Scenario: Russian Invasion of the Baltic States

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

Generate a random map using batloc 123 or 124 or 125. (Finnish batlocs).

Run each batloc a reasonable amount of times to get the feel of each map code - say 6 times each.

Baltics may be a bit more urban than those Finnish maps, so you could edit in a paved road across the map, with a village or town plonked somewhere in the middle.

for the SP map tool, try
54.567687
25.623729

(dont bother saving the map for the editor - it is boringly flat!)

That was a randomish pick of a major road towards Vilnius (off map to the left) from the border (off map to the right) and for the country seems rather open - but towns and villages do seem to take up a lot of the non-field space that isn't pines.

HELP!

Okay I inserted the coordinates into the SP map tool at
http://www.venhola.com/maps/. It generated a flat map devoid of any features. What gives?

And the suggestion: "Generate a random map using batloc 123 or 124 or 125. (Finnish batlocs)." Batloc? Okay, Battle Location, got it.

So, back to the venhola generated maps. How are we to insert them in the game map editor? There is no .cmt file generated.

=====

[DRG]

Originally Posted by shahadi

HELP!

Okay I inserted the coordinates into the SP map tool at
http://www.venhola.com/maps/. It generated a flat map devoid of any features. What gives?

Did you flood fill the entire map with page two editor base terrain ?? ( editor--page 2-- top left button ) There is a how to guide out there for the program https://github.com/tvenhola/SPMBT-ma...ster/MANUAL.md

and a sticky thread full of info in this tread

IF you did do that and the map is still dead flat you have your answer to "what's the terrain in the Baltics like:

[wulfir]

Originally Posted by Aeraaa

How are the Baltics in terms of terrain? I thought that in addition to all other problems they have, their terrain is not very defensible as well. Is anyone more familiar with this topic?

The Germans gave the Soviets a few black eyes at Narwa and later the Blue Mountains (hills really) in 1944. There were still sizable German forces in Kurland on May 8, 1945.

I think a Russian invasion of the Baltic states would be difficult against even modest NATO resistance. The current Russian leadership can probably plan ahead and move at a quicker pace than most democratic countries but against a unified Europe they can't IMHO win a conventional conflict that drags out. The European economy is larger.

I'm not convinced of the overall quality of Russian brigades vs western opponents. IIRC conscription was reduced significantly in order to try and combat the bulling of new troops.

IIRC Russia also used to have a hard time finding recruits to fill up all their numerous "elite" units (incl Ministry of Interior competing for bodies) as the health situation in Russia is not that great.

Assuming that Russia can probably not field everything they have against the Baltic states but need to keep their guard up in the north, the far east, the Caucasus etc I'm far from convinced that a defence of the Baltics is hopeless...

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by wulfir

The Germans gave the Soviets a few black eyes at Narwa and later the Blue Mountains (hills really) in 1944. There were still sizable German forces in Kurland on May 8, 1945.

I think a Russian invasion of the Baltic states would be difficult against even modest NATO resistance. The current Russian leadership can probably plan ahead and move at a quicker pace than most democratic countries but against a unified Europe they can't IMHO win a conventional conflict that drags out. The European economy is larger.

I'm not convinced of the overall quality of Russian brigades vs western opponents. IIRC conscription was reduced significantly in order to try and combat the bulling of new troops.

IIRC Russia also used to have a hard time finding recruits to fill up all their numerous "elite" units (incl Ministry of Interior competing for bodies) as the health situation in Russia is not that great.

Assuming that Russia can probably not field everything they have against the Baltic states but need to keep their guard up in the north, the far east, the Caucasus etc I'm far from convinced that a defence of the Baltics is hopeless...

The thing that worries military professionals at the moment is the great strength of Russian artillery, it can call down a lot of very heavy and destructive fire, relatively quickly. If advanced Russian SAM systems work and protect that artillery from Allied aircraft, NATO would have a big problem. Artillery has, of course, long been the best arm of the Russian Army.

Some NATO forces, Especially the US and UK, have a lot of recent experience of COIN, but very little of conventional warfare. How useful some of the smaller NATO forces would be, and how good their troops might be, also very much remains to be seen.

My own view is that even the best multi national force (especially if that force includes several different languages) will have disadvantages against a peer/near peer unified enemy.

Also I don't see how a modern first world Armoured conflict in a geographically limited area lasts long enough for the economy to matter much once it kicks off...

[scorpio_rocks]

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

Some NATO forces, Especially the US and UK, have a lot of recent experience of COIN, but very little of conventional warfare. How useful some of the smaller NATO forces would be, and how good their troops might be, also very much remains to be seen.

Hmmm... You are aware that ALL NATO countries deployed troops in Afghanistan?

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by scorpio_rocks

Hmmm... You are aware that ALL NATO countries deployed troops in Afghanistan?

Yep, many of them not very many men and with limited orders -from their Governments/high command- to actually do very much, Canada being an honourable exception.

[wulfir]

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

The thing that worries military professionals at the moment is the great strength of Russian artillery, it can call down a lot of very heavy and destructive fire, relatively quickly. If advanced Russian SAM systems work and protect that artillery from Allied aircraft, NATO would have a big problem. Artillery has, of course, long been the best arm of the Russian Army.

The Georgia war 2008 was a strategic Russian victory but did expose embarrassing Russian shortcomings in especially command and control, intelligence, comms, electronic warfare etc
The war lasted for only five days and they had problems with basic equipment as well as the troops understanding their actual mission prompting the ongoing reformation of the Russian armed forces - aiming at being finished by 2020, but how far have they come? How will they fare against a more qualified opponent like NATO?

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

My own view is that even the best multi national force (especially if that force includes several different languages) will have disadvantages against a peer/near peer unified enemy.

Are NATO nations of today not sufficiently coordinated that poses a problem. However there are over 100 languages spoken in the Russian federation. Supposedly the best soldier material is now increasingly to be found in non-Russian minorities where the birthrate is also higher.

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

Also I don't see how a modern first world Armoured conflict in a geographically limited area lasts long enough for the economy to matter much once it kicks off...

Assuming there is a will within NATO and the European Union to actually fight. Economy will tell should the conflict not be ended quickly. If Russia overruns most of the Baltic but NATO/EU does not yield and start to build up forces in Poland, maybe Scandinavia the odds will likely not be in Moscow's favour.

[Aeraaa]

Originally Posted by wulfir

I'm not convinced of the overall quality of Russian brigades vs western opponents. IIRC conscription was reduced significantly in order to try and combat the bulling of new troops.

IIRC Russia also used to have a hard time finding recruits to fill up all their numerous "elite" units (incl Ministry of Interior competing for bodies) as the health situation in Russia is not that great.

The decisive units of a Russian brigade are staffed by good quality personnel (the battalion tactical groups). Check this source:

http://mwi.usma.edu/russian-ukrainia...s-battlefield/

At some point it says:

As the Russian–Ukrainian War illustrates, the battalion tactical group has proven to be a uniquely responsive and effective tool for conducting siege warfare. The formation’s versatility and success led Gen. Valery Gerasimov, chief of the Russian General Staff, to announce in September 2016 the Russian army would increase the number of battalion tactical groups from sixty-six to 125 by 2018. Additionally, professional soldiers will staff the formation, whereas conscripts will be assigned to rear-echelon formations—which will likely yield more effective battalion tactical groups. As a result, the US Army can expect to find Russian battalion tactical group continuing to emerge in areas in which Russia employs ground forces to achieve political objectives.

And I agree with the general concept. I do not think that Russia will fight like the stereotypical Soviet army (which was also misunderstood by many in the west) and there is a very good reason for that: it does not have the resources the former USSR had. Modern Russia has to fight much more smart and carefully if she wants to have any reasonable chance of success. And the first NATO forces in the area are undermanned, undergunned and ill trained for conventional or even the new form of hybrid warfare.

[IronDuke99]

The most recent stuff on Russia I saw was a talk from a former Royal Marine at RUSI, he had been observing Russian forces in Ukraine, and made much of both their very strong and flexible artillery, signals and electronic intelligence, etc. He made a particular point of how difficult it was to mass forces for a counter attack without getting a massive artillery stonk on top of you.

To my mind if there is a fight over the Baltics and NATO loses, they either quit and cut their losses or it goes nuclear and we are all likely to lose.

[wulfir]

Originally Posted by Aeraaa

Modern Russia has to fight much more smart and carefully if she wants to have any reasonable chance of success.

Old habits die hard.

Historically the Soviet/Russian art of warfare has been more amazing in theory than in practice. Maybe they have reached their 2020 goals etc ahead of time but I doubt it.