Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Russia could invade Poland 'overnight', report claims Watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King7)
    What is it with the Western propaganda that Russia is evil and always the enemy? If not for them (the Soviets) Nazism may still be here, let alone the mainstream part of Europe!

    And in response to the OP, if they can, then believe me, they would have done so already!
    if not the Soviets, the history of Germany would be much different.
    remind me, please, for who did the german commies (geting orders from the USSR) did vote in 1933?
    also, where did the germans invented the Blitzkrieg, and who has supported them- both materially (petrol, food) as militarily (intel etc) in '39 and up to '41?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    There's no doubt that Russia could take most of Poland however it would be their death sentence since they'd only get as far as somewhere around the Polish/German border. Once there then the UK and France have the naval and air ability to turn the tide and that's before we consider the rearming that would occur (both have far higher tax revenues to funnel to the military). It would be a long slog but Moscow would be in ruins within 2 years.

    The bigger concern is the resolve or lack of it from nations that are not the UK, France or Poland. Europe is full of cowards.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    3)Russian conventional forces are very poor. Standard issue infantry rifle is the AKM. That says a lot about them. UK infantry rifle is the L85A2, US's is the M4 carbine, Germans - G36. All far superior to their 45y.o rifles.
    1. There was never a time that outcome of war was decided by a single weapon (with exception to nukes, when only US had them). So whatever they use is not that much relevant.
    2. Standard assault riffle is not AKM, but AK74/AK74M. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's still better than M4, G36 is being phased out because of its unreliability, and l85a2 is such a great weapon, that only UK uses it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    3)Russian conventional forces are very poor. Standard issue infantry rifle is the AKM. That says a lot about them. UK infantry rifle is the L85A2, US's is the M4 carbine, Germans - G36. All far superior to their 45y.o rifles.
    What has age got to do with it?

    Russia's standard issue rifle is the AK-74, a rifle which improves upon the AK-47 in effective range, accuracy (main focus) and reliability. Considering the AK-47 has a legendary reputation for reliability, it's no wonder the weapon is still in service after so long... It also seems that the 74 is a significant improvement when it comes to accuracy over the 47.

    The M16 family has a history of reliability issues

    The SA80 family (includes the L85A2) has reliability problems out in the field. The L85A2 was notorious for jamming outside of perfect conditions, probably because of how hard it was to clean the rifle, and it didn't like anything but the perfect temperatures, this proved to be quite the problem in places like Afghanistan.

    The G36 has also been criticised for its poor accuracy in warmer conditions.


    Now I'm probably on some sort of Government watch list for doing a bit of research on these guns...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Russia would have nobody to sell its gas to and go bust overnight. They might make early gains but could never sustain it long term against NATO even without the US getting involved.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheMcSame)
    What has age got to do with it?

    Russia's standard issue rifle is the AK-74, a rifle which improves upon the AK-47 in effective range, accuracy (main focus) and reliability. Considering the AK-47 has a legendary reputation for reliability, it's no wonder the weapon is still in service after so long... It also seems that the 74 is a significant improvement when it comes to accuracy over the 47.

    The M16 family has a history of reliability issues

    The SA80 family (includes the L85A2) has reliability problems out in the field. The L85A2 was notorious for jamming outside of perfect conditions, probably because of how hard it was to clean the rifle, and it didn't like anything but the perfect temperatures, this proved to be quite the problem in places like Afghanistan.

    The G36 has also been criticised for its poor accuracy in warmer conditions.


    Now I'm probably on some sort of Government watch list for doing a bit of research on these guns...
    I think you're confusing the L85A1 & A2. The A2 is actually pretty reliable unlike the piece of crap which was the A1.
    The only real issue with the L85A2 is weight - once you put on all the accessories it's rather heavy & it can't be used left handed. There was also a rumour I've seen about A2s suggesting that troops where over cleaning them when they were first issued due to their experiences with the A1.
    I think I can answer why the L85 hasn't been quite so successful in the export market too:
    As it's a Bullpup design it generally makes reloading take slightly longer. This becomes worse if the individual is trained on non-bullpup weapons like the M-4, G-36 etc as you have to "untrain" your troops to reload in a different fashion. Combine that with the early L85's reliability issues meant that it was never going to do particularly well in the export market.
    Remember that some nations, especially the USA, allow their civilian population to own firearms like the AR-15 meaning that their soldiers can already be used to handling an M-4/M-16 style weapon. This means it's even more difficult to adapt your troops to something like an L85A2.
    Bullpup designs are generally more accurate as they have a longer barrel & from what I gather the L85A2 does well in accuracy tests.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Why Poland?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by DonnaN)
    Why Poland?
    Poland and Ukraine are the most valuable targets (large landmass, large population), Poland is relatively advanced.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Poland and Ukraine are the most valuable targets (large landmass, large population), Poland is relatively advanced.
    Thanks for the clarification. Or maybe also because invading is in their blood.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by DonnaN)
    Thanks for the clarification. Or maybe also because invading is in their blood.
    Glory to Britania.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    1]As we should all know or at least be able to guess Russia could steam roller across Europe within a matter of weeks, even a NATO commander said this.
    Which NATO commander? Field Marshal Montgomery, in the 1950s?

    In 2016, the idea is nonsense. They'd get bogged down in Poland after a few days and within a week or two NATO reinforcements would obliterate them. It's dubious as to whether Russia has a better armed forces than the UK, Germany or France individually, let alone combined and with the USA, Canada, Netherlands, Italy, Poland etc. They certainly aren't capturing any major cities or advancing past the German border in 'a matter of weeks'.
    Online Russia worship makes me physically sick.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Poland would absolutely smash the **** out of Russia in Kaliningrad Oblast, and then Russia would probably go through Belarus and smash Russia. Overall it would probably take a few months overall.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simon_g)
    1. There was never a time that outcome of war was decided by a single weapon (with exception to nukes, when only US had them). So whatever they use is not that much relevant.
    2. Standard assault riffle is not AKM, but AK74/AK74M. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's still better than M4, G36 is being phased out because of its unreliability, and l85a2 is such a great weapon, that only UK uses it.
    Yeah yeah, AK74M then. Not a great deal of difference there. G36 will be replaced by a gun very similar to itself, the 416 most likely. The G36 is still a good weapon. The L85A2 is a great weapon now but because of it's history, design and weight, it's always gonna struggle, despite its very long barrel and great accuracy
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supersaps)

    Russia are actively destabilising the Middle East as well as being happy to invade into Europe. If anyone thinks they're a force for good in the world, they must be mental.

    SS
    Yap they launch first and second Iraq war. Bad Russians!
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Which NATO commander? Field Marshal Montgomery, in the 1950s?

    In 2016, the idea is nonsense. They'd get bogged down in Poland after a few days't capturing any major cities or advancing past the German border in 'a matter of weeks'.
    Online Russia worship makes me physically sick.
    Mmm not as such, if you think a determined Russia couldn't role over europe like a tidal wave you should check some figures [One isn't talking about its ability to hold it persay]
    Russia - Troops 845,000 [reserve 2,485,000], Land systems Tanks[21000]/IFVs[25,000]/APCs[8700]/AIFV[19000]/Artillary[14700]/MLRS[2600]/AA-guns/Missiles[14000], Navy [61 combat subs, 71 combat ships,98 combat aircraft, 84 combat helicopters ], Airforce [490 attack helicopters, Attack Jets 539, Heavy Bombers 125, Fighters 708, Multi-role 38]
    You think the small armies in Europe could do particularly much to stop it? they are all significantly smaller, take far longer to mobilize and as far as being coherrant goes there are multiple armies under different command structures. How do you think that would play out?
    I was reffering primarily to the eastern states, my bad on that one sorry. however I find it more than slightly dubious western Europe would hold out for long.
    Lt-Gen Ben Hodges
    Spoiler:
    Show


    The commander of US troops in Europe says Nato cannot rapidly deploy large forces to Eastern Europe in the way that Russia can.Lt-Gen Ben Hodges was speaking to the BBC's Hardtalk programme during large Nato exercises in north-western Poland.
    "The Russians are able to move huge formations and lots of equipment a long distance very fast," he said.
    Nato needs to have that speed too, he said. "Three days' notification, we ought to be able to do that," he said.
    More than 31,000 troops from 24 nations took part in Nato's Anaconda-16 exercises in Poland, from 7 to 17 June.
    The report warns, NATO's ground forces are no match for Russia's. They do not have any battle tanks; all of Russia's do. And NATO would have little room for maneuver, annexed in by Russian forces in Kalingrad Oblast.In the scenario given by the study, NATO would have one week's notice to defend Eastern Europe.The study, carried out between 2014 and 2015, suggested even a combination of US and Baltic troops combined with US airstrikes would not be able to prevent Russia advancing.Seven of NATO's 12 battalions in Eastern Europe are domestic fleets of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. They only have one heavy armored fleet, a single Stryker battalion, and no main battle tanks, the report explains. Though NATO's air power could put up a strong defense, it would be futile as its lightweight ground forces would be plowed down by Russia's. 'The games' findings are unambiguous: As currently postured, NATO cannot successfully defend the territory of its most exposed members,' the report said.

    Late last month, Gen. Philip Breedlove, commander of U.S. European Command, released a new strategy anticipating — and pushing back against — the call for more rotational forces. Flying troops in and out of the region “complements” the units who call Europe home, he wrote, but they’re no “substitute for an enduring forward deployed presence that is tangible and real. Virtual presence means actual absence.”
    It should be noted if Russia did go west it would almost certlainly make flying troops of any significant number plus equiptment at best rather difficult.

    The below comments relate to the RAND report as well and its assertion that Russia would over run the east in 60 hours.

    US Deputy assistant secretary of defence for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia Michael Carpenter
    told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that the West and NATO were currently not ideally prepared to deal with a Russian threat.
    He said Russia had a massive geographical and time advantage but by 2017 the US would be in a better position to defend its allies.
    http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand...AND_RR1253.pdf [this is a download]

    That's nice, perhapse you should look up in the dictionary what worship means?
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    Poland would absolutely smash the **** out of Russia in Kaliningrad Oblast, and then Russia would probably go through Belarus and smash Russia. Overall it would probably take a few months overall.
    You are aware that the Kaliningrad Oblast has 'At the beginning of 2010 the number of ground forces in the Kaliningrad special district was 10,500 ground troops (excluding the 1,100 in the Marine Corps), divided into one motorized infantry brigade, one mechanized infantry regiment, one missile brigade with 12-18 defense systems OTR-21 Tochka, one artillery brigade, one helicopter regiment, one defense team. In the army of the Kaliningrad special district at the beginning of 2010 there were 811 tanks, 1,239 armored vehicles and armored personnel carriers of various types, 345 artillery and rocket systems.[1] However, by 2012, the size of the marine brigade in the Kaliningrad region is projected to increase to four thousand troops.'
    The Military Balance 2010. page 226. Kaliningrad Special Region.'
    Not to mention the S-400 is deployed there [which would turn the area into an essential no fly zone for the Polish air force], all of which [whilst doubtful could hold out against Poland would certainly give it a bloody nose.

    Do you mean Russia would go through Belarus and smash Poland? You make it sound like The Russians would walk into Belarus do an about turn and waste themselves
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Oh dear, we are being spun again. We could have perfectly healthy strategic relations with Russia. Maybe the cultural liberals hate them for being to conservative. Would their zealotry over such matters really lead to such idiocy in foreign affairs? Or is it simply the Orwellian business of needing a constant enemy. Whatever, I pray people don't fall for this crap again and won't support and believe our politicians if they ever try and spin us into a Russian war.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    You are aware that the Kaliningrad Oblast has 'At the beginning of 2010 the number of ground forces in the Kaliningrad special district was 10,500 ground troops (excluding the 1,100 in the Marine Corps), divided into one motorized infantry brigade, one mechanized infantry regiment, one missile brigade with 12-18 defense systems OTR-21 Tochka, one artillery brigade, one helicopter regiment, one defense team. In the army of the Kaliningrad special district at the beginning of 2010 there were 811 tanks, 1,239 armored vehicles and armored personnel carriers of various types, 345 artillery and rocket systems.[1] However, by 2012, the size of the marine brigade in the Kaliningrad region is projected to increase to four thousand troops.'
    The Military Balance 2010. page 226. Kaliningrad Special Region.'
    Not to mention the S-400 is deployed there [which would turn the area into an essential no fly zone for the Polish air force], all of which [whilst doubtful could hold out against Poland would certainly give it a bloody nose.

    Do you mean Russia would go through Belarus and smash Poland? You make it sound like The Russians would walk into Belarus do an about turn and waste themselves
    Yes, Poland has a strong 100k strong regular military with relatively modern weaponry (save some old T72s) and literally millions of reservists and militia. They would absolutely annihilate the Russians there. Belarus is in Russia's pocket, so they would get military access at the very least.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    Yes, Poland has a strong 100k strong regular military with relatively modern weaponry (save some old T72s) and literally millions of reservists and militia. They would absolutely annihilate the Russians there. Belarus is in Russia's pocket, so they would get military access at the very least.
    Which begs the question why would Russia be aggressive to them? Are we or arew e not being spun by Western media about Putin all the time?

    I can almost see the future and where it is going, and it will be the our fault not Putins.

    Given that it evens out over the middle east, in that they would both do something zealous and stupid there, along with us most probably... Trump would be a better president for the world in terms of this issue than Hillary.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    well, countrys are already rotating between who goes to which country to protect it.
    my boyfriend is in the military and said it may be his batterys turn to go soon but it could be any time this year or next and the rotations are between 3 weeks to 3 months and when their turn is up, the rotation begins again and the next lot take over
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.