Russia Invades Ukraine. Volume 3

[Garvin]

CrutyRammers said:

I'd love to think it was such a calculated approach. Unfortunately we have a habit of not having enough / the right gear and expecting the guys on the ground to pull miracles out of the hat. It's almost a national mythos.

It is calculated . . . . to some extent.

We do not have expansionist ambitions so going in to take over another country for our own gain is not on the cards and doesn't need a powerful UK attack force. Any 'attacking' will be performed in defence of the country and, as such, part of NATO so UK has to provide its bit of the NATO military machine.

We are, in the main, an island nation and so defence of the 'motherland' relies on NATO coming to help. Again UK just has to provide its bit to NATO. As a backstop, we have the strategic nuclear defence of Trident. Now I know the doctrine is we won't use it as first strike but when it looks like we are in deep st I would expect that doctrine to be reversed pretty quickly.

Having said the above the weakness comes in those parts of UK around the world that are not firmly attached to the mainland and may come under attack - that may not be sufficient for the whole of NATO to join in and we should be at least capable of putting up a good fight . . . which is why we now have the carriers, Type 45 destroyers and F35s in order to project a decent amount of power anywhere in the world via a credible task force. It is also why we have quite a number of attack submarines - both to protect any task force and keep supply routes open. Hunter/killers also to protect the vanguard strategic nuclear defence subs. Whether we have sufficient to protect our assets around the world though is a very moot point.

[vonuber]

How the UK geared up for WW1 is worth looking into, how its initial small army was smashed and there was years of training, armament production and other issues to overcome - all while trying to fight a global war.
For example a lot of the shells produced in the early war didn't work. I don't think any nation is really geared up for a long, protracted and intensive war any more.

[NRS]

US also had a very small army going into WW2, although they had started working on that before Pearl Harbour.

It’s a bit different from WW1 though, as most of our empire is gone, so we need far smaller power projection than we did. There’s a few places, otherwise it’s just NATO instead of us. And NATO is powerful enough against Russia (it would come down to nukes) so the only possible equal rival going forward is China.

[vonuber]

Oh sure, but it would be interesting in a long non nuclear war how much we would have to start relying on simpler to manufacture items that can get to the front quickly enough.

[BikeBikeBIke]

J4CKO said:

Is there any knowledge around how many Russian personnel are in Ukraine as of now, 100k went in ?

35k are now allegedly helping with next years Sunflowers, guess quite a few now are missing bits or are irreparably gored, plus some just decided it wasnt much fun.

Are they being topped up ? I know there were Syrian mercenaries, press ganged folk from Donbas etc and Wagner soldiers, Putin hastn yet declared war or done a general mobilisation, the recruitment campaign is not proving very appealing, cant think why.....Are there trainloads of scared looking pale Gopniks being transported there in damp Adidas tracksuits ?


So how many Russians are left in Ukraine, or is that the key question nobody can answer ?

According to War on the Rocks podcast Russia have done a good job of recruiting replacements if you judge by numbers. Mainly via firma like Wagner because, unlike the Russia army, they have a reputation for paying what they promise.

Obvs the bulk of the recent fighting has been done by kidnapped Ukranians so no losses there.

So it's plausible the Russian army is still at 100k allbeit with their best soldiers dead and replaced by older people with limited experience.

[J4CKO]

BikeBikeBIke said:

replaced by older people with limited experience.

"Vlads Army", got a ring to it, make a good TV comedy.

[RichFN2]

CrutyRammers said:

Flooble said:

This sort of answers a question I was pondering. Most "campaigns" in recent history have been relatively short in duration (Gulf War 1 and 2, Afghanistan, Falklands). Granted that's ignoring the following insurgency, or where the conflict was a civil wars (e.g. Syria, whatever happened in Libya, Balkans).

Can anyone remember the last time there was a full-scale conflict which lasted this long? Russia in Afghanistan? Vietnam? I grant you that a case could easily be made for Iraq and the US invasion of Afghanistan counting.

I did wonder if the Western powers had sufficient stockpiles to keep supplying Ukraine for much longer. As anyone who has tried to buy anything recently will attest, "supply chain disruption" and "Staff Shortage due to Covid" have combined to make lots of things hard to find.

Iran-Iraq war went on for 8 years.

The Bosnian war went on for nearly 4 years, and the 2nd Congo war was almost 5 years (although that would not have seen anything like the equipment being used in this war)

I think you raise a good point on stock piles, I admit this is purely guess work but I would be surprised if any NATO countries had sufficient stock piles to last several years mainly because NATO is such a powerful force a conventional war would be concluded fairly quickly.

I can imagine Russia having a massive stock pile of artillery shells and medium range missiles. It might not be as advanced as what we have but it seems to be their backbone of any military campaign they get involved in. Bomb everything into oblivion before you send the troops in with zero regard to human life.

[Solocle]

Garvin said:

It is calculated . . . . to some extent.

We do not have expansionist ambitions so going in to take over another country for our own gain is not on the cards and doesn't need a powerful UK attack force. Any 'attacking' will be performed in defence of the country and, as such, part of NATO so UK has to provide its bit of the NATO military machine.

We are, in the main, an island nation and so defence of the 'motherland' relies on NATO coming to help. Again UK just has to provide its bit to NATO. As a backstop, we have the strategic nuclear defence of Trident. Now I know the doctrine is we won't use it as first strike but when it looks like we are in deep st I would expect that doctrine to be reversed pretty quickly.

Having said the above the weakness comes in those parts of UK around the world that are not firmly attached to the mainland and may come under attack - that may not be sufficient for the whole of NATO to join in and we should be at least capable of putting up a good fight . . . which is why we now have the carriers, Type 45 destroyers and F35s in order to project a decent amount of power anywhere in the world via a credible task force. It is also why we have quite a number of attack submarines - both to protect any task force and keep supply routes open. Hunter/killers also to protect the vanguard strategic nuclear defence subs. Whether we have sufficient to protect our assets around the world though is a very moot point.

To be honest, I think we're quite capable of defending ourselves, at least currently.

Say Russia tried to invade Great Britain. They have to send their fleet of Soviet rustbuckets first. If they get anywhere near GB, they'd be sitting ducks for the RAF, so Russia would need to try and project air superiority. Hah!

I mean, even if they did get the Admiral Kuznetsov into play, we'd be able to promote it to submarine status just by aiming for the big plume of black smoke.

Kaliningrad is nearly 1000 miles away, which really limits to Russian air force's combat capability. While the Russians have numerical superiority, we're again dealing with 2nd rate Soviet designs, and we'd have a big home field advantage.

Now, could we invade Russia on our own? Also no.

But about the only country in the world that could actually successfully launch an invasion of Great Britain would be the USA.

[BikeBikeBIke]

J4CKO said:

"Vlads Army", got a ring to it, make a good TV comedy.

You raised that point just to set yourself up for that (excellent) gag, didn't you.

[sisu]

Solocle said:

To be honest, I think we're quite capable of defending ourselves, at least currently.

But about the only country in the world that could actually successfully launch an invasion of Great Britain would be the USA.

You are actually ranked 29th, not 2nd.

Yes, Britain is an island and that is easy to defend. But then you aren't self sufficient. Sink your supply ships or routes in and out and you run out of materials, food and fuel.
That aside, what this conflict highlights is that the idea that everyone will help you only works if you believe no one will seek to extort something from you because you are asking, Turkey's beef with Sweden/Finland when NATO access is needed was a good example. Also NATO is not applicable if Britain acts on its own, such as the Falklands which was the last time Britain went to War by itself.
Ukraine has illustrated that Yes other countries will help, but actually having stuff yourself or the ability to build it locally without having to ask Uncle Sam why you can't use it is important.

[J4CKO]

BikeBikeBIke said:

J4CKO said:

"Vlads Army", got a ring to it, make a good TV comedy.

You raised that point just to set yourself up for that (excellent) gag, didn't you.

Dont tell him Bike...

[CrutyRammers]

Garvin said:

CrutyRammers said:

I'd love to think it was such a calculated approach. Unfortunately we have a habit of not having enough / the right gear and expecting the guys on the ground to pull miracles out of the hat. It's almost a national mythos.

It is calculated . . . . to some extent.

We do not have expansionist ambitions so going in to take over another country for our own gain is not on the cards and doesn't need a powerful UK attack force. Any 'attacking' will be performed in defence of the country and, as such, part of NATO so UK has to provide its bit of the NATO military machine.

We are, in the main, an island nation and so defence of the 'motherland' relies on NATO coming to help. Again UK just has to provide its bit to NATO. As a backstop, we have the strategic nuclear defence of Trident. Now I know the doctrine is we won't use it as first strike but when it looks like we are in deep st I would expect that doctrine to be reversed pretty quickly.

Having said the above the weakness comes in those parts of UK around the world that are not firmly attached to the mainland and may come under attack - that may not be sufficient for the whole of NATO to join in and we should be at least capable of putting up a good fight . . . which is why we now have the carriers, Type 45 destroyers and F35s in order to project a decent amount of power anywhere in the world via a credible task force. It is also why we have quite a number of attack submarines - both to protect any task force and keep supply routes open. Hunter/killers also to protect the vanguard strategic nuclear defence subs. Whether we have sufficient to protect our assets around the world though is a very moot point.

My point was more that then what we have got is often hobbled or cost cut into uselessness. See the huge debate ongoing regarding the Navy, ships without offensive capability, "fitted for" not "with", and so on. Early days in Afghan/Iraq, Falklands, etc. "Making do and pulling it out of the hat" starts to look like deliberate behaviour, rather than planning. The very high level planning may be good, but the next level down often seems lacking.

[speedyman]

vonuber said:

How the UK geared up for WW1 is worth looking into, how its initial small army was smashed and there was years of training, armament production and other issues to overcome - all while trying to fight a global war.
For example a lot of the shells produced in the early war didn't work. I don't think any nation is really geared up for a long, protracted and intensive war any more.

Britains power in ww1 was the Royal navy. Most of Britains army was spread across the globe supporting the colonies. The home force was tiny. It took time to bring troops home and train for a European war. Britain also relied heavily on manpower from the Dominions during ww1 and ww2. NATO is Europe's strength now and it's ready if required. Putin knows that to mess with NATO won't end well.

[Solocle]

sisu said:

You are actually ranked 29th, not 2nd.

Yes, Britain is an island and that is easy to defend. But then you aren't self sufficient. Sink your supply ships or routes in and out and you run out of materials, food and fuel.
That aside, what this conflict highlights is that the idea that everyone will help you only works if you believe no one will seek to extort something from you because you are asking, Turkey's beef with Sweden/Finland when NATO access is needed was a good example. Also NATO is not applicable if Britain acts on its own, such as the Falklands which was the last time Britain went to War by itself.
Ukraine has illustrated that Yes other countries will help, but actually having stuff yourself or the ability to build it locally without having to ask Uncle Sam why you can't use it is important.

The Falklands wasn't NATO because it falls outside of the NATO area of concern. Had, as part of the conflict, Argentina landed so much as a firecracker on the UK mainland, Article 5 would have been completely applicable.

Article 6 said:

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Although we were more than capable of beating the Argies ourselves, thankyou very much, so we probably wouldn't have invoked article 5 even if it had applied.

The UK was able to project force to a group of islands 12000 km away, against a country 600 km away from the battlefield. the logistics of that was insane. Don't underestimate us.

To successfully blockade the UK, you'd have to take on the Royal Navy - and don't forget the channel tunnel. For any probable enemies of the UK, that's a pipe dream.

[MOTORVATOR]

Solocle said:

sisu said:

You are actually ranked 29th, not 2nd.

Yes, Britain is an island and that is easy to defend. But then you aren't self sufficient. Sink your supply ships or routes in and out and you run out of materials, food and fuel.
That aside, what this conflict highlights is that the idea that everyone will help you only works if you believe no one will seek to extort something from you because you are asking, Turkey's beef with Sweden/Finland when NATO access is needed was a good example. Also NATO is not applicable if Britain acts on its own, such as the Falklands which was the last time Britain went to War by itself.
Ukraine has illustrated that Yes other countries will help, but actually having stuff yourself or the ability to build it locally without having to ask Uncle Sam why you can't use it is important.

The Falklands wasn't NATO because it falls outside of the NATO area of concern. Had, as part of the conflict, Argentina landed so much as a firecracker on the UK mainland, Article 5 would have been completely applicable.

Article 6 said:

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Although we were more than capable of beating the Argies ourselves, thankyou very much, so we probably wouldn't have invoked article 5 even if it had applied.

The UK was able to project force to a group of islands 12000 km away, against a country 600 km away from the battlefield. the logistics of that was insane. Don't underestimate us.

To successfully blockade the UK, you'd have to take on the Royal Navy - and don't forget the channel tunnel. For any probable enemies of the UK, that's a pipe dream.

Article 5 determines what NATO 'will' do not what it 'can'.

Read Article 4 and NATO 'can' get involved wherever it likes if any of our territories are threatened wherever they are.

Edited by MOTORVATOR on Monday 4th July 14:52

[NRS]

sisu said:

Solocle said:

To be honest, I think we're quite capable of defending ourselves, at least currently.

But about the only country in the world that could actually successfully launch an invasion of Great Britain would be the USA.

You are actually ranked 29th, not 2nd.

Yes, Britain is an island and that is easy to defend. But then you aren't self sufficient. Sink your supply ships or routes in and out and you run out of materials, food and fuel.
That aside, what this conflict highlights is that the idea that everyone will help you only works if you believe no one will seek to extort something from you because you are asking, Turkey's beef with Sweden/Finland when NATO access is needed was a good example. Also NATO is not applicable if Britain acts on its own, such as the Falklands which was the last time Britain went to War by itself.
Ukraine has illustrated that Yes other countries will help, but actually having stuff yourself or the ability to build it locally without having to ask Uncle Sam why you can't use it is important.

Ranked by what?

You'll note the post was not saying where the UK ranks in size of army, but who would be successful in an invasion of the UK. There may be other more powerful armies out there, but many wouldn't be able to do stuff like sink all the UK ships, as that is not where their strength is. Without a strong navy most countries are limited in their area of influence by the reach of their airforce, which tends to really limit things a lot more. And as we've seen in Russia against a relatively modern air defence even that is pretty limited as it can easily be destroyed or kept at large standoff distances.

[GlenMH]

Solocle said:

Although we were more than capable of beating the Argies ourselves, thankyou very much, so we probably wouldn't have invoked article 5 even if it had applied.

The UK was able to project force to a group of islands 12000 km away, against a country 600 km away from the battlefield. the logistics of that was insane. Don't underestimate us.

To successfully blockade the UK, you'd have to take on the Royal Navy - and don't forget the channel tunnel. For any probable enemies of the UK, that's a pipe dream.

You might want to take a read of Harrier 809 by Rowland White to find out just how close we got to having to retreat with our tails between our legs.
I am ex-RN and have seen the force hollowed out since I left so I have no faith that we could mount such an operation now.

[sisu]

Solocle said:

Although we were more than capable of beating the Argies ourselves, thankyou very much, so we probably wouldn't have invoked article 5 even if it had applied.

The UK was able to project force to a group of islands 12000 km away, against a country 600 km away from the battlefield. the logistics of that was insane. Don't underestimate us.

To successfully blockade the UK, you'd have to take on the Royal Navy - and don't forget the channel tunnel. For any probable enemies of the UK, that's a pipe dream.

Well look at this in 2022, the Royal Navy is considerably smaller than it was in 1982 and you have great relationships with France so I am sure they would never squeeze the lemon if you were down to just using the Chunnel would they?

I was using the Falklands as an example because not all Wars will be a joint effort. One of the major misjudgements that America made with the Iraq war was thinking no one would ask why?

[Polly Grigora]

GlenMH said:

Solocle said:

Although we were more than capable of beating the Argies ourselves, thankyou very much, so we probably wouldn't have invoked article 5 even if it had applied.

The UK was able to project force to a group of islands 12000 km away, against a country 600 km away from the battlefield. the logistics of that was insane. Don't underestimate us.

To successfully blockade the UK, you'd have to take on the Royal Navy - and don't forget the channel tunnel. For any probable enemies of the UK, that's a pipe dream.

You might want to take a read of Harrier 809 by Rowland White to find out just how close we got to having to retreat with our tails between our legs.
I am ex-RN and have seen the force hollowed out since I left so I have no faith that we could mount such an operation now.

UK was very fortunate, read up about the ammunition running out

[CrutyRammers]

"The Russians are preparing pseudo-referendums for September 11 in the temporarily occupied territories of the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, – Kyrylo Budanov, the head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, says."

I'm sure that was chosen purely at random.