New NATO Battle plans

With declining and aging population is this possible? The US has trouble meeting it goals.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/army-grants-271-recruits-a-second-chance-through-medical-waiver-pilot/ar-BB1pCS2Z
A pilot program initiated in April that gives Army doctors at military in-processing facilities broad authority to grant waivers for 147 low-risk medical conditions has gone so well that the service may make it permanent, said the one-star general heading the Army’s Medical Process and Augmentation Team. Additionally, she told Army Times that the service has also offered a second chance to hundreds of would-be recruits who were previously denied waivers.

1 Like

Worth a chuckle. Military analysis from “libertarians.”
Next up: Donny & Marie, and the Council of the Twelve Wine Tasters.

3 Likes

Honestly, it reads like a guy preparing for WW3 by focusing on WW2 tactics.

I know my old unit, the 82nd ABN Div, while not downsized, did in 2006 eliminate many regiments and replaced them with other regiments from other locations (in my case, 1st Brigade became the 1st Brigade Combat Team by replacing the entirety of the 3rd Regiment of the 504 PIR with the 2nd Regiment of the 501 PIR. The 3/504 Regiment no longer exists - about 1000 troops.

Boots on the ground fighting from foxholes will be less and less of a necessity with all the new technology.

5 Likes

BTW, If you have yet to watch Land of Bad (Netflix or Amazon, I don’t recall), while it isn’t a great movie (solid B-/C+), it flows almost like a recruiting video for the Air Force TACP (Tactical Air Control Party) - a type of Special Forces for the Air Force. JTACs, as they are called, use both remotely operated drones (think of those flown from the other side of the world) as well as personal drones to call in close air support, perform recon, and run sat coms. A very good example of the force multiplier all this new tech provides.

2 Likes

Didn’t like the source link?
Here another that says the same thing.
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2024-07-08/exclusive-nato-will-need-35-50-extra-brigades-under-new-defence-plans-source-says
NATO will need between 35 and 50 extra brigades to fully realise its new plans to defend against an attack from Russia, a military source told Reuters.

The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, declined to provide any more detail about the plans, which are secret. A brigade consists of between 3,000 and 7,000 troops, so generating 35 to 50 more such units would present a significant challenge.

In another sign of the scale of NATO’s challenge as it revamps its posture to take the threat of a Russian attack more seriously following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, a security source said Germany alone would have to quadruple its air defence capacities.

At a summit in Vilnius last year, NATO leaders agreed on the alliance’s first major defence plans in more than three decades, and officials have been working on translating the documents into concrete military demands since then.

NATO leaders are expected to get an update on the plans in Washington this week, at a summit to mark the 75th anniversary of the transatlantic security alliance.

Asked for comment, a NATO official said the alliance’s military planners had identified “detailed requirements for troops and weapons needed to defend the alliance”.

The following link questions whether NATO is up to the task.

The approximately 25 years of decline in European defence budgets between the end of the Cold War and Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 inevitably led to the downsizing of Europe’s defence-industrial capacities. During the Cold War, European governments were willing to finance a degree of defence-industrial overcapacity to ensure reliable access to equipment and munitions at scale. When the Cold War ended, the emphasis changed from readiness to efficiency – to doing more with less. The defence industry had little choice but to take business decisions that reduced capacity. The war in Ukraine is prompting a rapid reassessment of priorities. The challenge now is to ramp up production quickly.

And NATO EU members are failing that test. The chickens have come home to roost. See link below.

Media reports have revealed serious defence-industrial capacity problems in both Europe and the United States, including difficulties in increasing or restarting production quickly. Lead times of two to three years are regularly cited for delivering more complex systems from live production facilities, as well as for restarting dormant production lines. For example, BAE Systems recently advised the US Department of Defense that it would take 30–36 months to restart M777 howitzer production. Rheinmetall CEO Armin Papperger said at the end of 2022 that specialised steel for tank armour would take between eight and 12 months to be delivered, and that lead times for certain electronic components for tank production can be up to 24 months. These increasingly long lead times are caused mainly by supply-chain issues and bottlenecks, which are in turn a function of the limited number of specialised suppliers in Europe.

If that is the situation US & NATO must stock excessive amount of munitions to be prepared.

In March, European Union countries pledged to supply Ukraine with 1 million artillery shells by spring 2024. It is now clear that the EU is unlikely to deliver on its promise.

Efforts to supply the Ukrainian Armed Forces with weaponry have exposed startling gaps in Europe’s readiness for large-scale conflict. European nations have been found lacking not only adequate munition stockpiles, but also the industrial base required to refill inventories to keep up with Ukraine’s continued pleas for weapons.

In March, the European Commission said that thanks to its measures, European annual production capacity for 155 mm shells had reached 1 million a month earlier.

Three months later, in June, Thierry Breton, the European commissioner for the internal market, said that EU producers would reach an annual capacity of 1.7 million 155 mm shells by the end of this year and that capacity would continue to grow. However, according to a high-ranking European arms industry source, the current capacity is about one-third of this.

“It’s a very bad idea to convince ourselves that we have three times the actual production capacity and make decisions based on that. Then suddenly to find out that nothing is coming out of the factories and you cannot supply Ukraine and the NATO alliance,” the source said.

It’s not good to delude oneself.
And it raises the question of the viability of NATO partners.
The days of several hundreds of thousands of US troops in Europe are long gone. Europe will be fighting on their own on the ground for a period of time before US troops arrive to aid in the defense of Europe.

1 Like

I doubt anyone figured an all out battle between the Soviets and NATO would stay conventional. Sooner or later, the nukes will come out. So, why spend a bundle on conventional arms?

Of course, NATO could do a Picard era Star Fleet and surrender the moment Putin shook his fist at them. That would also render a huge conventional stockpile redundant. :slight_smile:

Steve

1 Like

Which raises the question on why the new plan of more new brigades? Apparently the new thinking is that neither side will utilize their nukes because of mutual assured destruction.
Though Putin has used the threat of nuclear weapons to limit the type of weapon systems the West provides to Ukraine. The Russian nuclear brinkmanship could spiral out of control. Especially as NATO & US last month have given Ukraine permission to use the provided weapons to strike within Russuan territory.

What if they declared a war and no one showed up? As I recall, even Putin lacked the political will to impose a general draft and was left to emptying out the prisons to continue the fight in Ukraine.

My guess is the “secret NATO battle plan” is actually an estimate of how many brigades are needed to deter Russia from even considering a land war against NATO. Enough to deter but not enough to instill a fear of invasion. I suspect NATO calculations include the likely prospect of a politically unstable Russia that might try something out of desperation if NATO appears weak/complacent.

The increase in soldiers may not be as daunting as it appears with the new additions of Sweden and Finland

1 Like

Doubtful. Sweden has less than 30,000 total troops. Finland has even less. Certainly a small percentage of those would be lent to NATO.

Factor in declining birth rates. The next war could depend on immigration. Maybe even soldiers hired from afar. Lets hope they learn English!!

1 Like

I don’t believe this analysis at all. Ukraine was able to fight Russia to a standstill despite having a much smaller army and using mostly using obsolescent Soviet era equipment.

A modern, western military would crush a Russian attack like a bug. One thing that NATO planners had feared was Russia’s huge amounts of tanks and armor. Don’t have to worry about that anymore!

2 Likes

You may be correct. But the defense industry has to sell the Russia/China threat to maintain sales of new expensive flawed defense systems.
Just as Detroit sold the government on the Chinese EV threat.
Americans like spending $50k & up for EVs. /sarcasm

Automated combat warriors—sound familiar? Some being tried/tested. No need to follow human form.

2 Likes

I would suspect that, after more than two years of active combat, the Russians have learned a couple things, including how to counteract some of the whizzy western technology.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/05/24/russia-jamming-us-weapons-ukraine/

2 Likes
1 Like

The brigades are needed for another reason. The countries nearest Russia need to put up a stiff front with NATO to dissuade Russia. There needs to be a WW II show of power. The Russian leadership needs an out.

If there is no show of power on the front, then Putin is under his own and other internal forces to push forward with war.

Those forces should be withdrawn in the actual event of war to save their lives. The actual war would be the slashing of all Russian forces with remote control weapons. The Russian military should be ended within two weeks.

Ukraine is a Pentagon training ground.

One of Putin’s problems, he is using up everything he has. For now that makes attacking anywhere else impossible on a larger scale. Belarus does not take much effort to command.

Of course TFG is a lunatic that would leave all of this to Putin like a child caught taking his allowance to a house of ill repute.

I saw a TV program reporting that Russia is re-arming old WWII tank bodies from its inventory. Supplies are limited. When depleted costs will skyrocket. Financial difficulties implied if war continues more than about two years.