[Raellus]

I see your point, Bobcat. Hezbollah has demonstrated how deadly current generation ATGMs can be against amor in difficult terrain and urban settings. But current generation MBTs are rolling out new active point defense systems that can, to some degree, protect from anti-tank rockets and missiles. It's a constantly evolving game of cat and mouse. The advantage seems to shift every few years. Based on the success of Trophy and other Israeli point defense systems during the latest round of fighting in Gaza, the advantage currently appears to lie with the modern AFV. A few years prior, in southern Lebanon, it looked like the modern ATGM had the upper hand. My point is that modern ATGMs are not a trump card (neither are MBTs, to be fair). I'm eager to see what kind of defenses the new Russian ARMATA series of advanced AFVs, especially the MBT version, will feature (it's supposed to roll out on May Day this year).

As for artillery, the Russians have long been big believers in the liberal application of artillery, tube and rocket both, on the battlefield and light infantry are very vulnerable to its effects. Unfortunately for our Estonian and Latvian allies, their stocks of artillery are neither numerous or particularly capable. NATO light brigades do have their own organic artillery, but usually nothing heavier than 105mm howitzers and 120mm mortars. Russian mechanized forces have tube and rocket artillery that can easily outrange and outweigh (in terms of explosives delivered per shell/barrage) NATO light artillery.

For the reasons cited above, if I had to put my money on a defending light infantry force or an attacking heavy mechanized force on a conventional battlefield, I'd put it on the latter. Recent history supports my decision. Although insurgents in Fallujah c. 2004 didn't have access to their own heavy artillery, nor did the Chechen rebels in Grozny, both were fighting from carefully prepared urban positions, and both had access to prodigious quantities of AT rockets, land mines, IEDs, etc. Although both put up a valiant fight, neither could hold their city against combined arms attacks by forces employing armor, heavy artillery, and air power.

The best a light infantry force could hope to accomplish in the Baltics is slow down the Russian mechanized forces long enough for friendly mechanized forces to arrive. I think we've already adequately addressed the difficulties of getting heavy units to the northern Baltic states in anything like the numbers required to beat back a determined Russian all-arms assault.