User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 4:56:11 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The english gave China millions , they gave poland a small pitance of what they promised (poland asked 60 million, england promised 9 million, delivered 10,000). The english and french turned their backs on Poland to not anger Russia. Poland could have defeated Nazi Germany , Poland could have beaten Russia, would have obliterated Slovakia out of existence With the full aid that they asked they may have been able to beat back all odds long enough for actual assistance from their supposed allies. What have we done to Poland since Obama the Tyrant? Removed most defensive measures, left Poland in the cold. We are acting like England and France did in WW2. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
6 weeks makes no sense. Either Article 5 is invoked and it's on,or NATO falls apart immediately. There is no other way. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_military_alliance. The Poles held out about 5 weeks. The English didn't arrive in time, to say the least. The english gave China millions , they gave poland a small pitance of what they promised (poland asked 60 million, england promised 9 million, delivered 10,000). The english and french turned their backs on Poland to not anger Russia. Poland could have defeated Nazi Germany , Poland could have beaten Russia, would have obliterated Slovakia out of existence With the full aid that they asked they may have been able to beat back all odds long enough for actual assistance from their supposed allies. What have we done to Poland since Obama the Tyrant? Removed most defensive measures, left Poland in the cold. We are acting like England and France did in WW2. Were it not for the Soviet stab in the back, Germany might not have taken Poland. The Poles were close to launching a major counterattack when the Soviets came in the back door. They were planning for a war with Germany, but they believed that would come in 1942. Hitlers original plan was 1945. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 4:56:38 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My understanding is that Polish horse units actually did pretty well for themselves, in some cases routing German units. In 1939 Poland also had to leave a ton of its army on the Eastern front to face the Soviets. This time around, I don't think they will be too worried about Merkel invading from the west. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 5:04:36 PM EDT
[#3]
Poland holds if USAFE's WARNORD looks like this (reworded from the LINEBACKER II OPORD):
"YOU ARE DIRECTED TO COMMENENCE AT APPROXIMATELY XX00Z ON XX XXX 20XX A THREE DAY MAXIMUM EFFORT REPEAT MAXIMUM EFFORT OF B52 B1 B2 USAFE AND NATO STRIKES IN THE KALINIGRAD MINSK ST PETERSBURG AND LIVOV AREAS AGAINST ALL MILITARY AND LOGISTICAL TARGETS CONTAINED IN THE AUTHORIZE TARGET LIST. BE PREPARED TO EXTEND OPERATIONS PAST THREE DAYS IF DIRECTED. TARGETS IN THE MOSCOW SEVASTAPOL ODESSA REGIONS WILL BE STRUCK AS REQUIRED. THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS APPLY: A. UTILIZE VISUAL AS WELL AS ALL WEATHER CAPABILITIES FOR 24-7 OPERATIONS. B. UTILIZE ALL AVAILABLE NATO AIRBORNE RESOURCES WHICH CAN BE SPARED TO SUPPORT EMERGENCY SITUATIONS IN DEFENSE OF NATO SIGNATORIES. C. UTILIZE RESTRIKES ON AUTHORIZED TARGETS, AS NECESSARY. RUSSIAN GROUND/AIR ORDER OF BATTLE, AIRFIELDS, SURFACE-TO-AIR, AND SURFACE-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SITES WILL BE STRUCK TO IMPROVE EFFECTIVENESS OF NATO DEFENSIVE REINFORCEMENT FORCES. D. PETROLEUM, WATER, COMMUNICATION, ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION AND GENERATION NODES ARE TO BE DESTROYED IN CONJUCTION WITH REGIONAL C4ISR. RAIL AND ROAD CHOKEPOINTS ARE TO BE INTERDICTED. CBU ORDNANCE AND AERIAL SEWING OF GROUND/SEA MINES IS AUTHORIZED. E. MINIMIZE RISK TO CIVILIAN CASUALTIES UTILIZING LGB AND GPS WEAPONS AGAINST TARGETS WHEN NEEDED. MILITARY NECESSITIES FOR DEFENSE OF NATO SIGNATORIES TAKE PRECIDENCE OVER POTENTIAL RUSSIAN CIVILIAN LOSS. F. AERIAL REINFORCEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPERATIONS FROM ANY CONUS ASSETS AUTHORIZED." But we know all that would get sent is a sternly worded email...maybe a teleprompter talking-to. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 5:27:13 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We'd never think of going nuclear over something like Poland, but Russia doesn't share our views. Russia (and France) have crazy-low thresholds for unleashing nuclear weapons. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Nukes will not get slung for a non existential (to the US and Russia) conflict. If Russia tries to make a play to expand their borders the strategic calculus is different then an all out soviet rush to the Atlantic. We'd never think of going nuclear over something like Poland, but Russia doesn't share our views. Russia (and France) have crazy-low thresholds for unleashing nuclear weapons. Maye not for Poland....but both the US and UK demonstrated during the last war that they weren't shy about killing large numbers of German and Japanese civilians. They probably won't be shy about killing large numbers of Russians, both military and civilians. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 5:47:51 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Any guesses how many troops Russia could mobilize and commit to an invasion of Poland? <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Russia_Army_New.png" target="_blank">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Russia_Army_New.png</a> 150,000 if we are talking about this very minute. I see no way they'd ever go for something as difficult as Poland and leave the easy pickin's Baltics alone. However,that would mean far fewer Russians per square kilometer and they may just have a problem with that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 5:54:07 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
150,000 if we are talking about this very minute. I see no way they'd ever go for something as difficult as Poland and leave the easy pickin's Baltics alone. However,that would mean far fewer Russians per square kilometer and they may just have a problem with that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Any guesses how many troops Russia could mobilize and commit to an invasion of Poland? <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Russia_Army_New.png" target="_blank">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Russia_Army_New.png</a> 150,000 if we are talking about this very minute. I see no way they'd ever go for something as difficult as Poland and leave the easy pickin's Baltics alone. However,that would mean far fewer Russians per square kilometer and they may just have a problem with that. I agree that Baltics would be easier, but hell, almost anywhere in Europe would be easier than Poland. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 6:11:21 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree that Baltics would be easier, but hell, almost anywhere in Europe would be easier than Poland. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Any guesses how many troops Russia could mobilize and commit to an invasion of Poland? <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Russia_Army_New.png" target="_blank">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Russia_Army_New.png</a> 150,000 if we are talking about this very minute. I see no way they'd ever go for something as difficult as Poland and leave the easy pickin's Baltics alone. However,that would mean far fewer Russians per square kilometer and they may just have a problem with that. I agree that Baltics would be easier, but hell, almost anywhere in Europe would be easier than Poland. Not really. Polands the front lines, and they know it. It's the only real accessible way into Western Europe. For the Russians to hit Nato south of Poland, they have to go through the Ukraine, and the Ukrainians are proving that they can, at the very least, be pesky. The Baltics are the easy pickings, but after that, the only real option to attack NATO (as long as the Ukrainians are hostile to Russia) is to go through Poland. The Polish fall back to the Vistula, and attempt to hold there. It means giving up half (at least) of Warsaw and Krakow's suburbs, and lets the Ruskies awful close to Gdansk, but it's a good river line to try to hold. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 6:12:18 PM EDT
[#8]
I'm not a military expert so I can't say how holding out for 6 weeks would work. I have to think though that if I was a Russian conscript, that Poland would be one of the last places I'd want to be told I was going to fight. Those folks still remember the Warsaw uprising and remember what it was like living under the commies. From what the internet tells me the Poles want no parts of that ever again. Like they'd rather be killing commies with rocks and sticks and shit than go through that again.
A highly motivated opponent like that with a military that is taking strides to become continually more modern, that's a lot different than excursion to Georgia or Ukraine. The Russians would have to pay a high price and I doubt they would be able to come away from that conflict able to keep fighting for long. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 6:18:28 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
II have to think though that if I was a Russian conscript, that Poland would be one of the last places I'd want to be told I was going to fight. Those folks still remember the Warsaw uprising and remember what it was like living under the commies. From what the internet tells me the Poles want no parts of that ever again. Like they'd rather be killing commies with rocks and sticks and shit than go through that again. No shit. The Polish resistance/insurgency that would result from a Russian invasion would make our time in Iraq and A-stan look like a JV paintball weekend. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 6:24:31 PM EDT
[#10]
Russia would struggle to support a couple of brigades that far from their own territory, much less support a larger force.
The greatest threat is in Russian strike assets in Kaliningrad, primarily Iskander, but that's not enough to defeat the Poles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 6:55:52 PM EDT
[#11]
A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.
Unfortunately the U.S. is the weakest link in the NATO chain at the moment, and NATO looks to the U.S. for leadership. Poland would be on their own, I'm ashamed to say, but I think they could defeat the Russians if they fight purely defensive war. Another of OBAMA's fundamental "transformations". 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 6:57:24 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Poland has what is probably the most professional, well-funded, and well-trained military in the EU besides the UK today. I would say yes, they would put a serious hurt on Russia. The Polish people and their military remember the Warsaw years and have no intention of going back. This...they would probably, hell almost certainly lose, but the russkies would know they had been in a fight..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 6:57:35 PM EDT
[#13]
I don't think the Russian economy can go six weeks fully mobilized. Even if it did I think Poland could hold it's own for six weeks. Their military isn't a joke.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 7:14:36 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Russia would struggle to support a couple of brigades that far from their own territory, much less support a larger force. The greatest threat is in Russian strike assets in Kaliningrad, primarily Iskander, but that's not enough to defeat the Poles. Which is why they bought AGM-158s,Finland too. Poland also has a problem in that Russian and Belorussian S-300/400 cover a huge portion of the country to begin with. Suter seems to have worked just fine on Syrian systems but huge ? on current Russian stuff. If it does its magic,it can easily help mitigate the biggest threat conventional threat Russia has. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 7:18:39 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Russia would struggle to support a couple of brigades that far from their own territory, much less support a larger force. The greatest threat is in Russian strike assets in Kaliningrad, primarily Iskander, but that's not enough to defeat the Poles. The psuedo-Scandinavian countries that make up the Baltic states would seem to be a more logical next target for Russian expansionism. Look at the pretext that Putin has used in seizing the Crimea and against Georgia: "protecting Russian minority." Latvia's population is 26.2% ethnic Russian Estonia is 24.8% ethnic Russian, and Lithuania is 5.8% ethnic Russian. Latvia and Estonia have greater cause for concern. Hopefully they've learned something about a focus on national defense from the countries around them who are also increasingly threatened by the bear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 7:18:41 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which is why they bought AGM-158s,Finland too. Poland also has a problem in that Russian and Belorussian S-300/400 cover a huge portion of the country to begin with. Suter seems to have worked just fine on Syrian systems but huge ? on current Russian stuff. If it does its magic,it can easily help mitigate the biggest threat conventional threat Russia has. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Russia would struggle to support a couple of brigades that far from their own territory, much less support a larger force. The greatest threat is in Russian strike assets in Kaliningrad, primarily Iskander, but that's not enough to defeat the Poles. Which is why they bought AGM-158s,Finland too. Poland also has a problem in that Russian and Belorussian S-300/400 cover a huge portion of the country to begin with. Suter seems to have worked just fine on Syrian systems but huge ? on current Russian stuff. If it does its magic,it can easily help mitigate the biggest threat conventional threat Russia has. AGM-158 won't be of much use against Iskander. It's too mobile for either the Poles or Finns to target it. Russian airfields in Kaliningrad are a different story. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 7:20:26 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The psuedo-Scandinavian countries that make up the Baltic states would seem to be a more logical next target for Russian expansionism. Look at the pretext that Putin has used in seizing the Crimea and against Georgia: "protecting Russian minority." Latvia's population is 26.2% ethnic Russian Estonia is 24.8% ethnic Russian, and Lithuania is 5.8% ethnic Russian. Latvia and Estonia have greater cause for concern. Hopefully they've learned something about a focus on national defense from the countries around them who are also increasingly threatened by the bear. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Russia would struggle to support a couple of brigades that far from their own territory, much less support a larger force. The greatest threat is in Russian strike assets in Kaliningrad, primarily Iskander, but that's not enough to defeat the Poles. The psuedo-Scandinavian countries that make up the Baltic states would seem to be a more logical next target for Russian expansionism. Look at the pretext that Putin has used in seizing the Crimea and against Georgia: "protecting Russian minority." Latvia's population is 26.2% ethnic Russian Estonia is 24.8% ethnic Russian, and Lithuania is 5.8% ethnic Russian. Latvia and Estonia have greater cause for concern. Hopefully they've learned something about a focus on national defense from the countries around them who are also increasingly threatened by the bear. IME the Baltics do the best they can, but their size makes it difficult to form a useful defence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 7:21:56 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Does Poland get NATO air support during those six weeks? ETA: Are we providing them intelligence and maybe launching TLAMs at the invading Bear, or is it really Poland, isolated and alone, against the Russians? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 7:32:13 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IME the Baltics do the best they can, but their size makes it difficult to form a useful defence. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Russia would struggle to support a couple of brigades that far from their own territory, much less support a larger force. The greatest threat is in Russian strike assets in Kaliningrad, primarily Iskander, but that's not enough to defeat the Poles. The psuedo-Scandinavian countries that make up the Baltic states would seem to be a more logical next target for Russian expansionism. Look at the pretext that Putin has used in seizing the Crimea and against Georgia: "protecting Russian minority." Latvia's population is 26.2% ethnic Russian Estonia is 24.8% ethnic Russian, and Lithuania is 5.8% ethnic Russian. Latvia and Estonia have greater cause for concern. Hopefully they've learned something about a focus on national defense from the countries around them who are also increasingly threatened by the bear. IME the Baltics do the best they can, but their size makes it difficult to form a useful defence. Does "the best they can" include spending 2% of GDP on defense? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 7:34:45 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Poland will get NATO support Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Does Poland get NATO air support during those six weeks? ETA: Are we providing them intelligence and maybe launching TLAMs at the invading Bear, or is it really Poland, isolated and alone, against the Russians? With the Kenyan in chief? No fucking way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 7:34:59 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does "the best they can" include spending 2% of GDP on defense? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Russia would struggle to support a couple of brigades that far from their own territory, much less support a larger force. The greatest threat is in Russian strike assets in Kaliningrad, primarily Iskander, but that's not enough to defeat the Poles. The psuedo-Scandinavian countries that make up the Baltic states would seem to be a more logical next target for Russian expansionism. Look at the pretext that Putin has used in seizing the Crimea and against Georgia: "protecting Russian minority." Latvia's population is 26.2% ethnic Russian Estonia is 24.8% ethnic Russian, and Lithuania is 5.8% ethnic Russian. Latvia and Estonia have greater cause for concern. Hopefully they've learned something about a focus on national defense from the countries around them who are also increasingly threatened by the bear. IME the Baltics do the best they can, but their size makes it difficult to form a useful defence. Does "the best they can" include spending 2% of GDP on defense? IIRC Estonia is at 2%, while the others are below that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 7:37:14 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IIRC Estonia is at 2%, while the others are below that. Sounds right. Seems like I heard somewhere that 1 / 3 of them were at the NATO commitment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 7:47:34 PM EDT
[#23]
Poland is 428 miles wide, so it should Russia about 2 weeks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 8:01:32 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Poland is 428 miles wide, so it should Russia about 2 weeks. lol no. They had a whole division stoped butt cold in Chechneya. Russia's economy was much better at that point in time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 8:10:40 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds right. Seems like I heard somewhere that 1 / 3 of them were at the NATO commitment. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
IIRC Estonia is at 2%, while the others are below that. Sounds right. Seems like I heard somewhere that 1 / 3 of them were at the NATO commitment. Poland and Estonia are both currently over 2% on their most recent budgets. Meanwhile, you've got long time NATO members who aren't hitting 2% in Western Europe 
According to the Daily Mirror, the only countries that hit 2% of their GDP for NATO commitments were: US, UK, Greece and Estonia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 8:35:10 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Poland has what is probably the most professional, well-funded, and well-trained military in the EU besides the UK today. I would say yes, they would put a serious hurt on Russia. The Polish people and their military remember the Warsaw years and have no intention of going back. I was going to say this. They might lose but they are going down swinging hard and then going underground. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 8:44:15 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Poland and Estonia are both currently over 2% on their most recent budgets. Meanwhile, you've got long time NATO members who aren't hitting 2% in Western Europe
According to the Daily Mirror, the only countries that hit 2% of their GDP for NATO commitments were: US, UK, Greece and Estonia. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
IIRC Estonia is at 2%, while the others are below that. Sounds right. Seems like I heard somewhere that 1 / 3 of them were at the NATO commitment. Poland and Estonia are both currently over 2% on their most recent budgets. Meanwhile, you've got long time NATO members who aren't hitting 2% in Western Europe
According to the Daily Mirror, the only countries that hit 2% of their GDP for NATO commitments were: US, UK, Greece and Estonia. I sense that Poland should offer to back Greece's debt, in exchange for stationing some additional Greek troops on the Russian Border. Can't hurt right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 8:45:28 PM EDT
[#28]
Lithuania is bringing back limited conscription and looking at a rapid purchase of IFVs to replace/supplement their M113s. Estonia is spending more,introducing mandatory military classes in high school to prepare for conscription/service academy and growing participation in the civilian Defense League,including pushing members to keep their AK4s (Swedish made G3s) and Galils at home rather than at an armory. A whole,whole bunch more Javelins and Stingers would be nice. ARTHUR and some HIMARS would be really nice but when it comes down to it: a tiny,poor nation of a million people can only do so much. Part of that so much is Russia know that taking the country is one thing,occupying it would be another.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 8:50:51 PM EDT
[#29]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Armed_Forces#Organisation
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 8:52:52 PM EDT
[#30]
I haven't paid much attention to Russia since the 90's.
My understanding is that there's a slice of their army that's, relatively speaking, modern-ish and capable of competent operations and sustainment.
How much of their army is of this legit professional cohort and how much is drunken conscript tom-foolery/buggering cluster-fuckery? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 8:54:56 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Poland and Estonia are both currently over 2% on their most recent budgets. Meanwhile, you've got long time NATO members who aren't hitting 2% in Western Europe
According to the Daily Mirror, the only countries that hit 2% of their GDP for NATO commitments were: US, UK, Greece and Estonia. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
IIRC Estonia is at 2%, while the others are below that. Sounds right. Seems like I heard somewhere that 1 / 3 of them were at the NATO commitment. Poland and Estonia are both currently over 2% on their most recent budgets. Meanwhile, you've got long time NATO members who aren't hitting 2% in Western Europe
According to the Daily Mirror, the only countries that hit 2% of their GDP for NATO commitments were: US, UK, Greece and Estonia. The fact Greece is on that list shows the problem with using such a stat to indicate actual commitment to collective defense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 8:57:29 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lithuania is bringing back limited conscription and looking at a rapid purchase of IFVs to replace/supplement their M113s. Estonia is spending more,introducing mandatory military classes in high school to prepare for conscription/service academy and growing participation in the civilian Defense League,including pushing members to keep their AK4s (Swedish made G3s) and Galils at home rather than at an armory. A whole,whole bunch more Javelins and Stingers would be nice. ARTHUR and some HIMARS would be really nice but when it comes down to it: a tiny,poor nation of a million people can only do so much. Part of that so much is Russia know that taking the country is one thing,occupying it would be another. What's your overall sense of things among the ethnic Russian population in Tallinn? Narva? The Russian-language propaganda onslaught in Moldova last spring was incredible to witness. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 9:02:23 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The fact Greece is on that list shows the problem with using such a stat to indicate actual commitment to collective defense. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
IIRC Estonia is at 2%, while the others are below that. Sounds right. Seems like I heard somewhere that 1 / 3 of them were at the NATO commitment. Poland and Estonia are both currently over 2% on their most recent budgets. Meanwhile, you've got long time NATO members who aren't hitting 2% in Western Europe
According to the Daily Mirror, the only countries that hit 2% of their GDP for NATO commitments were: US, UK, Greece and Estonia. The fact Greece is on that list shows the problem with using such a stat to indicate actual commitment to collective defense. Flexing nuts to Turkey is a worthy use of defense spending, no? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 9:16:46 PM EDT
[#34]
poland doesn't win, but i don't see russia advancing much further into europe after the blood letting they'd be hit with during that
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 9:37:05 PM EDT
[#35]
Hard to say. Six weeks without any NATO support is incredibly unlikely.
That said, Poland would probably lose control of their airspace pretty quickly due to the overwhelming numbers of aircraft the Russians could bring to bear. Without air support, facing troops that have air support (even crappy Russian troops with questionable Russian air cover), the Polish ground forces would probably be steadily reduced. They would definitely lose mechanized forces at an increasing rate, until they could no longer field anything other than dispersed infantry or partisan forces. Those troops would still be fighting six weeks later, no problem. But they wouldn't "hold" much territory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 9:40:57 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hard to say. Six weeks without any NATO support is incredibly unlikely. That said, Poland would probably lose control of their airspace pretty quickly due to the overwhelming numbers of aircraft the Russians could bring to bear. Without air support, facing troops that have air support (even crappy Russian troops with questionable Russian air cover), the Polish ground forces would probably be steadily reduced. They would definitely lose mechanized forces at an increasing rate, until they could no longer field anything other than dispersed infantry or partisan forces. Those troops would still be fighting six weeks later, no problem. But they wouldn't "hold" much territory. How many operational aircraft do you think Russia has? I'll give you a hint...it's nowhere near the number of aircraft they had during the cold war. Russia would not own the Air by any stretch of superiority. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 10:04:22 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's your overall sense of things among the ethnic Russian population in Tallinn? Narva? The Russian-language propaganda onslaught in Moldova last spring was incredible to witness. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Lithuania is bringing back limited conscription and looking at a rapid purchase of IFVs to replace/supplement their M113s. Estonia is spending more,introducing mandatory military classes in high school to prepare for conscription/service academy and growing participation in the civilian Defense League,including pushing members to keep their AK4s (Swedish made G3s) and Galils at home rather than at an armory. A whole,whole bunch more Javelins and Stingers would be nice. ARTHUR and some HIMARS would be really nice but when it comes down to it: a tiny,poor nation of a million people can only do so much. Part of that so much is Russia know that taking the country is one thing,occupying it would be another. What's your overall sense of things among the ethnic Russian population in Tallinn? Narva? The Russian-language propaganda onslaught in Moldova last spring was incredible to witness. There was one,a,singular,heckler with a Russian flag at the independence day parade in Narva. I honestly expected there would be a half dozen or so,bare minimum. I think the difference between now and 2007 is seeing what is happening in Ukraine and realizing "that shit would suck". One of the biggest problems is that so many get all of their news from Russian news sources and of course there is no Russian news that isn't Kremlin propaganda. This means you still have many using lines such as "illegal coup" and "junta" in Ukraine but of course the question is: how many people want to be liberated? That doesn't seem to be many at all. Then again,there would not have been a war in Donbass if Putin hadn't sent his FSB guys in to form the "people's republics" and start the conflict. It would take outside provocation for there to be a problem in Estonia and Latvia. It's just a good thing that the US coached Estonia to not bargain but demand that Russia not keep the harbor at Paldiski as they wanted and became members of NATO or else that may have already happened. I wouldn't want to hazard a guess as to what percentage would truly rather be Russians as I just don't know. Honestly,not a single one of my Russian friends in Tallinn but of course there are some either young enough to be impressionable by propaganda/"disaffected youth" or the more numerous old enough to have something akin to Ostalgia. A perhaps telling statistic is that 3/4 of the Defense League members in Ida-Viru County ( which includes Narva of course) are of Russian ethnicity,this is line with 75% of the county being Russian. There is now,and a bit late IMO, an actual effort of counter Russian propaganda. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 10:06:02 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How many operational aircraft do you think Russia has? I'll give you a hint...it's nowhere near the number of aircraft they had during the cold war. Russia would not own the Air by any stretch of superiority. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Hard to say. Six weeks without any NATO support is incredibly unlikely. That said, Poland would probably lose control of their airspace pretty quickly due to the overwhelming numbers of aircraft the Russians could bring to bear. Without air support, facing troops that have air support (even crappy Russian troops with questionable Russian air cover), the Polish ground forces would probably be steadily reduced. They would definitely lose mechanized forces at an increasing rate, until they could no longer field anything other than dispersed infantry or partisan forces. Those troops would still be fighting six weeks later, no problem. But they wouldn't "hold" much territory. How many operational aircraft do you think Russia has? I'll give you a hint...it's nowhere near the number of aircraft they had during the cold war. Russia would not own the Air by any stretch of superiority. Poland's problem in the air is that the S-300/400 has incredible range and systems are already in Kaliningrad and Belarus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2015 12:18:24 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Poland's problem in the air is that the S-300/400 has incredible range and systems are already in Kaliningrad and Belarus. This! I wouldn't worry so much about Russian aircraft as I would taking to the air in any sort of a flying machine over Poland while engaged in a shooting war with Russia. Their anti-air systems are not a joke. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2015 12:47:19 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Poland's problem in the air is that the S-300/400 has incredible range and systems are already in Kaliningrad and Belarus. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hard to say. Six weeks without any NATO support is incredibly unlikely. That said, Poland would probably lose control of their airspace pretty quickly due to the overwhelming numbers of aircraft the Russians could bring to bear. Without air support, facing troops that have air support (even crappy Russian troops with questionable Russian air cover), the Polish ground forces would probably be steadily reduced. They would definitely lose mechanized forces at an increasing rate, until they could no longer field anything other than dispersed infantry or partisan forces. Those troops would still be fighting six weeks later, no problem. But they wouldn't "hold" much territory. How many operational aircraft do you think Russia has? I'll give you a hint...it's nowhere near the number of aircraft they had during the cold war. Russia would not own the Air by any stretch of superiority. Poland's problem in the air is that the S-300/400 has incredible range and systems are already in Kaliningrad and Belarus. I don't think Poland would have Air superiority either bu there is no way Russia will have anything resembling air superiority over Poland. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2015 12:50:03 AM EDT
[#41]
If it looked like a Russian invasion of Poland was imminent, Obama would be able to defuse the problem with ease. I could see him ending any hostility by sitting down with Putin and then climbing the steps of AF1 with a signed document in hand making the statement to an adoring press corps..."I have here the agreement that will bring peace for our time." It will be absolutely wonderful.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2015 2:19:58 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't think Poland would have Air superiority either bu there is no way Russia will have anything resembling air superiority over Poland. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hard to say. Six weeks without any NATO support is incredibly unlikely. That said, Poland would probably lose control of their airspace pretty quickly due to the overwhelming numbers of aircraft the Russians could bring to bear. Without air support, facing troops that have air support (even crappy Russian troops with questionable Russian air cover), the Polish ground forces would probably be steadily reduced. They would definitely lose mechanized forces at an increasing rate, until they could no longer field anything other than dispersed infantry or partisan forces. Those troops would still be fighting six weeks later, no problem. But they wouldn't "hold" much territory. How many operational aircraft do you think Russia has? I'll give you a hint...it's nowhere near the number of aircraft they had during the cold war. Russia would not own the Air by any stretch of superiority. Poland's problem in the air is that the S-300/400 has incredible range and systems are already in Kaliningrad and Belarus. I don't think Poland would have Air superiority either bu there is no way Russia will have anything resembling air superiority over Poland. It'll be a bloody ground war! With the AAA on both side's you'd be crazy to be airborne. The pole's without assistance would leave the russian's going wtf did we get into 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2015 2:30:01 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Six weeks with no assistance? Hell no. There might be some localized hold outs but the Polish military would be demolished. Russia as an actor on the world scene would cease to exist in a confrontation with Poland. Their military would be annihilated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2015 2:34:30 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
U.S. have put in plans for rapid deployment and we're very good at mobilizing our forces quickly. Provided US political leadership didn't drag its feet and made a quick decision I think we could prevent Russia from conquering all of Poland. However, political reality is at this point that the decision would not be made to respond until the mission became liberating Poland rather than defending it. If Russia invaded Poland and the White House drug it's feet while the Pole's were getting slaughtered and overran, the Pentagon would be a pretty interesting place to be for a few hours/days. What would Germany do? Just think "oh that's interesting". I think they probably hate the Russians more than anyone on the planet and doubt they would just share a border. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2015 2:37:49 AM EDT
[#45]
I have friends in the Hungarian intelligence community and they are telling me that they do not think NATO will honor article 5.
Hungary has such a token military force thanks to the cut backs by Socialist. A communist runs Finland and they are refusing new weapons.... you know...in the name of peace and solidarity and brotherhood.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2015 2:40:59 AM EDT
[#46]
If the 100 hottest women in Russia and the 100 hottest women in Poland were in a giant naked jello wrestling match, who would win?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2015 2:53:46 AM EDT
[#47]
 Some of you have WAYYYY too much faith in the Russian Military, and WAAYYYYYY too little faith in NATO / US forces. The military of NATO member states in Western Europe could not only hold back Russia, but destroy them. I have faith in that. This isn't the fucking 70s and 80s people - Russia puts on a good picture today, but can't project, supply, support, or otherwise sustain any real conventional attack further than ~100km from it's own borders. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2015 2:55:58 AM EDT
[#48]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2015 2:56:17 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some of you have WAYYYY too much faith in the Russian Military, and WAAYYYYYY too little faith in NATO / US forces. The military of NATO member states in Western Europe could not only hold back Russia, but destroy them. I have faith in that. This isn't the fucking 70s and 80s people - Russia puts on a good picture today, but can't project, supply, support, or otherwise sustain any real conventional attack further than ~100km from it's own borders. A lot of ARF has had a love affair with the Russian and Israeli militaries since before I joined. "They don't fuck around" lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2015 3:00:21 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A lot of ARF has had a love affair with the Russian and Israeli militaries since before I joined. "They don't fuck around" lol Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Some of you have WAYYYY too much faith in the Russian Military, and WAAYYYYYY too little faith in NATO / US forces. The military of NATO member states in Western Europe could not only hold back Russia, but destroy them. I have faith in that. This isn't the fucking 70s and 80s people - Russia puts on a good picture today, but can't project, supply, support, or otherwise sustain any real conventional attack further than ~100km from it's own borders. A lot of ARF has had a love affair with the Russian and Israeli militaries since before I joined. "They don't fuck around" lol |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
