Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ...
4
5
6
7
8
... LastLast
  1. #101
    Warchief Serenais's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    2,093
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    Russia could only hit Europe with it's tactical arsenal and it's submarine based arsenal. Europe is proxmally too "close" for ICBMs to hit it with any kind of accuracy.

    The significance of this is that in a nuclear exchange, nuclear explosions in Europe would be largely more distributed and smaller than say, a nuclear strike on the US would be.

    Germany could develop a nuclear warhead in no time, but unlike Japan with their Epsilon Rocket, Germany doesn't have an ballistic missile-in-waiting.
    That's true, although there is a possibility that Germany could get the Vega rocket, which is already flying. As Vega is developed and run by ESA (and Italian space agency), I find it quite possible.

  2. #102
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    Germany could develop a nuclear warhead in no time, but unlike Japan with their Epsilon Rocket, Germany doesn't have an ballistic missile-in-waiting.
    Where is Werner Von Brauhn when you need him?

  3. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Serenais View Post
    That's true, although there is a possibility that Germany could get the Vega rocket, which is already flying. As Vega is developed and run by ESA (and Italian space agency), I find it quite possible.
    Vega's problem is that it's too big and requires too many people to operate. It's a fine launch vehicle, but sized for putting smallish payloads into Low Earth Orbit.To turn Vega into an ICBM, you'd need to cut a stage or two. Against Russia, Germany would need IRMB and MRBMs for the most part, and it's way overkill for that.

    The Epsilon rocket is an interesting program. It's so transparently an ICBM it's shocking. It's potentially road mobile. It's entirely solid fueled. It's payload to high atltitude is pretty much exactly what an ICBM's would be. If Japan wanted to, they could cut the size of the second stage and put it in a submarine and get a SRBM out of it.

    Europe has good space rockets, but they're really "space-specific" like the US's NASA rockets, and not dual use. Also the industry to build them is spread around Europe.

    With Russia cheating on the INF Treaty, I think the time is right for a European Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile.

  4. #104
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    (1) There are a lot of Polish Americans.
    (2) Poland is a close ally of the US and the most "Westernized" of the ex-Warsaw Pact states (it's been an intentional multi-decade effort on the US's part).
    (3) To get to Germany, which is in effective "home base" (with Italy) for US operations on continental Europe, you'd have to get through Poland.
    (4) Poland is part of NATO and we'd defend it rather than wait for Russia to make it to Germany.

    That's why.
    Why would Russia invade germany? Again with ur 19-20th century mind set, everything is a red alert rts game to you...

    And lol poland, you mean the country that together with hungary is giving west/eu most headaches right now are the most like you? How so? I'd say the Czechs are more westernized..
    Poland n germany are bs propaganda to justify nato

  5. #105
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Ettan View Post
    You cant invade. Because
    The primary goal of the current Russian regime is perpetuating the kleptocracy.
    While they undoubtedly have the ability re-invade most of the old soviet sphere the gain is minute.
    However, Currently the regime depends on patriotic nationalism -
    Taking a step back, Putin has managed to effectively win every 'engagement' with the West in the last 15 years or so and yet is in a rapidly worsening position as time passes by, The only realistic scenario where it would actually use force would be if forced to do so to maintain power.
    What we need is a controlled collapse.

  6. #106
    Warchief Serenais's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    2,093
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    Vega's problem is that it's too big and requires too many people to operate. It's a fine launch vehicle, but sized for putting smallish payloads into Low Earth Orbit.To turn Vega into an ICBM, you'd need to cut a stage or two. Against Russia, Germany would need IRMB and MRBMs for the most part, and it's way overkill for that.

    The Epsilon rocket is an interesting program. It's so transparently an ICBM it's shocking. It's potentially road mobile. It's entirely solid fueled. It's payload to high atltitude is pretty much exactly what an ICBM's would be. If Japan wanted to, they could cut the size of the second stage and put it in a submarine and get a SRBM out of it.

    Europe has good space rockets, but they're really "space-specific" like the US's NASA rockets, and not dual use. Also the industry to build them is spread around Europe.

    With Russia cheating on the INF Treaty, I think the time is right for a European Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile.
    Yeah, I agree with you there. Vega would be the closest shot for Germany that wouldn't be "build a launcher from scratch", but it would require massive adaptation. Epsilon definitelly wouldn't.

  7. #107
    The Insane Aeula's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Nearby, preventing you from fast traveling.
    Posts
    17,415
    America because it gets to extort war-torn Europe all over again!

  8. #108
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Ser Arthur Dayne View Post
    Why would Russia invade germany?
    Why did Russia invade Crimea?
    Because it thought it could and would gain by doing so.

    Why would Russia gain by invading Germany (or Europe in general)
    Because in a Europe dominated by the EU, Russia is weak - Invading would probably end the EU (a successful one)
    Of course, in reality this objective is best achieved by funding Anti-EU parties and other more 'direct' action.

  9. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by Ser Arthur Dayne View Post
    Why would Russia invade germany? Again with ur 19-20th century mind set, everything is a red alert rts game to you...
    Let me get this right. You asked why, I gave you an answer, and now you don't like the reason? I mean the answer given is the right answer. Poland is a trip wire and we have a lot of interests in Poland.

    Agree or disagree thats why why. And more broadly speaking, a Russian presence in Poland would directly threaten Germany, and that couldn't be allowed. Even if an invasion is implausible (which i think it would be), it would be an untenable security threat.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ser Arthur Dayne View Post
    And lol poland, you mean the country that together with hungary is giving west/eu most headaches right now are the most like you? How so? I'd say the Czechs are more westernized..
    I'm not sure how you do things wherever your from, but here in civilization, when your friends do something that you don't like, that doesnt' mean they're not your friends anymore.

    Poland and Hungary are giving the West a headache. Big deal. America is giving the West a headache too. Go back 15 years Germany and France gave the US a headache. Go back 40 years it was half of NATO. When you live in the same house together, it's not always going to be wine and roses.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ser Arthur Dayne View Post
    Poland n germany are bs propaganda to justify nato
    If Russia blinked out of existence tomorrow and was replaced with open water, NATO would still exist. Because the idea of Western Democracy, among the world's largest economies and most developed countries, all together under one roof for the purpose of collective security is a fundamentally good, even romantic idea. America, Germany, the UK, France and Italy, all together to protect each other? That's a beautiful thing. We have far more in common than what separates us. We have much to learn from each other.

    Russia has never understood that. It used the Warsaw Pact countries as it always did... buffer states that were little more than puppet regimes of it's Soviet master. NATO was never that. NATO will never be that. It's an alliance based around ideals and a common history. NATO doesn't require an enemy, because it's fundamental rationale for being is an idea about its members.

  10. #110
    Deleted
    U forgot the part of usa openly supporting overthrow of democratically elected president government n parliament, derailing the country n expecting the voters to accept that US should erase their voting power taking thus their incentive to want to remain in ukraine, a country where democracy died with us help...

    Crimea is YOUR fault, it would be with ukraine today if u didn't decide to go full retard simply cuz russia offered better economic deal monies n u desired nato naval base in crimea...

    As for skroe, u didn't answer why russia would invade germany. Rts game mentality...

    No nato wouldn't exist today if russia went away, what for? Cost to stay off invasion from...uzbekistan?? U talk a lot of nonsense about values as if europe would cough up costs if there only small neighbors around..."lets spend billions on weapons FOR DEMOCRACY in case some tiny country is near us!!!"
    Last edited by mmocced9c7d33d; 2017-09-01 at 11:46 PM.

  11. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince Oberyn Martell View Post
    I was talking about Europe since you both were using the terms interchangeably anyway.

    Fact remains, the only time 'Europe' 'needed' US intervention was when Europe was fighting itself.
    No, I wasn't using the term interchangeably, at all. The EU is a geopolitical body, Europe is a geographic body.

    Regardless, Europe is not a monolith. If Belgium is conquered by France, Belgians would like the US to help. This notion that Germany taking over Europe, meant nothing because the physical geographic borders of Europe were unchanged, is about the most silly argument I have ever heard. It's akin to calling for a ban on yoga pants.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Pengekaer View Post
    Western Europe would be "OK". I doubt the Slavs would be OK though.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Ships are the most efficient way of transporting heavy gear and combat forces around. And Russia didn't get their Mistrals. Perhaps they're cooking up a 100000 tonnage super-duper secret hovercraft ship with lasers and S400s aboard? :O

    Transporting an army and tank/munitions by aircraft like that, is the best way to get broke. Surest way of getting adding hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in cost to each shell.

    Airlifting is expensive as fuck and Russia doesn't have any cash.
    Wars are not waged in a day, guy. By your own logic, how did the US get to Iraq or Afghanistan, if fighting far away is just impossible?

    I fail to see fuel cost as a major economic factor in Russia's ability to wage war, given how much oil they produce annually.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    Uh huh. And how many armored vehicles can a single cargo aircraft have? And how many tactical airlift aircraft do they have?

    The answer is 39 AN-72s that can carry 0 armored vehicles, 9 AN-124s that can carry two armored vehciles, 119 Il-76s that can carry zero, and thats it.

    So you're correct. Russia does indeed need a magical flying machine. To... you know... exist. Because right now, they got nine, that can move a whopping 18 armored vehicles.
    I will generally defer to your military knowledge. But the fact remains, wars take a long time, and Russia can take ports, roads, and railways they need as they go along. I just don't think, of all the reasons Russia might have difficulty conquering Europe, that logistics the biggest issue.

  12. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by GoblinP View Post

    Which Conflict are you talking about?
    WW1, Absent US intervention, Germany would probably have won - Fail to see how this constitutes a defense of anyone other than the UK.
    Germany wasn't ever going to win WW1 even if the US had sat it out. The US didn't get involved in combat until May 28, 1918, less than 6 months before end of the war, and even then it was just 1 division out of the only 5 that the US had in Europe at the time. Plus they relied on the French to supply a lot of their heavy equipment (aircraft, artillery, tanks).

    By that stage the German economy was pretty much crippled. They were out of raw materials to supply their war machine and they were out of food. Factory workers were starving to death as what food was available was going to the army.

    The Germans last hope to end the war the Spring Offensive, had been halted before the US could really arrive in numbers, and the end result of it was that it had left the Germans severely depleted and exhausted, with almost 20% of their troops lost and no manpower reserves left to call on. And the losses had been heaviest among their best troops who had been leading the attacks.

    By that stage too, the Allies had figured out how to best break the stalemate, by the use of combined arms tactics, which led to the 100 Days Offensive and the collapse of the German army. Ironically, the Germans were the ones to learn the lessons of this better than Allies and develop the blitzkrieg model based on it.

  13. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by GoblinP View Post
    "The notion that no good was done, by defeating Germany, because Europe would still be Europe, is a geographic argument, not a geopolitical argument."
    Yes it's a Geopolitical argument.
    There is no right or wrong in geopolitics.
    The Nazi regime was horrible and the US did the world a favour when it helped end it.
    But Europe would have been fine under a German order.
    Says nobody but Germans. Yeah, all the Jews of Europe would have been doing just FABULOUS under German rule. Ok...

  14. #114
    Warchief Serenais's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    2,093
    Quote Originally Posted by Tijuana View Post
    I will generally defer to your military knowledge. But the fact remains, wars take a long time, and Russia can take ports, roads, and railways they need as they go along. I just don't think, of all the reasons Russia might have difficulty conquering Europe, that logistics the biggest issue.
    Logistics in Russia would most likely not be a major problem (although transportation of ressources from Siberia to the theatre of war would be one of Russia's weaknesses, one that several low-chance-big-gain covert ops could hypothetically exploit), but once Russia gets to conquering, it would that Europe is simply too large to take easily and would find itself overextended once it would get signficantly far enough. EU leadership would definitelly realise that leaving infrastracture intact in areas that were going to be lost would be just helping Russia along the way, thus Russia would be forced to repair and create infrastracture in place as it would push further, and it would slow its progress a LOT.

  15. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by Serenais View Post
    Logistics in Russia would most likely not be a major problem (although transportation of ressources from Siberia to the theatre of war would be one of Russia's weaknesses, one that several low-chance-big-gain covert ops could hypothetically exploit), but once Russia gets to conquering, it would that Europe is simply too large to take easily and would find itself overextended once it would get signficantly far enough. EU leadership would definitelly realise that leaving infrastracture intact in areas that were going to be lost would be just helping Russia along the way, thus Russia would be forced to repair and create infrastracture in place as it would push further, and it would slow its progress a LOT.
    Would it slow their progress enough for each EU nation to manufacture some sporks, in order to defend themselves with? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

  16. #116
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Corvus View Post
    Germany wasn't ever going to win WW1 even if the US had sat it out.
    You know i could talk about the US contribution, but i wont, because my point stands.
    US involvement in WW1 'did not save Europe'.
    Oh just as a FYI, The Lusitania had Arms on it.
    Last edited by mmocfd561176b9; 2017-09-02 at 12:03 AM.

  17. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by Serenais View Post
    Nobody wins. The problem for Russia is that EU is a MASSIVE economic partner, therefore, Russia would find itself out of money in a nonnegligable amount of time. Europe, whether it would defend itself in a united way or in a very fractured way, is a BIG amount of territory to cover. That simply wouldn't be taken over in days. Even if Europe wouldn't strike back on Russian territory, Russia would soon enough find itself in a solid problem trying to finance its industry AND army.
    One can't conquer when their soldiers are unpaid.
    Another problem would be, while Russia is modernising, still, a lot of its army is simply OLD, and in large percentage, effectively mothballed. Reactivation of that would make it addtionally tough. On top of all that, while on the ground and to some degree in the air Russia would be superior, Russian navy is spread too far and thus too thin, not to mention that it has only one OLD (and nonnuclear) aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetzov. Russian navy would find itself in trouble, should European navies cooperate.
    Europe, on the other hand, however, would find a massive problem in trying to unite itself for defense. The moment US drops out of NATO the mutual defense becomes speech only. One would see many nationalistic movements that would advocate dropping out of NATO because "this is not our war and Russia is not going for us", or something similar. I mean - can you imagine, in the world where Brexit is a thing, that France and UK send LARGE forces to Romania to defend it from Russian invasion? I currently find it hard to believe. European defense would be fractured, which would allow for Russia to make significant progress into Europe, before its economy would grind to a halt.
    There is a hypothetical way for Europe to make a way into Russian territory, but it would have to unite and cooperate on a VERY significant level. Even then, European forces wouldn't make it far - even if by some miracle the Russian military would find itself unable to defend (and everyone who has even a whiff of history knowledge knows that simply is beyond even the realm of fantasy - one does NOT invade Russia), european armies are simply not built for conquest and occupation. Logistics would be a massive nightmare and there simply wouldn't be enough manpower to hold even a tiny amount of conquered ground.

    Also. Russia, due to no longer being the USSR machine, would have to chose a direction. It no longer would have the manpower and resources to go around the whole eastern half of Europe, like it did in WW2, plus the population would not be as cooperative as it was then. Therefore, Russia would have to choose whether to push towards the Balkans and the Mediterranean, which wouldn't be as tough, but there would be less to gain, or to push onto Germany, which would be a lot harder, but getting all the way to Germany would force EU forces into negotiations. Which would have to happen quick, otherwise, again, as stated above, Russia would find itself unable to finance any further attempts at conquest.

    All in all. The war would end with Russia bankrupt, with disfunctional army spread around eastern portion of Europe, which would in turn destabilise it internaly - the insurgencies in the Caucasus and possibly elsewhere would use the state of Russia after the war as an oportunity. Europe itself would find its eastern part severely damaged.

    That is, of course, under the expectation that neither side would resort to nuclear weapons. Should Russia use its nuclear arsenal, Europe would be toast, but the UK's and France's nuclear response would leave western Russia in flames. Nobody would win, and both sides would be effectively dead.

    I did discount hypothetical scenarios, like Poland or Germany developing nuclear weapons in the face of Russian threat; EU has a LOT of scientific knowhow and developing additional nuclear arsenal would be only a matter of not so long a time, something which Russia would have to weigh in. Also, there is a massive potential that Russia would find itself in massive trouble trying to sell its ressources, which, while they would skyrocket in price, would be nearly impossible to find a buyer for; OPEC nations would use the oportunity to push an embargo on volatiles sold from Russia, thus both getting some PR points with the west (which would DESPERATELLY need the ressources), and cashing in MASSIVELY on the market they would force Russia out of. And finally, there is a far fetched possibility of China taking advantage of the situation and invading Siberia. As China lacks any substational sources of oil and gas in its territory, the nearly undefended Siberia would be VERY tempting. And EU would definitelly welcome opening of a second front on the other side of Russia.




    Say the Russians have very little money which is widely believed. How long could they maintain an offensive? A month? Two?
    .

    "This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can."

    -- Capt. Copeland

  18. #118
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Tijuana View Post
    Says nobody but Germans. Yeah, all the Jews of Europe would have been doing just FABULOUS under German rule. Ok...
    What part of 'right and wrong' are not relevant did you not get?

  19. #119
    Warchief Serenais's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    2,093
    Quote Originally Posted by Hubcap View Post
    Say the Russians have very little money which is widely believed. How long could they maintain an offensive? A month? Two?
    Depends, really. Nationalistic fervor could do a lot, so the question is how long the political machine in Russia could keep the soldiers going for basically just food and lodging. My personal guess is, however, that it wouldn't last longer than six months, quite likely a lot less. The loss of European markets would hurt Russian economy very badly, and it might be that if EU shut its markets long before the invasion of Poland (as mentioned in OP's scenario), Russia might not even have enough money to make it that far.
    Of course, big question here would be how much willing would China be to replace the European markets for Russia. My personal guess is "not that much", since Russia doesn't have much more to offer than gas and oil, whereas EU has money and know-how - and China can get (and does) get supple amount of volatiles from elsewhere. That being said, even if China decided to somehow completely replace EU as a source of money for Russia, it wouldn't be enough. Russian ability to project force is nowhere near as massive as it may appear to be, and getting the whole Russian military moving would be incredibly prohibitively costly even in the best possibly circumstances (for Russia, anyway).
    Mind you, I am not a politologist, therefore I might be quite wrong. But I think that the Chinese would preffer to play both sides instead of openly supporting one or the other.

  20. #120
    Russia couldn't beat a few countries in Europe by themselves. I doubt they could take the UK or France and they could certainly not take Germany. Russia is only good at defensive wars and using landmass/weather to their advantage so unless Europe decides to march on Russia they are useless.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •