Analysis:The Coming War Might Be A Hot One

[Afro-European]

by Martin Sieff
Washington (UPI)
The Russian five-day blitzkrieg that conquered one-third of Georgia for negligible losses carried a grim warning for the next president of the United States, whether he is John McCain or Barack Obama: Major land wars that could involve U.S. armed forces against formidable opponents are no longer inconceivable.

Only last week Adm. Eduard Baltin of the Russian navy publicly warned that the Russian Black Sea Fleet and its land-based air support assets could sink all U.S. and NATO warships operating in the Black Sea within 20 minutes.
Nor is Russia alone in planning for the possible contingencies of having to fight land wars on a very large scale in different parts of the Eurasian land mass. India and China have come to the same conclusion. Over the past seven years India has bought 657 front-line T-90S Main Battle Tanks from Russia. Russia used less than 10 percent of that number of T-90s in its Georgia operations from Aug. 8-12. The annual production run of the T-90S for the Russian army is only 90 MBTs.
The lessons of what happened in Georgia fly in the face of the Conventional Wisdom complacently assumed by U.S. military planners and most American strategists since the collapse of communism. They have taken for granted the idea that gigantic, full-scale land wars on major continents involving hundreds of thousands or even millions of troops have become inconceivable.
In the 21st century, U.S. policymakers, spearheaded by Donald Rumsfeld during his momentous six-year reign as secretary of defense, have been convinced that the advent of precision weapons, reconnaissance and communications means the United States will remain militarily supreme around the world without needing hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of ground troops to fight large-scale wars.
Republicans, raised in the age of Tom Clancy novels, have lived in a world where this seemed to be true for the past quarter-century. Democrats don't buy into the vision of electronic super-weapons rendering huge masses of less well-equipped troops, cannon and armored vehicles obsolete as enthusiastically as Republicans do, but they still think that the age of massive land confrontations has passed.
That is also the wisdom in every major nation of the European Union, and it's especially the case among European Commission policymakers in Brussels.
The only trouble is that a lot of other major powers around the world do not believe it is true -- and are planning based on very different assumptions.
The Russian army is currently upgrading its equipment on a more massive scale than at any time in at least the past 30 years. It can afford to do this because of the soaring global price of oil and gas, and Russia is the world's largest exporter and revenue earner of those energy sources.
Russia is moving energetically to modernize its army with the latest T-90S Main Battle Tanks, Black Shark tactical support attack helicopters, BMP-90 armored personnel carriers, Multiple Launch Rocket Vehicles and many other systems.
Also, Russia's military leaders, led by tough, politically incorrect, plain-speaking old four-star Chief of the General Staff Gen. Yury Baluyevsky, have been warning over the past two years that future full-scale wars, even including the use of nuclear weapons, are certainly not regarded as inconceivable by their planners.
The Conventional Wisdom in the West, especially in the United States, is that the Soviet and then the Russian army's extremely poor showing in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1987 and then in the two Chechen wars of 1994-96 and 2001-2004 means Russia can be eliminated as a serious factor in land power on the Eurasian land mass.
This is a very different concept from the view popularized by Israeli military historian Martin Van Creveld in "The Transformation of War" -- that large-scale conventional military operations have become outmoded and inconceivable.
Versions of this idea are held, from liberal Democrats who believe, along with Europeans, that economic aid and diplomacy are far more important than raw military power, to neoconservatives who believe that high-tech, precision weapon, state-of-the-art communications technology means the Pentagon can cut 30 tons off the weight of its Main Battle Tanks.
Another view, shared by liberals, neoconservatives and small-government free-traders, is that large production runs on expensive ground weapons like artillery, MBTs or the U.S. Army's HIMARS multiple-launch rocket system are completely unnecessary. But the armed forces commanders and procurement chiefs of the armies of Russia, India and China don't agree. They have been investing in all those things big time since the 21st century began.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/The_Coming_War_Might_Be_A_Hot_One_999.html

[Ought Six]

I hope people are finally remembering European history, and realizing that the same old threats have not disappeared forever. Sooner or later some faction always appears ready to launch a land war to dominate the continent. The birth of the EU did not change that reality.

[lightfire]

to play devils advocate here..

Russia, China and India looks awsome on near future procurement list, when speaking of heavy hardware, but that's mainly because they need to change aging equipment. As it was pointed out, these days they get only small numbers of new tanks, artilery etc, while there's a lot of rusting and one might say - dangerous to operate equipment. It's only natural, that the new one, should have some advantages, while the doctrine remains the same - heavily rely on hard punch. Not necessarilly does it mean, that they are planing whole scale attack on the West, yet one should have a good reason to be prepared.

besides, article is somewhat fishy aboout "stoopid republicans and smartz democrats", with all due respect to the later ones.

[Lokos]

What a load of crap.


BMP-90 armored personnel carriers, Multiple Launch Rocket Vehicles

Yes. Fear the BMP-90s (BTRs, BMPs, same difference). And the MLRS... err... MLRVs, which are harbingers of a new age of artillery operations. I mean, it's not as if MLRS' have been around since the early 1940s, yes?


Russian army's extremely poor showing in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1987

What extremely poor showing was that? And why not 1979 to 1989? What happened in 1987 to make it the cut-off date?

When you can't speak authoritatively regarding basic military developments or well known historical facts, then it's time to perhaps reconsider writing such blatantly fear-mongering articles.

L.

[Invisigoth]

What a load of crap.



Yes. Fear the BMP-90s (BTRs, BMPs, same difference). And the MLRS... err... MLRVs, which are harbingers of a new age of artillery operations. I mean, it's not as if MLRS' have been around since the early 1940s, yes?



What extremely poor showing was that? And why not 1979 to 1989? What happened in 1987 to make it the cut-off date?

When you can't speak authoritatively regarding basic military developments or well known historical facts, then it's time to perhaps reconsider writing such blatantly fear-mongering articles.

L.

Let me torment you with another piece of analysis by him ;)



ANALYSIS: Older weapons' efficacy evident in Georgia conflict

Martin Sieff UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
Tuesday, September 2, 2008



The effective use of decades-old Russian T-72 main battle tanks in the brief conflict with Georgia (http://washtimes.com/themes/?Theme=Republic+of+Georgia) again shows how supposedly obsolete weapons can still play a potent and even decisive role in modern war.



The Russian army did not rely exclusively on its 30-year-old T-72s. State-of-the-art T-90 main battle tanks also were identified during Russia's brief but highly effective five-day drive into the former Soviet republic of Georgia last month.



But the old T-72s, upgraded with explosive-reactive armor, were there, too.



http://washtimes.com/news/2008/sep/02/older-weapons-efficacy-evident-in-georgia-conflict/

[vmpsmII]

The effective use of decades-old Russian T-72 main battle tanks in the brief conflict with Georgia (http://washtimes.com/themes/?Theme=Republic+of+Georgia) again shows how supposedly obsolete weapons can still play a potent and even decisive role in modern war.

Yes against the Georgian army. Against US or other Western MBT’s it’s a different story altogether.

[Mu-Meson]

[quote][Over the past seven years India has bought 657 front-line T-90S Main Battle Tanks from Russia. /QUOTE]

OK. I am sure the next President will be very careful to avoid war with India. :cantbeli:

[KuroiRyu]

Russian Army could defeat the Georgian forces in a week only because the Russian Air Force after a couple of days could acheive a total air supremacy and a naval block from the sea. For defeat an Army composed by 10.000 men mostly conscript with few training could doesn't mean that the winner is a "formidable force"...
Even Ukraine could wipe off the Georgian Army in a couple of days with a minimum air support.

The capabilities of the P.R.C. and India for being able to conduct massive land/naval invasion to others potential hostile nations are still far for become reality. For defend the integrity of your country, like Iran or the P.R.C. you can still be sure that a massive land forces, composed even by conscripts could be sufficient, but simply impossible for conduct naval invasions to other nations.

Also speak about that the Russian Armed Forces are become something of formidable that can put in danger the U.S. interests with full scale land wars...
If there will a total war, the Russian military industry will be wiped off in a pair of weeks with the modern technologies of today. The Russian Armed Forces are composed for 80% with Soviet systems that were in service in 1990, for replace a so huge war machine with really modern systems is something that you can't do in 20 years.

The U.S. will still be the first military power for the next decades...the rest are just all fun boys dreams...

[Abbadon the Despoiler]

the article is a joke and cant be taken seriously. there re just too many inaccuracies, stupid comparations etc...

what about that part of Black Sea Fleet? do any of you guys have link? or link to NATO responce or whatever? thx.

[Atlantic Friend]

the article is a joke and cant be taken seriously. there re just too many inaccuracies, stupid comparations etc...

what about that part of Black Sea Fleet? do any of you guys have link? or link to NATO responce or whatever? thx.

You'll find a link on this very forum.

[Ought Six]

While the article is quite flawed, the basic premise is not. Russia is not an imminent threat to Europe. But Russia is moving to modernize and expand its military, while the EU poltical leaders continue to show weakness, indecisiveness, and an unwillingness to increase military strength or spending. The history of what happens when a militaristic major Euro power is faced with a bunch of weaker ones is clear. Those who blindly assume that 'things are different now' on the continent may be in for a serious shock down the road.

[Lokos]

But Russia is moving to modernize and expand its military, while the EU poltical leaders continue to show weakness, indecisiveness, and an unwillingness to increase military strength or spending. The history of what happens when a militaristic major Euro power is faced with a bunch of weaker ones is clear. Those who blindly assume that 'things are different now' on the continent may be in for a serious shock down the road.

Do you want to perhaps postulate an actual advantage that the Russian state can gain by mustering the strength required to conquer Europe? Or will it eventually pounce on these weak, indecisive states... just because?

L.

[asch]

congrats to our American friends, you have your own version of Pavel Felgenhauer now.
p-)

[Ought Six]

L:
"Do you want to perhaps postulate an actual advantage that the Russian state can gain by mustering the strength required to conquer Europe? Or will it eventually pounce on these weak, indecisive states... just because?"If you do not by now understand the history of Europe, the lust for power, and the strong preying on the weak, then there is no point in me trying to explain it to you.


================================================

a:
"congrats to our American friends, you have your own version of Pavel Felgenhauer now."Congrats to our Russian friends. You now have your own version of Rosie O'Donnell.

[Lokos]

If you do not by now understand the history of Europe, the lust for power, and the strong preying on the weak, then there is no point in me trying to explain it to you.

You answered not a single part of the question asked. Cop-out excuse for a response. It's alright, I wasn't expecting much more.

L.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I liked this bit.


The Conventional Wisdom in the West, especially in the United States, is that the Soviet and then the Russian army's extremely poor showing in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1987 and then in the two Chechen wars of 1994-96 and 2001-2004 means Russia can be eliminated as a serious factor in land power on the Eurasian land mass.

England during the 100 years war. England dominated the battlefield in most engagements yet ended up losing the war due to the French insurgency. No sooner had the Black Prince conquered territory then had the French gone back in and reclaimed the joint.

WW2 Germany which had arguably the best pound for pound army in WW2 had major problems in combating the various insurgencies in the East and to a lesser extent France and Western Europe.

US Had faced major problems in dealing with the Vietcong insurgency in Vietnam.

Then it was Russia's turn in Afghanistan and Chechnya.

Now the US/NATO Coalition in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The key thing in all this is that from a military standpoint all operations were quite successful in the sense that conventional armed forces more or less achieved their objectives but as has been the case since the dawn of war unless you have enough troops to hold the ground your going to get bogged down fighting an insurgency that will sap your strength and make you look weak against inferior opposition.

In a sense all that has been proven is that irrespective of how good an army is when fighting in unconventional situations such as fighting an insurgency is that yes the army is going to look like ****. Always has been the case and always will be the case.

[Eoin666]

I liked this bit.

England during the 100 years war. England dominated the battlefield in most engagements yet ended up losing the war due to the French insurgency. No sooner had the Black Prince conquered territory then had the French gone back in and reclaimed the joint.

England eventually lost its French territory mainly due to lack of manpower and resources, you're right even though the English could win a major battle they could never hold the territory. Our population during the 14-15 centuries was only around 2m, French population was ~10m.

Still the English tactic of fighting in someone else's country caused serious hardship throughout northern France, where "Free-Lances" operating in periods of relative "peace" still pillaged the land

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

England eventually lost its French territory mainly due to lack of manpower and resources, you're right even though the English could win a major battle they could never hold the territory. Our population during the 14-15 centuries was only around 2m, French population was ~10m.

Still the English tactic of fighting in someone else's country caused serious hardship throughout northern France, where "Free-Lances" operating in periods of relative "peace" still pillaged the land

The 100 Years war is a good war study. A lot of people say the current conflicts is a new style of warfare. Well not really. The French insurgency is probably the best example of an unrelenting insurgency that eventually lead to the defeat of England.

With the exception of a few battle. England dominated the French and routinely inflicted massive losses on the French. Crecy, Poitier, Agincourt the list goes on. Yet despite how barbaric, well barbaric by the standards of today and even then in some cases the English were to the French, all it done was to drive and rally the French people to the point that the territory England controlled would eventually over time lose back to France.

It's why air power alone will never win a war. Without boots on the ground controlling the territory you have taken you are going to lose it .

[Nansouty]

England eventually lost its French territory mainly due to lack of manpower and resources, you're right even though the English could win a major battle they could never hold the territory. Our population during the 14-15 centuries was only around 2m, French population was ~10m.

Still the English tactic of fighting in someone else's country caused serious hardship throughout northern France, where "Free-Lances" operating in periods of relative "peace" still pillaged the land

Which was somewhat offset by the fact that "national spirit " in France can be dated back to the 100 Years War. For a large swath of the population, they were loyal to their Plantagenet ruler. Indeed, the Plantagenet had been, since Alinir, Duchess of Aquitany, married Harry Plantagenet of Anjou, the ruling dukes of Aquitany. More so than the dynastic claim against the Valois, the encroachments of the French monarchy, dating back to Philippes Auguste, 150 years ago, had been the cause of that war. As for France being defeated in the field, this happened about half of the times. Google Patay, Orleans 1429, Formigny or Castillon la Bataille...

[Eoin666]

As for France being defeated in the field, this happened about half of the times. Google Patay, Orleans 1429, Formigny or Castillon la Bataille...

Exactly, historically we are mainly taught the big 3 Crecy, Poitier and Agincourt (from our pojnt of view :)), obviously it was never that one sided, my favourite was Vernuil, which proved we didn't solely rely on our archers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Verneuil

[eskachig]

Yes against the Georgian army. Against US or other Western MBT’s it’s a different story altogether.
Russian T-72 != Iraqi T-72

And there weren't any T-90's in Georgia at all, what is this fellow smoking?

[Eztyga]

Fear not, we have airsofters as a trained cadre waiting to utilise their loadouts...

[MichaelF]

The part about the Black Sea Fleet being able to dominate the Black Sea is fairly true, but only with profligate use (i.e. both barrels) of land-based aviation using anti-ship missiles.

Important point: being able to sink everyone else does not exactly translate to being able to use those waters yourself. Other people have anti-ship missiles, and the means to deploy them.