Ukraine 2014

[guanotwozero]

Indeed they have, but in the last century there has been a significant shift towards world structures whereby they don't, with increasing success. This goes hand-in-hand with a vigorous and accountable civil society becoming dominant instead of military elites. There's also major distinction between an intervention, which intentionally ends in a withdrawal, and a grab which doesn't.

To me, this looks like a grab - the largest in a series, and accompanied by a diminution of civil society. So my 1938 parallel is not just about the international response, but about the sequence of actions and their domestic context.

[beserko]

opps

[oldman45]

I hope your new scenario does not include ships coming from the Med to help unless they are DD's and frigates. The treaties do not allow subs or carriers to pass through the straights.

[beserko]

A Su-24 with 10 air to air missiles ! which include include six Vympel R-27 long-range semi-active-radar homers plus four Vympel R-73 short-range infrared models

If I was the Ukrainian general in charge of defense this is what I might do.


1st break out of Odessa with something fast or a sub and scuttle it in the strait of Bosporus. A whole bunch of mines wouldn't hurt.


Then I'd pull back to the Dnieper and dig in in multiple layers of defense

As you see from the map the western side is hilly and mountainous. Not good tank area.

From the heights or US/NATO sensors concentrations of Russian units could be pinpointed for Arty and missiles.

Turn the west side of the Dnieper into a ATGM paradise

Go to the library and take out any books relating to the Fulda gap and study them [;)]

The Ukraine gave up their nuclear missiles for a treaty that guaranteed their border sovereignty, what do you think will happen if they say forgot to turn in a few of the short range nuclear missiles. They do have nuclear power plants you know if they wanted to build some more.

I just saw that Russia gave an ultimatum for Ukrainian troops to surrender at 6 am (10:00 EST)in the Crimea.

Why does this make me think of Ft Sumter and the beginning of the bloodbath called the American Civil War?

I pray to god this doesn't happen but as they say hope is not a strategy.

[mx1]

Then I'd pull back to the Dnieper and dig in in multiple layers of defense

As you see from the map the western side is hilly and mountainous. Not good tank area.

Better take another look at the pictures of Volhynia (northwestern part). It is near perfect terrain for tanks and was an attack path of 1st Panzer Group in 1941 and then of 2nd Belarussian Front in 1944.

Besides the whole war is over east Ukraine/Crimea so terrain in west is largely irrelevant to current situation. Right bank (east of Dniepr) Ukraine is a flat terrain with no natural barriers, very hard to defend.

[beserko]

I never said its a perfect plan. It beats setting up positions on the Russian border. I would have stretched out my forces between Lutsk and used Kiev as the corner lynchpin. I generally precluded the northwest as they would have to come in from Belarus. A big maybe. I think the Russians will try to take all of Ukraine and reinstall Viktor Yuschenko as the "legal" president. Then he can pass all those wonderful laws like no protests, control of media, martial law reject,disolve the euromaiden pact and incorporate Ukraine into Putin's pet neo Warsaw pact boundaries.

If Stalin hadn't taken the entire population of Tartars and sent them to Siberia in 1944 and then moved Russians into the now empty homes ,we wouldn't be having this conversation now.

[RoryAndersonCDT]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I hope your new scenario does not include ships coming from the Med to help unless they are DD's and frigates. The treaties do not allow subs or carriers to pass through the straights.

I'm only going to be adding things mentioned in the news: Ukraine stands alone against the Bear.

[flying penguin]

ORIGINAL: beserko

I never said its a perfect plan. It beats setting up positions on the Russian border. I would have stretched out my forces between Lutsk and used Kiev as the corner lynchpin. I generally precluded the northwest as they would have to come in from Belarus. A big maybe. I think the Russians will try to take all of Ukraine and reinstall Viktor Yuschenko as the "legal" president. Then he can pass all those wonderful laws like no protests, control of media, martial law reject,disolve the euromaiden pact and incorporate Ukraine into Putin's pet neo Warsaw pact boundaries.

If Stalin hadn't taken the entire population of Tartars and sent them to Siberia in 1944 and then moved Russians into the now empty homes ,we wouldn't be having this conversation now.

IMVHO, the idea of Russia "going for gold" and trying to take the whole of the Ukraine is unlikely, not for any military capability reason, but simply on the basis of ethnicity and economics.


The moment they cross the Dnipro, they are into ethnic Ukrainian territory and are inviting a Chechnya like insurgency. The country is divided ethnically and politically west to east, taking Donestk, Kharkiv and the surrounding provinces around Luhansk and possibly Zaporizhzhia/Kherson (if they want a land link to Crimea) would give them two of the three richest cities in Ukraine, most of the Russian speakers and leave most of the (now very angry) ethnic Ukrainians in the West of the country. With the added bonus that it's easily defensible for exactly the same reasons you suggested in support of falling back to the west!

Whether such an escalation is wise is a whole other conversation, but if they are going to start a shooting war, I can see few benefits of forcing their way to the Polish border and getting a guaranteed insurgency and their first land border with NATO... (and the potential "October 1950 Chinese intervention in Korea" style scenario).

Just my amateur two pennies worth..

Cheers,

Jamie

[RoryAndersonCDT]

[USSInchon]

It is hard to say what Russia's next move will be. So far it is playing out much like it did in 2008 with Russia anexing only small parts that they deem "Russian". However, the disposed leader (and the proper leader if you ask Putin) was allied with Russia, so does this mean that Russia will seek to reinstall him to power with the support of the Russian military? Perhaps they will simply leave Ukraine alone after they have taken what they want. However, the recent rattling about an ultimatum of 0300z may change things if it is true.

[NakedWeasel]

Well, I've had a chance to play test it out. By itself, Ukraine doesn't stand much chance at all against a full Russian onslaught. IMHO, adding arms like MANPADS, anti-tank weapons, heavy sniper/anti-material rifles, and mines could make a huge difference, (IRL).
When I added a NATO contingent of a couple squadrons each of: Gripen, Rafale, Eurofighter, Falcons, Strike Eagles, (and 6 B-1Bs), it gets MUCH harder for the Russians. Even after adding the full regional OOB for the Russian Air Force at the still-operational air bases in the area, (including at least two squadrons each of Su-30/33's Su-34's, Su-35's, and some T-50 PAK-FA's for S&Gs ) the Russian forces in Crimea are made to suffer. I even added the full bomber force at Engles: 20 Bear-G, 14 Blackjack, and 12 Backfires- all loaded with Kents and KH-101s.
The Slava gets taken down early with the first two waves of HARMs, followed by JSOWs coming out of Incirlik. The SA-21, and southern Crimean SA-10 Rgmts are taken down with HARMs and JASSMs shortly after that. within two hours of game play, the Russian Federation air strikes destroy at least 3-4 Ukrainian air bases, and overrun Eastern Ukraine.
I relegated all NATO air strikes to the Crimean peninsula only. NATO AAW was used only to secure a NO-Fly Zone over Crimea, Romania, and Turkey. The total air war, with about 2000 active units in the region, lasts no more than 6hrs of game time. Russian forces outnumber the West by nearly a 3:1 advantage. I did throw both sides some additional "wild cards"- Russia got a bunch of Spetsnaz troops along the borders, 6 Bn's of Iskander SSM's at various strategic positions in the region, and a full tank regiment on Ukraine's north west border area. The US/NATO get's 4 B-2's loaded with JASSM out of Lajes Field. (No laser's or earthquake-inducing plasma rays, sorry [;)] )

Now, I'll be the first to say, actual violence is wrong- lets talk this out. But if it comes down to it, and there's no way out but to follow-through with some good old-fashioned, modern air power, CMANO says the Russians will get crushed (in Crimea.) The flip side is, the Ukrainians get overrun regardless.

[mrfeizhu]

sunburn "I am _so sorry_ that Command drills into you what Russian hardware can do when ably handled."
Hey don't be sorry I am actually happy it shows I am smarter the the clients of Russian military equipment I can do a lot better than they do.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: mrfeizhu

sunburn "I am _so sorry_ that Command drills into you what Russian hardware can do when ably handled."
Hey don't be sorry I am actually happy it shows I am smarter the the clients of Russian military equipment I can do a lot better than they do.

You can modify the quality of any particular side so not sure what the big deal is. Take a look at the side dialog there is a slider. SO there really is an easy button for you[:D]

BTW this is not what this string is about. Feel free to start a new string but this is not the place.

Thanks!

Mike

[NakedWeasel]

For the record, all sides in my scenario are "Normal" experience- which is probably not accurate to "real life", because the average Russian fighter pilot accumulates about 100-300 flying hours in a year. Western pilots can accumulate this much in a month. A volunteer force will typically be more motivated, better educated/and trained than a conscripted force. ( This is more about the ground crews and maintainers, as opposed to the pilots, who have to struggle to make the cut. ) Finally, Western forces are generally better funded than their eastern counterparts, and this certainly plays a part in the morale of the personnel.

This being taken into account, I might make the NATO side "Veteran", The Russians "Normal", and the Ukrainians "Cadet". I'll make changes in the doctrine to reflect tactical conditions. For the Russians, I'll set them to "Optimistic", and engage Opportunity Targets = Yes. I'll set the Ukrainians to Optimistic, RTB = No, Auto Evasion = No.

[ExNusquam]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I hope your new scenario does not include ships coming from the Med to help unless they are DD's and frigates. The treaties do not allow subs or carriers to pass through the straights.

Treaties can be bent to allow the subs through...give Turkey the EU membership it's been wanting for a while and I'm sure you can move what ever you want through...

However, I don't think US CVNs can physically fit through the Bosporus. The island and antennas on a carrier are about 220 feet in the air. The max height of the bridges across the Bosporus is 210'. It's only 10 feet, so I'm sure they could figure something out, but it would mean loss of some capability until clear of the straight.

Also, there's not much advantage to be gained by pushing a CVBG into the Black Sea. It's literally the Russian Navy's back yard, and as soon as they clear the straight, they'd be in range of the Moskova's P-500's, even if it doesn't sortie. And you have to admit, having the naval attache from the Russian embassy call in and say "yeah, the Americans cleared the straight 5 minutes ago moving NE at a speed of 15 kts" is a pretty good targeting solution. Actually, you could probably just use twitter.

[NakedWeasel]

It's just unnecessary for a carrier to operate in the Black Sea. Everything can be accomplished by taking up station north of Crete, and refueling carrier-based AC in air from Turkey, or allowing them to R&R from Incirlik. American aircraft are frequent guests at Romania's 57th AB as well. At the moment I don't have any NATO naval presence in the Black Sea, or carrier-based air, because that would just be overkill. Given that Tomahawks auto-fire at anything hostile in range, and would certainly attack Russian air bases, I didn't think it was a good idea to escalate things beyond Crimea. I would imagine the Russian response to TLAM strikes on their sovereign territory would involve launch keys, and American children hiding under their desks.... [:-] that's a big NOPE.

Being the mad scientist type that I am, I might just let the scenario evolve that far, because up till now, I haven't had any good reason for a full-blown, "Global Thermo-Nuclear War".
Time to fire up the 'Ole WOPR.

[NakedWeasel]

interestingly, as I'm posting along this train of thought, both NATO bases in Georgia, and a radar site in Turkey are struck by Russian AS-15s. So, that being the case, wouldn't the proper response require cruise missile strikes against the enemies bases? There's no reason to dismiss a few basic facts; one of the tactics and technologies adopted by the Russians after the Kosovo conflict, was to equip their heavy bombers with conventional, long-ranged cruise missiles. So, in this type of conflict, would the Russians launch them at NATO air bases outside the Ukraine? If that's a real threat, then I suppose I would have to TLAM those bomber bases in response.

So TLAMs and CALCM's start raining down on Russia's No. 1 nuclear bomber base... that just sounds like an unforgivable offense. I can't imagine things staying "conventional" after that.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

For the record, all sides in my scenario are "Normal" experience- which is probably not accurate to "real life", because the average Russian fighter pilot accumulates about 100-300 flying hours in a year. Western pilots can accumulate this much in a month. A volunteer force will typically be more motivated, better educated/and trained than a conscripted force. ( This is more about the ground crews and maintainers, as opposed to the pilots, who have to struggle to make the cut. ) Finally, Western forces are generally better funded than their eastern counterparts, and this certainly plays a part in the morale of the personnel.

Your training hours seem a little 1990'ish. Russian AF should have substantially higher training hours these days.

Mike

[NakedWeasel]

My background is 1990ish. [:D] But I haven't seen much to contradict this way thinking in any public sources, recently. Do you know of any sources that say otherwise?

[NakedWeasel]

So far, I've come up with this: The (Russian Federation) Air Force continues to suffer from a lack of resources for pilot training. In the 1990s Russian pilots achieved approximately 10% of the flight hours of the United States Air Force. The 2007 edition of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Military Balance listed pilots of tactical aviation flying 20–25 hours a year, 61st Air Army pilots (former Military Transport Aviation), 60 hours a year, and Army Aviation under VVS control 55 hours a year.[10]

^ Routledge/IISS, IISS Military Balance 2007, p.200

So, actually, I was way wrong- the Russians typically fly only half as much as I remembered reported in the late 90's. That's really significant.