Posted on Mar 27, 2016
If you were the enemy, how do you see US and NATO forces?
3.47K
10
17
2
2
0
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1200/RR1253/RAND_RR1253.pdf
The Rand Corp did a war-gaming analysis between NATO and Russian forces should Russia invade the three countries (Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania) nearest their border. I think this article brings shows the dichotomy of the two states of NATO forces (Cold War versus Present) on the eastern front.
The Rand Corp did a war-gaming analysis between NATO and Russian forces should Russia invade the three countries (Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania) nearest their border. I think this article brings shows the dichotomy of the two states of NATO forces (Cold War versus Present) on the eastern front.
Cold War
Defense
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
1
1
0
Was an interesting read. I really wonder if Russia will give a week's notice - I guess we are counting on our intel to get that notice. I can see Rand also only counted on heavy armor from the U.S. which got me to looking. Here is a list of MBT of NATO countries which Rand didn't include:
Denmark leopards 65
FRANCE Leclec 400
Georga T72 250
Germany leopards 225
Hungry T72M1 30
Czech Republic T-72M4 CZ 30
T-72 93
Croatia M-95 Degman 2
M-84A4 Sniper 75
Greece Leopard 2A6 HEL 170
Leopard 2A4 183
Leopard 1A4/5 526
M60A1 208
Italy Ariete 200
Norway Leopard 2A4 52
Poland T-72M1 584
PT-91 232
Leopard 2 A4,A5 247
Turkey Leopard 2A4 354
Leopard 1A3/A4 397
M60T 170
United Kingdom Challenger 2 136
(Wikipedia 2007)
I might add there was also listed a lot of older stuff, T55, M48 which I didn't include in the mix, but they can fire as well.
I have no idea how these countries would respond but according to the charter, they should all chip in. What is the readiness of this equipment, well some is probably more ready than others. How would it stack up against the T90? Well we stacked our Sherman against the German MBT in WWII and did ok. What is the reaction time of transporting to theater? Probably a lot less than the U.S. I'm not the great tactical planner, but I see potential but it depends on the "want to" of he entire alliance and that's what an alliance is for. Yes, Europe has depended too much on the U.S. and it's about time the European side of NATO stood up a bit.
Denmark leopards 65
FRANCE Leclec 400
Georga T72 250
Germany leopards 225
Hungry T72M1 30
Czech Republic T-72M4 CZ 30
T-72 93
Croatia M-95 Degman 2
M-84A4 Sniper 75
Greece Leopard 2A6 HEL 170
Leopard 2A4 183
Leopard 1A4/5 526
M60A1 208
Italy Ariete 200
Norway Leopard 2A4 52
Poland T-72M1 584
PT-91 232
Leopard 2 A4,A5 247
Turkey Leopard 2A4 354
Leopard 1A3/A4 397
M60T 170
United Kingdom Challenger 2 136
(Wikipedia 2007)
I might add there was also listed a lot of older stuff, T55, M48 which I didn't include in the mix, but they can fire as well.
I have no idea how these countries would respond but according to the charter, they should all chip in. What is the readiness of this equipment, well some is probably more ready than others. How would it stack up against the T90? Well we stacked our Sherman against the German MBT in WWII and did ok. What is the reaction time of transporting to theater? Probably a lot less than the U.S. I'm not the great tactical planner, but I see potential but it depends on the "want to" of he entire alliance and that's what an alliance is for. Yes, Europe has depended too much on the U.S. and it's about time the European side of NATO stood up a bit.
(1)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
SGM Mikel Dawson - My apologies for not making it clear that I appreciated how you properly cited that reference. I agree that NATO needs to address these issues, unfortunately, according to the Rand article, our President made a proclamation that "we will defend our NATO allies..." put us at the front of another NATO challenge. From where I'm stationed, I see some posturing changes, but the complexity of our global operational environment has all of NATO trying to look forward looking in every other direction. ISIS/L continues to be a credible threat, especially with the recent attacks in Belgium (less than a year from the Paris attacks), Russia's aggression on Crimea, not to mention their slow dominance of regaining their lost USSR countries and finally the hot mess in Syria has NATO running everywhere. I feel like their are strange things brewing and it's disconcerting to say the least.
(0)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
Maj Werner Saemmler-Hindrichs - Thanks for that elaborate insight. I agree the economical status has played a critical role in slowing Russia's aggression. However, I think the article brings to light how careful US and NATO needs to be when making power statements. It's one thing if a big dog wanders in your yard then wanders away, but it's completely different to throw rocks at it. I remember living in Germany with my Army dad in 1980 and witnessing the level of readiness first hand and now to be serving in the same area 36 years later is quite amazing and different. The article I posted is only one example of possible threats in the world arena, but terrorist organizations, unstable (and corrupt) governments, and non-state actors add to the challenges that US and NATO forces must prepare against.
(0)
(0)
SGM Mikel Dawson
MSG (Join to see) - One thing we all know is Putin is a chess player and doesn't look at the next move, but is looking further down the road. Economics will play a big factor into the mix. I think he did the Syria thing for a couple reasons: Testing the waters to see how Obama and NATO would react to his use of military power; check the readiness of men and equipment - there wasn't really any "combat" in the Ukraine. He also put out a message to the radical muslim community - "stay out of my country because I'm more than just talk".
With obama saying what he did, he put the U.S. once again at the tip of the spear, but with the down sizing the point is a little blunt.
With obama saying what he did, he put the U.S. once again at the tip of the spear, but with the down sizing the point is a little blunt.
(0)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
SGM Mikel Dawson - I agree with the US having to be more careful on how we propagate our forces. Putin is a great chess player, but we will forever have Bobby Fischer. His moves in Syria also showed some of his weaknesses. Syrian President as-Assad will make as many "frenimies" to maintain power and in some ways we hope for that. From a chess point of view, it's hard enough to face one enemy (white vs. brown),but let your enemy make more enemies can only be beneficial. An ancient proverb once said, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It just may be that our leaders are great chess players too.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
MSG (Join to see)
CW4 (Join to see) - Sir, that should not be happening. Let the CSM know and if he doesn't know, please let me know his email. I will, with all respect, bring this violation of the standard be made known. I dealt with the BDU to ACU change, which brought the same amount of headaches, so this should be similar in handling.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
We are conventionally brilliant, but dumb when it comes to fighting insurgency.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google