is likely to remain so in the future. Also the training I refer to is winter training, which we get atleast 3 months every year, due to our geographical position and in all units. Some units have specialist arctic/mountain training and those are either highly mobile (airborne) or are in theater (arctic), and thus are easier to deploy to northern Norway on short notice and are a sizable force, which is also fully mechanized, has integral artillery and anti air elements.

From finansial stand point we have comparable sized budgets (58 vs 60 bill I believe or so), but we also have conscript force which is much cheaper in terms of pay. We also retain large reserve forces, which are even cheaper to maintain.

Do you know the difference between meanings of term "doctrine" within western and ex soviet vocabularies? I suggest you read "Red Banner", for general reference on the matter of strategy and doctrine. We also no longer use "deep battle", but rather "non linear warfare", but noone apparently cares to study it.

Are you familiar with 2020 armaments program?

Those troops are not in theater (northern Norway), suffer force cuts and are from either neutral or war tired nations. Provided we use likely scenarios of NATO member aggression vs Russia (or action seen as such by us) it is likely that a lot of members would either not participate (France, Germany) or would be far away (USA, UK) to offer immidiate assistance.

This is not to mention the whole nuclear dimension to the matter.

It allows for excellent training in cold weather conditions for absolute majority of our troops. UK needs to use other geographical locations to even give its troops a feel of what cold climate really is, thus decreasing efficiency of training and increasing costs. Hence we have same level of training in cold weather conditions than royal marines, and have more such trained units around. This not to mention specialist troops.
Thus size issue is completely negated by the on theater forces (stationed in Kola peninsular or Leningrad area).
Now about equipment - we have better, vityaz type multi terrain vehicles, for the arctic brigades. Also all of our forces are completely mechanized (have APC or IFV type vehicles and in some cases tanks), have integral artillery support, have integral anti air support. What do RM have in comparison? Thus equipment issue is also negated even pre rearmament.

Overall I doubt capability of NATO states to fight offensive and surprise campaign in the arctic region (as we have no offensive objectives there) due to political factors, lack of forces in theater and so on.
On the other hand Far East is far more interesting, with more and combat ready forces in theater, better political will to fight wars (China is not war tired at all) and more overall players.

 

[ikalugin]

In my next post I would clarify current ground forces that would be capable of participating on short notice in such conflict.
p.s. I would be glad if you can do the NATO side of things, with various states, with estimated times when said units would be available, assuming a surprise conflict by both sides.

p.s. the way I understand it Norwegians have 2 mechanized and 1 tank battalion in their whole armed forces (but it is in theater, combat ready) as well as 2 light infantry battalions (one in the area, one can get their within 24 hours).

Also there is some amount of militia troops (light infantry).

Overall it appears to be a rather light force, but militia elements do create some uncertainty.

 

[ikalugin]

So far I count
Airborne forces.
- 76th Air Assault division (near by, can be in the area of action within 24 hours if railroads are used)
- 98th, 106th Airborne divisions (can be in the area of action within 48 hours if railroads are used)
- 7th Air Assault (Alpine) division (can be in the area of action within 72 hours if railroads are used)

Note - all those units assume transportation by land (railroad). However we have airlift capacity to deploy at-least 1 regiment on their BMD vehicles and all of its integral support within one sortie. This means that times given are conservative, as those units can be airlifted with Kola peninsular and we expect an expansion of our airlift capacity in the future)

regular forces in st Petersburg or Murmansk areas (would be in combat area within 24 hours).
- 138th 25th MRBr

Naval Infantry forces in Baltic or Northern areas.
- 7th MRR (in Baltic area, needs 24 hours to reach the combat zone)
- 336th Naval Infantry Brigade (in Baltic area, needs 24 hours to reach the combat zone)
- 79th MRBr (in Baltic area, needs 24 hours to reach the combat zone)
- 61st Naval Infantry Regiment (in the area, can be committed to action straight away)

Arctic brigade (in theater)
- 200th MRBr (Arctic).

I can further expand those, add spec ops units, add supporting (artillery, rocket artillery or tactical ballistic missiles units)

 

[unmerged(304178)]

i am not exactly a expert but i would just think russia would have the best cold weather troops in the world only because russia is freezing... i mean here in the usa ik tour local reservist get like 2 weeks worth of winter combat training. i have no idea how much active duty gets.

 

[unmerged(400752)]

Well. There is a saying that a year of training is not worth a week on the battle field. All those units may look good on paper but will not remotely compare close to the real combat experience by a lot of U.S. and NATO troops that have deployed to the middle east. I'm sure operating in the Arctic region will be difficult due to the environment but the extreme heat in the Middle East is nothing to laugh at either.

Same thing apply for the navy and air force. There are a lot of things that may not be apparent during training vs actual operation on a combat zone and the US and NATO have pickup a lot of real world experience lately. Especially in the logistic and maintenance area and logistic is a major factor for any modern war.

 

[unmerged(400752)]

Back on topic. I think the next logical area of operation would be the Asia Pacific region given Chinese imperialism. There are a lot of untapped resource in the South China Sea and I'm sure we'll see varies countries trying to stick claims to some of them.

 

[ikalugin]

Well. There is a saying that a year of training is not worth a week on the battle field. All those units may look good on paper but will not remotely compare close to the real combat experience by a lot of U.S. and NATO troops that have deployed to the middle east. I'm sure operating in the Arctic region will be difficult due to the environment but the extreme heat in the Middle East is nothing to laugh at either.

Same thing apply for the navy and air force. There are a lot of things that may not be apparent during training vs actual operation on a combat zone and the US and NATO have pickup a lot of real world experience lately. Especially in the logistic and maintenance area and logistic is a major factor for any modern war.

When did USA armed forces gain relevant military experience? Last "large scale war" they participated was against weak Iraq nearly a decade ago. This experience is no longer there, even if you see it as relevant. You would also notice that USA marines only now restarted amphibious landings training, which was forgotten in favor of low intensity COIN operations.
Otherwise the experience is similar - we are still in low intensity action in Caucasus region, and were in a "proper" war there in 2008 (although forces used, size of the theater, its conditions are far closer to the Arctic theater in summer)

Fighting a war against poorly trained, led enemy, who has mismatched equipment and tactics, is by no means representative or relevant to our discussion.

As for the Far East, I find the total war between Russia/China/USA unlikely, due to the nuclear dimension. Koreas, Japan, Vietnam and others are far more likely to start a war.

 

[unmerged(400752)]

When did USA armed forces gain relevant military experience? Last "large scale war" they participated was against weak Iraq nearly a decade ago. This experience is no longer there, even if you see it as relevant. You would also notice that USA marines only now restarted amphibious landings training, which was forgotten in favor of low intensity COIN operations.
Otherwise the experience is similar - we are still in low intensity action in Caucasus region, and were in a "proper" war there in 2008 (although forces used, size of the theater, its conditions are far closer to the Arctic theater in summer)

Fighting a war against poorly trained, led enemy, who has mismatched equipment and tactics, is by no means representative or relevant to our discussion.

As for the Far East, I find the total war between Russia/China/USA unlikely, due to the nuclear dimension. Koreas, Japan, Vietnam and others are far more likely to start a war.

There is no such thing as a low intensity conflict. A bullet or IED will kill you as surely in that as in a massive war. So you develop situation awareness instinct that you would not from training. Logistic, supply management and maintenance also work out differently vs training. The amount of U.S. and NATO troop that have experience a live battlefield are also in much greater numbers. Although most will probably have rotated out by 2030 (same would apply to Russia) but enough career officer would remain to pass on the experience.

If we can have a war in the Arctic region without involving the nuclear dimension. I don't see why they would not apply to the Asia Pacific region. Afterall this is just a game.

 

[ikalugin]

In low intensity conflict you would not experience higher tactical and operational actions. Ie you might get troops somewhat prepared, but for the wrong environments and threats. Thus, to some extend, such experience can be harmful to a regular soldier. But then both sides have a comparable situation here.

Officers, especially majors and above, would have no actual combat experience in such low intensity conflicts, as maneuver by battalion+ force is rarely necessarily (although we did do that in Chechen wars). Thus they would be no different in quality, than a person who spent his time doing a desk job. Logistics and such things can be done in large unit training, especially when you routinely transport your troops via transsiberian (or similar long range movement)

And yes, I agree with that the Far East is far more interesting in this respect, although I would use 2020 as the date of the action.

 

[unmerged(400752)]

Yes, but the officers in 2030 will be those actually on the battlefield nowadays.