tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post4114593783186992954..comments2024-03-27T20:37:08.065+01:00Comments on Defence and Freedom: Musings about timeliness of forces for continental defence in EuropeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-86694294577277264202016-04-08T15:33:15.609+02:002016-04-08T15:33:15.609+02:00Poland 1939.Poland 1939.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-164273809023480972016-04-08T14:27:49.177+02:002016-04-08T14:27:49.177+02:00If memory serves, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was...If memory serves, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was preceded by Kuwait refusing to issue munitions to its forces, to avoid provoking Iraq...<br /><br />Its not an uncommon event.<br /><br />Belgium failed to much if its defense in the second world war, despite an invasion being obvious, large numbers of German 'hunters' were camping at key positions<br /><br />The us failed to disperse its fleet from pearl harbour despite knowledge an attack was imminent<br /><br />Actually, can anyone provide an example of a government acting on Intel and activating its war mobilisation plans?<br />TrThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316335177828136131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-65340959544401479772016-03-23T17:51:23.548+01:002016-03-23T17:51:23.548+01:00For cost reasons I'd hesitate to have a parall...For cost reasons I'd hesitate to have a parallel military structure able to take over the infrastructure in a state of emergency, but exercises should certainly incorporate these civilians (and perhaps recognize their role as being somewhat paramilitary, in much the same way as we recognize all emergency responders as having a role) at a minimum. As always, need more sweat expended on this issue. What I saw at Canadian railyards was shitty or non-existent security, if this is the same in Europe it should be rectified. The point is not to protect against a spetsnaz commando backflipping hatchet-throwing ninja attack, but instead to make it that much harder for one or two dickheads in civvies to go in and mess with something important. This might matter a great deal if you happen to have Russian "backpackers" wandering the area, e.g. the Baltics.NWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-13445333224983629192016-03-23T13:21:05.878+01:002016-03-23T13:21:05.878+01:00Airborne forces that are inserted in front of mech...Airborne forces that are inserted in front of mechanized invaders will be overrun, unless the terrain is very favorable. <br />So either one plans to use them in favorable (cities, forest) terrain, or insert them at the lines of communication, avoiding the mechanized part. <br /><br />VD airborne forces follow an offensive game plan, where they would disrupt the enemy movement to allow the mechanized spearheads to break trough. Equipping the fast response force like that would increase they utility, they still wouldn't stand a chance. <br />In fact, it might lower the chances as the dismount numbers decrease. madnernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-13431139536743259032016-03-22T12:32:41.788+01:002016-03-22T12:32:41.788+01:00Yeah, well that's just your opinion man.Yeah, well that's just your opinion man. S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-40980211642252710882016-03-22T08:08:48.616+01:002016-03-22T08:08:48.616+01:00In the face of a large conventional combined force...In the face of a large conventional combined forces attack 90 pct of the European armed forces would just collapse, drown in the chaos of civil disorder, be petrified by the civil political leadership ignorance on all things military, and soon just stop working because of vastly insufficient logistics and in reality totally untrained troops. The fact that a few battalions somewhere might fare a little better is irrelevant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-15781030979478346322016-03-21T20:23:59.826+01:002016-03-21T20:23:59.826+01:00About defence
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot....About defence<br />http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2015/07/the-three-checks.html<br /><br />Having almost twice as much conventional military power and a double mutually assured destruction deterrence is enough for security unless there's the salami slicing issue with coup de main and fait accompli in play. This may render much of the military power irrelevant.<br />For explanation:<br />http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2012/12/fun-yes-prime-minister-grand-design.html<br /><br />I don't care about what you call "victory".<br />http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2007/07/war-or-not-war-victory-or-defeat.htmlS Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-42730436538616054672016-03-21T16:22:50.734+01:002016-03-21T16:22:50.734+01:00My point on Vietnam was to emphasis the point that...My point on Vietnam was to emphasis the point that just being bigger and stronger doesn't necessarily translate into victory. The question I have though is where does defence end in today's age, is it at one's own borders or beyond...? It's all well and good being secure within your own borders but if you are reliant on imports from country x for your economy then that's not good enough. <br /><br />I do agree with you about political will and military capabilities but if the E.U can't find the political will then its military capabilities are irrelevant. I wasn't actually arguing over who did what, between the U.S and the E.U, just the actual end result. In my view without the U.S in Europe, the E.U vs Russia and Turkey could end with them being on the winning side. Obviously not taking over the whole of western Europe but certain strategic gains. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-3303871351172953972016-03-21T13:58:26.300+01:002016-03-21T13:58:26.300+01:00The Vietnam example is irrelevant. What matters is...The Vietnam example is irrelevant. What matters is that the North Vietnamese NVA was never able to coccupy the U.S., it's uninteresting to me whether it was able to resist an occupation of Vietnam by the U.S.. This is "Defence and Freedom", not "Offence and Freedom".<br /><br />The European policies regarding Libya, Ukraine and Syria are more a question of political will and necessity than of military capabilities.<br />Besides, the Europeans flew more sorties over Libya than the U.S. in 2011.<br />http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/may/22/nato-libya-data-journalism-operations-countryS Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-16393940293961433502016-03-21T13:17:42.788+01:002016-03-21T13:17:42.788+01:00While Europe may dwarf Russia and Turkey in regard...While Europe may dwarf Russia and Turkey in regards to GDP, military budgets and population size which could be defined as them being "vastly more powerful". The USA was vastly more powerful than N.V.A that still didn't stop them from losing the Vietnam war. The security of Europe goes far beyond just being able to stop an Invader from taking over and given its inability to deal with Syria, Ukraine and Libya highlight how impotent it is. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-91182035140887276142016-03-20T20:50:05.475+01:002016-03-20T20:50:05.475+01:00It's too easy to disrupt railway traffic that ...It's too easy to disrupt railway traffic that depends on overhead lines for electric power supply. Even a railway operation limited to diesel-powered trains would need to be a simplified and manually-controlled operation because the signal lines could still be disrupted.<br />I doubt the railway corporations are well-prepared for a reliable military-supporting rail service in face of sabotage, much less air and missile attack.<br />The German and Polish rail network operators should be fit for this.<br /><br />The Russian 2S25 sure is more impressive than Stryker MGS, though in Western service such a vehicle would o doubt receive better thermal electronics and sights as well as become overweight with add-on armour modules.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-36009441829544121102016-03-20T19:51:41.603+01:002016-03-20T19:51:41.603+01:00Although still totally dependent on CE for anti-ar...Although still totally dependent on CE for anti-armour applications, the mechanisation of Airborne forces has already been achieved by the Russo/Soviet Air Assault forces. In the NATO context this would allow an avenue of "let's build more shiny toys"-ism, but undoubtedly would suffer from gold-plating and massive delays in entering service. <br /><br />Standard 'leg' ABN forces seem to be intended to work as "tripwire" forces, which I know you've written about before and your criticisms are entirely valid on that. If we took alliance agreements seriously this is nonsensical: because of collective defence an attack on a single member, even (or especially) Estonia, means those national forces would themselves be the "tripwire" and only American Exceptionalism as a fallacious notion would support the idea of inserting meaningless reinforcements. <br /><br />Why are only diesel locomotives relevant? I assume this has to do with pulling capacity, reliability, and regional infrastructure?NWnoreply@blogger.com