RAND Corporation War game

[Crajon39]

Did anyone read the Rand Corporation report on a war game that they ran , NATO vs Russia . NATO lost in 60 hrs . The area that was used in Europe was the Kaliningrad Oblast , Poland, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania . Even with US forces in the region were over run .

[Silent Hunter UK]

No, do you have a link to it?

[Trooper]

Here you are!

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1200/RR1253/RAND_RR1253.pdf

[Craig67]

Well that was certainly a bucket of cold water.

[Legbreaker]

Nothing in there that surprises me all that much. :(

[Crajon39]

Thank you Trooper for the link ,my computer would not do it .

[rcaf_777]

Clearing this report is an attempt to redeploy forces to Baltic states. On the last page it clear states "This research was sponsored by the Office of the Under Secretary of the Army"

Funny how the don't talk about the Armored Forces in storage in Norway or the EAS stockpile. I guess they don't think they could deployed in time to make difference.

oh well I never put stock in war games done by people that have never been in a tank or hump 10 km

[Legbreaker]

The studies did involve high level military personnel.
The stocks in Norway, etc would not get there in time as they stated. The units already in Germany would have a hard enough time making it as they mentioned, subject to attack as they squeezed past Kalingrad. Having to bring in personnel form elsewhere to take charge of the equipment, etc takes even more time, and as they stated in the report, this could take up to ten days or more, by which time the Russians have already achieved their objectives.

Unless shipping was available and already on the spot, travel by sea isn't an option either, especially with the Russias operating subs, surface warships and aircraft in the Baltic.

Just because the Office of the Under Secretary of the Army sponsored the report, does not automatically mean there's an underlying agenda behind it. It is far more likely they truly wanted to know what the situation actually is. It's quite common for militaries and governments to carry out wargames both physical and theoretical for exactly this reason.

[Silent Hunter UK]

Does a hex system accurately simulate military movement? That's one question I have.

[RN7]

Much of this was already discussed in Raellus's A New Cold Car thread: http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=4621

See my post on page 3 about a US response to Russian invasion of the Baltic's and current forces and reinforcements to Europe.


oh well I never put stock in war games done by people that have never been in a tank or hump 10 km

Some truth to this


I think it was a very incompetent decision on the part of the West to allow the Baltic States to become members of NATO while knowing how heavily armed Russia is, and also knowing how much Russia would not like any of this. And then they even offer the Ukraine membership of NATO!?!

It's one thing establishing friendly links and trade relations with former Soviet countries (I don't think Russia would have any problem with that), but it's another thing offering them political and military defence treaties that cannot be backed up while rubbing Russia's nose in it.

I don't know how much influence the United States had in allowing the Baltic's to join NATO, but all of this but it seems to me to have be a European led policy run by the unelected and unaccountable EU idiot elite who brought us the Euro corps as a template for a new European Army to replace NATO. This mindset is currently personified by the likes of Angela Markel and the accountants and internationalists who now run the EU, who have brought European countries to their financial knees and flooded the continent with Muslim refugees from the Middle East and told us how lucky we all are. NATO in Europe seems to be dominated by France, Germany and the closet neutrals, while the US and Britain who are the traditional backbone of NATO have been marginalized, and will only be wanted when they really have to fight a war.

[Trooper]

I think it was a very incompetent decision on the part of the West to allow the Baltic States to become members of NATO while knowing how heavily armed Russia is, and also knowing how much Russia would not like any of this.

Yes that is right conclusion.

There are no major natural barriers in Baltic states. To defend those states, you actually need heavy armored units, with heavy artillery and air support. Estonian defense is based on territorial defense model. Estonian army is small even after full mobilization. Lithuanian and Latvian armies are even smaller.

There is some unofficial speculation in Finland, that United States offered us NATO membership in 90s. After hearing that Finland should take “strong responsibilities” to defend Baltic states, Finland quickly declined that offer.

[Legbreaker]

... Finland quickly declined that offer.

Can't imagine why.... :rolleyes:

Not like they haven't had their own issues with the Russians in the past, and had to fight tooth and nail to protect themselves, but to be given responsibility for another few countries as well with terrain not particularly conducive to the Finns way of fighting... Yeah, they can take their offer and...find somewhere inventive to put it.

[Raellus]

I wargamed this out when Rainbow 6 and I were writing up our Twilight 2030 timeline. It doesn't start well for NATO.

If the Russians want the Baltics, they have the ability to take them, and there's little, at present, that NATO can do about it. We knew this years before RAND.

How would NATO reinforce their meager forces pre-placed in the Baltic States, if and when the Russians launched a conventional invasion? The short answer is that it will be almost impossible to do so.

The Russians just have to deny NATO access to the sea, air, and land corridors from Poland and NW Europe while they roll over the local Baltic military forces.

The Russians have already placed substantial area-denial assets in their Kaliningrad Oblast.

Diesel subs, mines, and sea, air, and land based ASMs could more or less shut down the sea lanes through the Baltic.

SAMs and interceptors could make reinforcement by air incredibly costly. NATO wouldn't be able to move many of its heavy assets (read AFVs) by air anyways.

A land corridor from Poland up through Lithuania would be incredibly vulnerable to flank attack out of Belarus, a stalwart Russian ally (read puppet). With substantial land forces in the Kaliningrad Oblast, the Russians could even pull off a pincer attack to completely cut off any NATO forces in Estonia, Latvia, and northern Lithuania. Even a less than successful attack against a land corridor would be able to slow or stop substantial heavy assets from getting to the northern Baltic States in time to stop the Russians.

In our war game, Russia takes the Baltics- all of them. NATO eventually builds up enough strength in Eastern Europe to roll the Russians back, but then things go nuclear...

And you get T2030.

-