If they needed to fend off war with RF, US military leaders worry they might not get there in time

[dave8383]

Yea, there were about 30,000 VC involved in that offensive.

And over 300,000 NVA soldiers.

But yea, continue to tell yourself it was a VC action. Whatever.

#!: Of course the NVA had more forces involved because they had more troops to begin with, but while the NVA surrounded Khe Sanh, entered Hue, flushed US troops out valleys west of Da Nang, etc., the populated areas along the cost were mainly hit by VC units.

#2: You pulled those numbers out of your ass because, for example, no one knows how many NVA surrounded Khe Sanh. I've heard estimates of from 10,000 up to 50,000.

Anyway, I'm glad to see you've backed off calling Vietnam a conventional war. Smart move.

 

[braindrain]

Yes the us tries to avoid close range, but that is not always easy, a su22 was shot down in syria by an f-22 and they had to resort to radar guided missiles because the heat seeking missiles were dodged too easily by an antique bomber with no real combat ability. Imagine if they had went up against a competant state actor, and every f-22 missile was dodged, it would come down to a retreat or a dogfight, hence where antique ideas like cannons come into play.


But as far as the mig 29 yes it was stressed, the us had thought the mig 29 was overstated by the soviet union only to see after germany united that the soviet union actually understated it, american pilots got to fly them first hand and see what the soviet equipment could do. keep in mind the air superiority role of the mig 29 was home front air superiority not forward projected air superiority, as it's fuel tanks and range were too small, it was a shrunk down su27. The su-27 fyi is on par in nearly every aspect of the f15 and even exceeds it in some areas, and also holds the same record the f15 holds of never being downed by enemy aircraft, ethiopia used them to slaughter mig29s in actual fights. Despite all this the mig 29 holds the same maneuverability as the su 27, with a smaller payload far less range and weaker avionics.


The us did switch strategy during desert storm, they went in full force and pressed them to avoid close range with the mig29, they were the fifth largest airforce in the world at the time, the sheer numbers we used do not scream that we had an advantage, but rather that brass was scared of their experience and aircraft, and decided to use a number superiority t defeat any experience advantage they had. Their airforce was opposite of their armor which was a joke(many were russian training tanks to bypass sanctions and french tanks) their ground forces were cowards but their airforce was one not to be taken lightly, and they did not, however of people like you had called the shots and not given massive air forces to counter, the us air superiority might have gotten a major slap to the face.


The little training is reffering to mig 29's as they were fairly new to their air force, while most of their aces flew mig 21/23/25 jets, not mig 29 jets.

The SU27 on not on par with the F15 in a number of ways. It has a considerable worse radar and electronics. It has poor reliability it's engine smokes like crazy making it easier to see and it's engines have a very short life and it's slower.

The US AF trying to greatly overwhelm the Iraqi Air Force wasn't not a change in tactics. That is what every country tries to do when fighting another military. It lessens your losses and ends the fight quicker.
Trying to use that as a reason the Iraqi AF was feared is just ridiculous. And seeing as I pointed this out to you already claiming that I would have went in with less air power is simply dishonest.

 

[Godric1970]

The SU27 on not on par with the F15 in a number of ways. It has a considerable worse radar and electronics. It has poor reliability it's engine smokes like crazy making it easier to see and it's engines have a very short life and it's slower.

The US AF trying to greatly overwhelm the Iraqi Air Force wasn't not a change in tactics. That is what every country tries to do when fighting another military. It lessens your losses and ends the fight quicker.
Trying to use that as a reason the Iraqi AF was feared is just ridiculous. And seeing as I pointed this out to you already claiming that I would have went in with less air power is simply dishonest.

you do realise both the Mig 29s and SU-27s in Russian service have been heavily upgraded they are no longer 1980s models you reference and basing your facts on the Iraqi airforce is laughable by the time of the the first gulf war Saddam had his airforce purged of it's experienced pilots 6 months before the war and all that was left was rookie pilots

 

[braindrain]

you do realise both the Mig 29s and SU-27s in Russian service have been heavily upgraded they are no longer 1980s models you reference and basing your facts on the Iraqi airforce is laughable by the time of the the first gulf war Saddam had his airforce purged of it's experienced pilots 6 months before the war and all that was left was rookie pilots

You do realize it wasn't me that was claiming the Iraq Air Force was some powerhouse correct.
And many of the problems and disadvantages that both those plans have shuffered from still exist.

 

[Godric1970]

You do realize it wasn't me that was claiming the Iraq Air Force was some powerhouse correct.
And many of the problems and disadvantages that both those plans have shuffered from still exist.

the Mig 29 M/M2 has improved range 3,000km with drop tanks ... the export models are inferior to production models for the RuaF the same goes for the SU-27 the tech including radar is inferior to Russian models and the SU-27SM2 includes Irbis-E radar, and upgraded engines and avionics that are used in the SU-35s

the Mig -29s will soon be replaced by the Mig-35

 

[beerftw]

The SU27 on not on par with the F15 in a number of ways. It has a considerable worse radar and electronics. It has poor reliability it's engine smokes like crazy making it easier to see and it's engines have a very short life and it's slower.

The US AF trying to greatly overwhelm the Iraqi Air Force wasn't not a change in tactics. That is what every country tries to do when fighting another military. It lessens your losses and ends the fight quicker.
Trying to use that as a reason the Iraqi AF was feared is just ridiculous. And seeing as I pointed this out to you already claiming that I would have went in with less air power is simply dishonest.

To say the su27 has worse radar and avionics I must assume you are comparing an early to mid80's su 27 to a modern f-15. The modern su17 is only inderior in long range radar, but is far superior in short range radar, as the su27 radar works in a 180 degree radius, while a modern f15 might see eneies farther away in close range in can be blind to it's sides, while the flanker is not/


Further the flanker vastly outmaneuvers the f-15, and can even outmaneuver a mig29, the flanker also has very extravegant missile layouts, has a very fast speed, and has proven to be the drect match to the f15 if not better. What it sounds like you have is hubris, as the key to defeating an enemy is not to pretend they are worthless, but rather to understand thir strengths and weakness, fortify your strengths and exploit their weaknesses.

If you doubt the su 27 or the mig 29 here is a video on pugachevs cobra, not a viable maneuver except when intercepted at high speeds, but no american aircraft has done it yet in a complete form, pugachevs cobra requires perfect forces on both the top and bottom of the aircraft, creating stability rarely seen. So far the only jets able to pull it off are su27 flanker variants such as the su35 and mig 29 variants.


I will put the disclaimer in the video calls it an awesome dogfight maneuver, it is not, it is great only against fast moving interceptors, in mock dogfights the indian airforce doing it with their su30mki got whooped pretty badly which is bad since the indian su fighters usually dominate akk other countries fighters who participate in mock dogfighting.

 

[braindrain]

To say the su27 has worse radar and avionics I must assume you are comparing an early to mid80's su 27 to a modern f-15. The modern su17 is only inderior in long range radar, but is far superior in short range radar, as the su27 radar works in a 180 degree radius, while a modern f15 might see eneies farther away in close range in can be blind to it's sides, while the flanker is not/


Further the flanker vastly outmaneuvers the f-15, and can even outmaneuver a mig29, the flanker also has very extravegant missile layouts, has a very fast speed, and has proven to be the drect match to the f15 if not better. What it sounds like you have is hubris, as the key to defeating an enemy is not to pretend they are worthless, but rather to understand thir strengths and weakness, fortify your strengths and exploit their weaknesses.

If you doubt the su 27 or the mig 29 here is a video on pugachevs cobra, not a viable maneuver except when intercepted at high speeds, but no american aircraft has done it yet in a complete form, pugachevs cobra requires perfect forces on both the top and bottom of the aircraft, creating stability rarely seen. So far the only jets able to pull it off are su27 flanker variants such as the su35 and mig 29 variants.


I will put the disclaimer in the video calls it an awesome dogfight maneuver, it is not, it is great only against fast moving interceptors, in mock dogfights the indian airforce doing it with their su30mki got whooped pretty badly which is bad since the indian su fighters usually dominate akk other countries fighters who participate in mock dogfighting.

Yes they are inferior in long range meaning the F15 will see the SU and be able to fire on the it before the US even knows it's there. Which is a huge advantage.
And yes the US is very fast but still not as fast as a F15.
And second ypu are putting words in my mouth that I never said. Which is a very dishonest way to argue. I never once claimed at or even hinted at either the Mig29 or the SU being worthless. They are not, they are very good fighters. Especially the SU. So how about you actually debate what I say.

And finally two things about the cobra maneuver. One that's a stripped down plane set up for airshow. Has nothing to do with what an actual combat aircraft is capable of. And like you said it's not a dogfighting maneuver and if a pilot tried it in a real fight they would end up dead. But it does look cool at airshows.

And you are right it is important to understand your enemy's strength and weaknesses. But that's their actual strengths and weaknesses. Not imagined ones.

 

[beerftw]

Yes they are inferior in long range meaning the F15 will see the SU and be able to fire on the it before the US even knows it's there. Which is a huge advantage.
And yes the US is very fast but still not as fast as a F15.
And second ypu are putting words in my mouth that I never said. Which is a very dishonest way to argue. I never once claimed at or even hinted at either the Mig29 or the SU being worthless. They are not, they are very good fighters. Especially the SU. So how about you actually debate what I say.

And finally two things about the cobra maneuver. One that's a stripped down plane set up for airshow. Has nothing to do with what an actual combat aircraft is capable of. And like you said it's not a dogfighting maneuver and if a pilot tried it in a real fight they would end up dead. But it does look cool at airshows.

And you are right it is important to understand your enemy's strength and weaknesses. But that's their actual strengths and weaknesses. Not imagined ones.

But the su27 can detect and maneiver bvr missiles quite well, and given the very low success rate of both us and soviet/russian air to air missiles that gamble as very low odds of paying off for either side banking on bvr.

And the cobra maneuver is not just stripped down fighters doing it, even combat capable ones can do it, the mig29 and the su27 flanker were never created to do such, but it was discovered later they could. The key to them doing it is equal force on both sides of the wing preventing it from losing control, they were designed that way to remain stable in high angles of attack, the cobra was just something later it realized could be done.

The cobra maneuver shows the angle of attack capable of the jet, the actual maneuver would get anyone flying those jets killed in an actual dogfight as it makes them easy targets. Other than maybe fooling high speed interceptors, the point of the maneuver was to show off how highly agile and stable the fighter is even at high angles of attacks. The closest to matching that in the us arsenal is the f-22, and even it can not match that maneuverability, and the su27 has long been beat by the later flanker variants with 3d thrust vectoring.

 

[PleasantValley]

Suwalki Gap isn't the historic Fulda Gap but it does have its own unique military significance. US Forces in WW II led by Gen. Patton drove through the Fulda Gap across the Rhine and into central Germany. It was the same route Napoleon had taken to his own great success. During the Cold War Fulda Gap was the most heavily armed area in the contest between Nato and Soviet Russia due to the Nato certainty Soviet tanks would roll through it in force in any invasion of Europe. Suwalki is not any of this.



A Snap Action by Russia Could Seize the Suwalki Gap in Northeast Poland Expeditiously

Russia would move overtly against the Suwalki Gap only if it were prepared for a general war. Russia would then need to defend against the resulting Nato response throughout eastern Europe and along the Russian borders and frontier. Nato would lose the Baltic states but the Russian gain would be devalued by the larger Nato response, i.e., from north to south at the Russian border with Europe, across it and over it. Nato for instance would focus instead on Kalengrad port where the formidable 50 ship Russian Baltic Fleet is based along with three brigades of infantry. Nato forces would drive into Belarus from Poland. And so on.



So the bottom line on the Suwalki Gap looks somewhat like this....

Russia and NATO, already in a standoff in the former Soviet Union because of events in Ukraine, are in the process of developing their military strategies in Eastern Europe and the Baltics. The [former] commanding general of U.S. Army Europe, Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, recently highlighted a small area in northeastern Poland, increasingly referred to as the Suwalki Gap, as one of the most vital locations in the buildup of military forces on the European continent. Besides connecting Eastern European NATO members with the Baltic states, the gap also sits between the small Russian exclave of Kaliningrad and Russia’s ally Belarus. According to these military leaders, the area would be a ripe target for Russian forces to capture in the event of war to connect Kaliningrad to Belarus. Similarly, it would be a critical area for NATO forces to defend to maintain the connection between Eastern Europe and the Baltic states.

But although the Suwalki Gap is an important location for any responsible war planner to consider, comparing it to one of the most important locations on the Iron Curtain during the Cold War — the Fulda Gap — is ill advised. Ultimately, a military buildup in the region and the greater likelihood of conflict that would come with it would be too costly for either Russia or NATO to execute, making it unlikely to occur.

Analysis : NATO-Russia confrontation : The Suwalki Gap – Young Diplomats




Of the far greater concern are the personal one on one conversations that will occur when Trump meets with Putin in less than two weeks. If Putin gets the green light from Trump to send 'little green men' into Latvia where half the population speaks Russian, then the free ride for Putin would have profound implications for Nato. Latvia is a Nato country so if Trump gave Putin the green light, a Nato country would be allowed to fall to Russian force in the name and the historically disastrous rational of irredentism and revanchism. Colluded against in fact. Trump hasn't any problem with either as he has already stated people in Crimea speak Russian so it therefore belongs to Russia, i.e., Putin and his czar predecessors. Trump allowing a Nato country to fall to Russian subterfuge and military force would almost surely terminate Nato as it has existed since 1949.

Isn't Melania originally from Latvia?
I see no chance of it ever being "sacrificed".

 

[Tangmo]

Uh, no? It's called the northern European plain. It runs through northern Germany, rights towards the Low Countries and Antwerp.

It's an American fantasy that the Soviets would've stupidly plunged right through the Fulda Gap, right into the heart of Germany's southern mountains in terrain that virtually defends itself, because it fits the American perception that all the Soviets could do was zerg rush enemy forces with waves of tanks, motor rifle troops, and artillery, and it would be the US that would smash Soviet division after division while long range bombers knocked out Soviet bridges and infrastructure inside East Germany.

No, the Soviets would've taken the far smarter option of pushing through the Northern European plain, smashing into NORTHAG on the corps boundary between the Dutch and Germans, where terrain would've allowed them to attack the German corps on two axis of advance. There would in fact be an attack through the Fulda Gap, but it's only purpose would be pin down American and West German forces so they couldn't move to relieve NORTHAG. The idea that the Soviets would attack CENTAG because it represnted such a strong concentration of forces flies in the face of Soviet doctrine and strategic thinking.




So one conventional conflict that happened 5 years after WWII and a dozen+ asymmetrical wars. You realize there was a reason I said conventional conflicts right?

The tactical geography of the strategic Fulda Gap are easy gentle pains....

Russian heavy armor and mechanized infantry traversing the two corridors of the Fulda Gap -- where the mountains are -- would seize the large Rhein-Main Nato Airbase and Frankfurt Airport both of which were to be major destinations of US reinforcements. This Nato option would thus be closed. The Fulda Gap opens to the heart of the West German and the present German financial centers. So Fulda Gap is a major strategic factor in any war in Europe, not a diversion from other Russian operations, such as the North German Plan. The two have always been the major Russian invasion plan. Nor is the gap a sideshow to tie up Nato forces while Russian forces focus elsewhere. Rather, nine Warsaw Pact armies were to reinforce Soviet Russian armies invading through the Fulda Gap itself, apart from the North German Plan.

Soviet Russia is failed and gone and now we have Putin's Russia which means the more things change the more they remain the same.

 

[Tangmo]

Isn't Melania originally from Latvia?
I see no chance of it ever being "sacrificed".

I place the post in the same file as Famous Last Words. Putin would give Melania Latvia as a personal gift and toy. He'd do Donald proud he would.

 

[PleasantValley]

I place the post in the same file as Famous Last Words. Putin would give Melania Latvia as a personal gift and toy. He'd do Donald proud he would.

+3 points for that one.
Good job.

 

[Jredbaron96]

The tactical geography of the strategic Fulda Gap are easy gentle pains....

Surrounded by mountain ranges and the raised elevation of southern Germany.

Russian heavy armor and mechanized infantry traversing the two corridors of the Fulda Gap -- where the mountains are -- would seize the large Rhein-Main Nato Airbase and Frankfurt Airport both of which were to be major destinations of US reinforcements. This Nato option would thus be closed. The Fulda Gap opens to the heart of the West German and the present German financial centers. So Fulda Gap is a major strategic factor in any war in Europe, not a diversion from other Russian operations, such as the North German Plan. The two have always been the major Russian invasion plan. Nor is the gap a sideshow to tie up Nato forces while Russian forces focus elsewhere. Rather, nine Warsaw Pact armies were to reinforce Soviet Russian armies invading through the Fulda Gap itself, apart from the North German Plan.

Again, this is a fantasy. Even NATO acknowledged that any major Soviet invasion would occur through the Northern European Plain. It literally is counterproductive to invade through the Fulda Gap, which is narrow and offers the defenders a far easier task, than invade into the wide open plains and advanced highway networks of northern Germany. The idea that the Soviets would've targeted southern Germany because of Frankfurt and Germany's financial centers is stupid; they simply would've been struck with tactical nuclear weapons.

The Fulda Gap was never going to be anything other than a holding action designed to pin down American and West German forces. Both NATO and the Warsaw Pact recognized this.

 

[beerftw]

Surrounded by mountain ranges and the raised elevation of southern Germany.





Again, this is a fantasy. Even NATO acknowledged that any major Soviet invasion would occur through the Northern European Plain. It literally is counterproductive to invade through the Fulda Gap, which is narrow and offers the defenders a far easier task, than invade into the wide open plains and advanced highway networks of northern Germany. The idea that the Soviets would've targeted southern Germany because of Frankfurt and Germany's financial centers is stupid; they simply would've been struck with tactical nuclear weapons.

The Fulda Gap was never going to be anything other than a holding action designed to pin down American and West German forces. Both NATO and the Warsaw Pact recognized this.

I do not think he has ever watched the movie 300, or read history in spartan and athens use of bottlenecks for defense. The gap is great defense wise but terrible offense wise, Open plains like you stated would make a better offense. Bottlenecks usually favor the defender, which is why the russian navy being defensive favors them, and switzerland can always stay neutral, because switzerland is nearly un invadable, the narrow mountain passes surrounding the country combined with swiss training on mountains and mountain warfare makes it absolute hell for even the most powerful armies on earth to invade.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I do not think he has ever watched the movie 300, or read history in spartan and athens use of bottlenecks for defense. The gap is great defense wise but terrible offense wise, Open plains like you stated would make a better offense. Bottlenecks usually favor the defender, which is why the russian navy being defensive favors them, and switzerland can always stay neutral, because switzerland is nearly un invadable, the narrow mountain passes surrounding the country combined with swiss training on mountains and mountain warfare makes it absolute hell for even the most powerful armies on earth to invade.

And it was also the path the US Army XII Corps took once they secured Frankfurt am Main. And although there was stiff resistance, it was not anything that was so difficult to overwhelm that they simply held in place or diverted. It only took them 3 days to pass through it.

What the Swiss have to do with a mountain range in Germany, I have no idea.

 

[beerftw]

And it was also the path the US Army XII Corps took once they secured Frankfurt am Main. And although there was stiff resistance, it was not anything that was so difficult to overwhelm that they simply held in place or diverted. It only took them 3 days to pass through it.

What the Swiss have to do with a mountain range in Germany, I have no idea.

The swiss just have to do with using mountains as their defense, meaning their bottlenecks and their terrain make the near un invadeable, meaning the swiss hold little fear of invasion because of their terrain as the inaders would be torn apart trying to invade them.

It goes with invading narrow passages, the invader is usually at a disadvantage, they are not always perfectly secure from invasions, but they offer the defender an advantage.

 

[Oozlefinch]

The swiss just have to do with using mountains as their defense, meaning their bottlenecks and their terrain make the near un invadeable, meaning the swiss hold little fear of invasion because of their terrain as the inaders would be torn apart trying to invade them.

It goes with invading narrow passages, the invader is usually at a disadvantage, they are not always perfectly secure from invasions, but they offer the defender an advantage.

Oh nonsense. In WWII the German Army could have torn across Switzerland in days if it really wanted to. But there was really no reason to invade, the Swiss had nothing the Germans wanted. And it was convenient to have a neutral nation landlocked deep within their territory.

Plus the Germans believed that eventually the Swiss would become theirs politically. The Swiss were in many ways a German puppet state throughout the war, through Finlandization. And there was a Swiss Nazi Party, the Germanische SS Schweiz. They honestly believed that eventually Switzerland would fall to them politically.

With over 100 German Divisions in France alone in 1940, there is nothing the Swiss could have done to stop them if they had invaded.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Isn't Melania originally from Latvia?
I see no chance of it ever being "sacrificed".

Melania Trump (nee Knavs) is from Slovenia, which is nowhere near Latvia.

Geezuz lol.

 

[Tangmo]

Surrounded by mountain ranges and the raised elevation of southern Germany.





Again, this is a fantasy. Even NATO acknowledged that any major Soviet invasion would occur through the Northern European Plain. It literally is counterproductive to invade through the Fulda Gap, which is narrow and offers the defenders a far easier task, than invade into the wide open plains and advanced highway networks of northern Germany. The idea that the Soviets would've targeted southern Germany because of Frankfurt and Germany's financial centers is stupid; they simply would've been struck with tactical nuclear weapons.

The Fulda Gap was never going to be anything other than a holding action designed to pin down American and West German forces. Both NATO and the Warsaw Pact recognized this.

No one at Nato is or was talking about winning a Russian-Nato war at the Fulda Gap or at the Suwalki Gap -- or at any gap or one place, locale, area.

V Corps' 11th Armored Cav Division was meant to delay, not hold the Fulda Gap against Soviet Russian-Warpac forces. V Corps was deployed along the easy plains at the West German side of the Gap. 8th Infantry Division was integrated with 11 ACD. In contrast and if Nato had wanted to make a stand using the Gap as a defensive barrier, the Nato order of battle would have led with the 3rd Armored Division, which it did not. 3 AD was not positioned up front at the Gap because Nato considered Fulda impossible to hold as a defensive position. Neither side could hold Fulda as a defensive position. You have overstated Fulda as a viable natural defensive barrier. You have also put Russian-Warpac forces exiting the gap into mountains that defend themselves as you put it, which is not the case. The gap is in the mountains and runs through 'em then opens to easy plains on grassy lands with streams.

In a conventional war, the 11th ACD was expected to delay Ivan by 24-48 hours, then fall back through 3rd AD lines and get ready for the next Soviet Russian-Warpac offensive strike. Coming at Nato were to be the Soviet 8th Guards Army with four Motor-Rifle and one Tank Divisions, with the 1st Guards Tank Army having four Tank Divisions following behind. Warpac at Fulda included the East German 3rd Army, with four Motorized Rifle Divisions and one Tank Division. Days 1,2,3 would belong to the attackers, while days 8, 9, 10 would belong to Nato -- it would have been the dayze in between, 4-7, that would characterize the nature of the war to include conventional, chemical, biological, tactical nuclear.

Yes we note here definite zero-sum faucets of the Fulda Gap such as Patton charging through it into the heart of Germany. And that Napoleon marched his grand armee through Fulda when he advanced, then dragged it back through again when he retreated. Yet the Nato approach was to make Fulda a battle zone in which engagements would be ongoing during what everyone expected would be a Russian-Nato conflict of a brief and decisive duration. Likely fewer than ten dayze. So we see that the Fulda Gap as well as other gaps through history have not only been a zero-sum impregnable feature of defense.

This is also the case with the Sawalki Gap between Belarus and Kalningrad to Nato in its strategic planning and positioning. So the takeaway for you in this is that a gap is not necessarily or always a zero-sum gift to the side on defense, that a gap most often has several routes through it as Fulda does have and which open to easy plains rather than to more mountainsides; and, that a gap commonly connects economically and politically common peoples separated by nature or warlords if not both. That neither the Fulda Gap nor the Swalki Gap are decisive to a war in Europe.

 

[Tangmo]

I do not think he has ever watched the movie 300, or read history in spartan and athens use of bottlenecks for defense. The gap is great defense wise but terrible offense wise, Open plains like you stated would make a better offense. Bottlenecks usually favor the defender, which is why the russian navy being defensive favors them, and switzerland can always stay neutral, because switzerland is nearly un invadable, the narrow mountain passes surrounding the country combined with swiss training on mountains and mountain warfare makes it absolute hell for even the most powerful armies on earth to invade.

I saw the original 300 Spartans movie when the actors were still alive thx. Let's not go by movies btw.

Nato will also divert Russian forces invading Europe by attacking Russian naval bases in Europe-Eurasia, to include Syria, and Vladivostok out and along the Pacific. Russia of course will protect its boomers which means diverting resources from an invasion of Europe and Nato while keeping the boomers heads down. Missiles employed in US AirSea Battle will penetrate the Russian landmass to destroy command and control facilities and capability. Russian forces rely heavily on their rail system which is a first obvious target of Nato air and sea forces artillery while "our" ground forces hold off and cut off Russian armies. They are on 'our' side although the word our does not include all of us here.

 

[beerftw]

Oh nonsense. In WWII the German Army could have torn across Switzerland in days if it really wanted to. But there was really no reason to invade, the Swiss had nothing the Germans wanted. And it was convenient to have a neutral nation landlocked deep within their territory.

Plus the Germans believed that eventually the Swiss would become theirs politically. The Swiss were in many ways a German puppet state throughout the war, through Finlandization. And there was a Swiss Nazi Party, the Germanische SS Schweiz. They honestly believed that eventually Switzerland would fall to them politically.

With over 100 German Divisions in France alone in 1940, there is nothing the Swiss could have done to stop them if they had invaded.

I doubt they could have done it in days, the swiss mountains are very unfriendly to armor and vehicles invading, and numerous ambush points and tricky logistics would have made it difficult. Hitler actually had plans to invade them but backed out, part of because the cost of taking the country would have been massive for such a small gain, the other issue being nazis were using swiss bank accounts to hold their war gains stolen in conquest, this made them convenient.

The swiss could have done plenty, much of the invasion would require ground troops and poor logistics, it would have required the german army to focus on mountain warfare and even redefine it's logistics to handle mountain warfare, not an easy task when you have a peak army strength of around 11 million stretched all over europe.

 

[beerftw]

I saw the original 300 Spartans movie when the actors were still alive thx. Let's not go by movies btw.

Nato will also divert Russian forces invading Europe by attacking Russian naval bases in Europe-Eurasia, to include Syria, and Vladivostok out and along the Pacific. Russia of course will protect its boomers which means diverting resources from an invasion of Europe and Nato while keeping the boomers heads down. Missiles employed in US AirSea Battle will penetrate the Russian landmass to destroy command and control facilities and capability. Russian forces rely heavily on their rail system which is a first obvious target of Nato air and sea forces artillery while "our" ground forces hold off and cut off Russian armies. They are on 'our' side although the word our does not include all of us here.

Wait so their first move is to ignore their ground forces which is 99% of their power and instead attack a mostly defensive navy, Sounds like whoever came up with that strategy is pretty damn clueless. The russian navy is defensive, if they go on the offense they are not sending their ships, they are sending their sumbarines and their bombers with hypersonic anti ship missiles, which ship defenses would not be able to stop so they would have to focus instead on eliminating those bombers before they can launch anti shipping missiles.


Destroy russian comman in russian landmass? You freaking crazy??? That is the most well guarded airspace on earth, flying in and just bombing crap is a dream of someone who has no clue on air defenses, most likely nearly every jet would be shot down unless you sent every air asset of nato and america in at once to overwhelm their system, which would leave them defenseless elsewhere. To get past such a system it would have to be taken in increments, either by ground troops or by air chipping away their defenses. The whole russian air defense system is a deterrent to the exact plan you propose, it is as if it was written by some civilians and generals who never once studies soviet doctrine, never once been to war, and maybe played 20 minutes of call of duty modern warfare and somehow decided they were smart enough to make doctrine.

Oh and yeah the russians are not going to divert their forces if navy assets are attacked, their surface ships like to hide in bottlenecks and any navy or airforce stupid enough to focus on them in their own safezone would probably be wiped out, and the outer ones like in syria will likely be ignored, as diverting massive troops to protect a naval base with no strategic value to a europe invasion is the sumbest thing I have heard, especially when they do not have the logistics to handle sea warfare that far and they would have to deal with turkey and nato using the straight as their own bottleneck.

 

[Jredbaron96]

No one at Nato is or was talking about winning a Russian-Nato war at the Fulda Gap or at the Suwalki Gap -- or at any gap or one place, locale, area.

V Corps' 11th Armored Cav Division was meant to delay, not hold the Fulda Gap against Soviet Russian-Warpac forces. V Corps was deployed along the easy plains at the West German side of the Gap. 8th Infantry Division was integrated with 11 ACD. In contrast and if Nato had wanted to make a stand using the Gap as a defensive barrier, the Nato order of battle would have led with the 3rd Armored Division, which it did not. 3 AD was not positioned up front at the Gap because Nato considered Fulda impossible to hold as a defensive position. Neither side could hold Fulda as a defensive position. You have overstated Fulda as a viable natural defensive barrier. You have also put Russian-Warpac forces exiting the gap into mountains that defend themselves as you put it, which is not the case. The gap is in the mountains and runs through 'em then opens to easy plains on grassy lands with streams.

In a conventional war, the 11th ACD was expected to delay Ivan by 24-48 hours, then fall back through 3rd AD lines and get ready for the next Soviet Russian-Warpac offensive strike. Coming at Nato were to be the Soviet 8th Guards Army with four Motor-Rifle and one Tank Divisions, with the 1st Guards Tank Army having four Tank Divisions following behind. Warpac at Fulda included the East German 3rd Army, with four Motorized Rifle Divisions and one Tank Division. Days 1,2,3 would belong to the attackers, while days 8, 9, 10 would belong to Nato -- it would have been the dayze in between, 4-7, that would characterize the nature of the war to include conventional, chemical, biological, tactical nuclear.

Yes we note here definite zero-sum faucets of the Fulda Gap such as Patton charging through it into the heart of Germany. And that Napoleon marched his grand armee through Fulda when he advanced, then dragged it back through again when he retreated. Yet the Nato approach was to make Fulda a battle zone in which engagements would be ongoing during what everyone expected would be a Russian-Nato conflict of a brief and decisive duration. Likely fewer than ten dayze. So we see that the Fulda Gap as well as other gaps through history have not only been a zero-sum impregnable feature of defense.

This is also the case with the Sawalki Gap between Belarus and Kalningrad to Nato in its strategic planning and positioning. So the takeaway for you in this is that a gap is not necessarily or always a zero-sum gift to the side on defense, that a gap most often has several routes through it as Fulda does have and which open to easy plains rather than to more mountainsides; and, that a gap commonly connects economically and politically common peoples separated by nature or warlords if not both. That neither the Fulda Gap nor the Swalki Gap are decisive to a war in Europe.

You have the incredible ability to throw up a ton of words and yet say absolutely nothing of note or value.

The 8th Guards Army and 1st Guards Tank Army would've done nothing more than combine with Czechoslovakian forces to apply pressure against CENTAG without actually trying to rupture the defensive boundaries of the US VII Corps and the German II Corps.

The real battle would've been against NORTHAG, where the Soviets would've certainly established at least three fronts to attack NORTHAG, using Polish and East German divisions to shore up their own 3rd Shock Army, 20th Guards Army, and 2nd Guards Tank Army. They would've attacked against the German and Dutch I Corps, where they could collapse the corps boundaries by attacking on two axis of advance, opening up an advance into NATO's rear echelon and putting them on the Weser within 3 days.

 

[Fledermaus]

Wait so their first move is to ignore their ground forces which is 99% of their power and instead attack a mostly defensive navy, Sounds like whoever came up with that strategy is pretty damn clueless. The russian navy is defensive, if they go on the offense they are not sending their ships, they are sending their sumbarines and their bombers with hypersonic anti ship missiles, which ship defenses would not be able to stop so they would have to focus instead on eliminating those bombers before they can launch anti shipping missiles.


Destroy russian comman in russian landmass? You freaking crazy??? That is the most well guarded airspace on earth, flying in and just bombing crap is a dream of someone who has no clue on air defenses, most likely nearly every jet would be shot down unless you sent every air asset of nato and america in at once to overwhelm their system, which would leave them defenseless elsewhere. To get past such a system it would have to be taken in increments, either by ground troops or by air chipping away their defenses. The whole russian air defense system is a deterrent to the exact plan you propose, it is as if it was written by some civilians and generals who never once studies soviet doctrine, never once been to war, and maybe played 20 minutes of call of duty modern warfare and somehow decided they were smart enough to make doctrine.

Oh and yeah the russians are not going to divert their forces if navy assets are attacked, their surface ships like to hide in bottlenecks and any navy or airforce stupid enough to focus on them in their own safezone would probably be wiped out, and the outer ones like in syria will likely be ignored, as diverting massive troops to protect a naval base with no strategic value to a europe invasion is the sumbest thing I have heard, especially when they do not have the logistics to handle sea warfare that far and they would have to deal with turkey and nato using the straight as their own bottleneck.

Tangmo is stuck on "US AirSea Battle" and tries so hard to work it into discussions where it is irrelevant.

 

[Tangmo]

Wait so their first move is to ignore their ground forces which is 99% of their power and instead attack a mostly defensive navy, Sounds like whoever came up with that strategy is pretty damn clueless. The russian navy is defensive, if they go on the offense they are not sending their ships, they are sending their sumbarines and their bombers with hypersonic anti ship missiles, which ship defenses would not be able to stop so they would have to focus instead on eliminating those bombers before they can launch anti shipping missiles.


Destroy russian comman in russian landmass? You freaking crazy??? That is the most well guarded airspace on earth, flying in and just bombing crap is a dream of someone who has no clue on air defenses, most likely nearly every jet would be shot down unless you sent every air asset of nato and america in at once to overwhelm their system, which would leave them defenseless elsewhere. To get past such a system it would have to be taken in increments, either by ground troops or by air chipping away their defenses. The whole russian air defense system is a deterrent to the exact plan you propose, it is as if it was written by some civilians and generals who never once studies soviet doctrine, never once been to war, and maybe played 20 minutes of call of duty modern warfare and somehow decided they were smart enough to make doctrine.

Oh and yeah the russians are not going to divert their forces if navy assets are attacked, their surface ships like to hide in bottlenecks and any navy or airforce stupid enough to focus on them in their own safezone would probably be wiped out, and the outer ones like in syria will likely be ignored, as diverting massive troops to protect a naval base with no strategic value to a europe invasion is the sumbest thing I have heard, especially when they do not have the logistics to handle sea warfare that far and they would have to deal with turkey and nato using the straight as their own bottleneck.

No need to wait thx. Nato would not be ignoring their ground forces. It isn't a strategy. It is rather what is in your post from the moon thx anyway.