Help support TMP

"Russia Could Defeat the British Army 'In an Afternoon'" Topic

28 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2008-present) Message Board

1,299 hits since 26 Feb 2017
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP26 Feb 2017 10:01 p.m. PST

"Russia could defeat the British Army's single combat-ready division "in an afternoon," according to a new report from the British military.

"Over by Teatime," blared the headline in the British tabloid The Sun.

Budget cuts have so depleted the army that it could be destroyed by a "competent enemy" such as Russia, according to excerpts of the report published in the British press.

That ominous conclusion comes from the Centre for Historical Analysis and Conflict Research (CHACR), a British Army think tank run by the Sandhurst military academy. The report was based on a two-day conference of active-duty and retired officers…"
Main page

If such a hypothetical battle occurs in the Baltics …. the answer would be yes …. the British Army will be defeated very quickly by Russia. Maybe not in one day …. but the British Army will be outnumbered and outgunned …. with defeat all but guaranteed. If the battle shifts to Britain …. the answer would be no. Russia is limited by logistics …. they do not have the means to transport large quantity of soldiers to a battlefield far away from Russia …. such as the U.K… or other county not near with their borders.


Personal logo piper909 Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member26 Feb 2017 10:08 p.m. PST

To be fair, how many European armies would NOT be defeated by the evil boogeyman Russians in a day? Assuming said armies could be assembled in one place at one time. So all these British and all these Russians are going to duke it out at the same time in the same place? The whole scenario is a straw man of implausibility.

Now, how about how many of the world's armies would be defeated by the US military in a day?

foxweasel27 Feb 2017 12:05 a.m. PST

So Russia could defeat us abroad but not at home. It's always been this way, it's why we have NATO. Non story.

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP27 Feb 2017 2:29 a.m. PST

So the Ukraian milita and ISIS are superior to the British army. Given the russians definitely didn't beat them in an afternoon.

Sobieski27 Feb 2017 4:23 a.m. PST

I believe there are some in this world who hesitate to base their opinions on "The Sun".

kiltboy27 Feb 2017 7:57 a.m. PST

What is this nonsense again?
Does anyone hear honestly think that all of a countries military lines up like some strange game of "Stratego" and then starts?

Again a fight in the Baltics is mentioned. The Baltics are part of NATO and article 5 gets triggered if Russia invades. End of discussion.

28mm Fanatik27 Feb 2017 8:51 a.m. PST

But will they still break for tea?

Article 5 gets bandied about a lot, but it doesn't mandate armed intervention. All it does is provides members to "take such action as it deems necessary" to restore and maintain security. "Necessary action" could amount to no more than sanctions or strong diplomatic protest in theory.

kiltboy27 Feb 2017 9:51 a.m. PST

28mm Fanatik

Correct as far the legal interpretation goes.
It would start with sanctions while the military mobilises with the closest example in my mind being when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
What Russian apologists constantly cry about is that NATO is threatening Russia while there is no massive military on Russia's borders ready to invade.

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP27 Feb 2017 10:40 a.m. PST

"…The Baltics are part of NATO and article 5 gets triggered if Russia invades. End of discussion…"

Well, no if we consider what would happen if the war began there… maybe … at the beginning the Russians won easily as the article said?…

And how much troops and time took from NATO to react…?


Personal logo piper909 Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member27 Feb 2017 11:34 a.m. PST

There are plenty of potentially hostile military forces ion the Russian borders -- they are quite encircled by NATO in the west, despite previous pledges by the US NOT to expand eastward after German reunification was not blocked by the Russians. NATO's entire reason for continued existence appears to be as a dagger pointed at Moscow. Why else was Russia excluded from membership after the fall of the USSR? Wouldn't a genuinely cooperative, pan-European defence organization include the former Soviet states as well?

How many Russian military units are engaged in the Americas versus US/NATO troops in countries bordering Russia?

Who is seeking to dominate the world? A map says it all:


kiltboy27 Feb 2017 11:44 a.m. PST

Ok so what is the argument Tango?
Can NATO stop Russia taking the Baltics? then the answer to that is obviously no but Russia holding the Baltics is a completely different story and that is my point.
Say Russia invades, what then? the next time Russian aircraft fly close to the UK they are engaged for further escalation? The next time Russian ships sail they are sunk for further escalation? If Putin invades militarily in a NATO country it is vastly different from what he has attempted in Ukraine and as others have pointed out that has not been anywhere near as easy as he thought. Especially as he opens up a clear course for retaliatory action through article 5.
As for Pipers map, the map utterly ignores what the capabilities are in those countries and that many of those are the local armed forces of that country and not multiple US armored divisions ready to charge at Moscow. A bit of a reality check is needed there. The myth of waht was promised post reunification has been burst too many times that it is getting tiresome to repeat. However, the Warsaw pact still existed at the time and that is why it was never even discussed. Those countries that had lived under Russian occupation had seen what Russia had to offer and looked elsewhere for security against a repeat.
Russia wouldn't incorporate the necessary changes to meet NATO standards including things such as a commitment to democracy, rule of law, anti corruption etc. and therefore didn't meet the standards for membership.

Ostroc27 Feb 2017 11:49 a.m. PST

How did they get across the channel

Jcfrog Supporting Member of TMP27 Feb 2017 11:50 a.m. PST

Someone had a paper to make, or a budget to ask for or was told to by another who wants to sell some shiny toy.

Defeated where? Near Kargopol or in Surrey?

And what for?

This reminds me of those cold war scenarios, where, knowing Sunday was the best day, the politburo, being bored as having not enough problems and a lot of free time, with such a small empire to run, suddenly had a fit, or a brilliant idea, depends:
Lets invade the west.
So on Sunday morning, hungover soviet conscripts found themselves trying to make ready enough gear for the great adventure.
And those same muletta shakers, had both a great breathe of peace and a little regret when the evil empire fell.

Ok when Josef the mustache was there, maybe. Afterwards not so much.

Oberlindes Sol LIC27 Feb 2017 12:56 p.m. PST

Sobieski for the win.

doug redshirt27 Feb 2017 3:35 p.m. PST

Russia invading the Baltics just a year ago would have triggered a NATO or at least US response. There would have been an instant halt to exports, including oil and gas, bank assets would be frozen, which would have tanked the Russian economy. Now with the current regime I don't really know. It bugs the hell out of me after spending 20 years in the military during the Cold War that we would be so cozy with a dictator in Moscow. Something is wrong in the world.

28mm Fanatik27 Feb 2017 4:53 p.m. PST

OTOH Putin is less likely to do anything rash that would jeopardize chances of a detente with the new administration and give opponents additional ammo to tie its hands. As things stand now there is nothing the POTUS can do to improve ties with Russia given the strong Russophobia in both parties and the paralysis resulting from all the probes and investigations into Russian hacking and suspected contacts between key campaign officials and Russian intelligence.

kiltboy27 Feb 2017 4:57 p.m. PST

It's not Russophobia but a clear eyed view of how Russia invaded and annexed Crimea as well as invading Eastern Ukraine and maintaining a stye of conflict there. That is in breach of the Budapest accords and then there is the shoit down of Mh17 as well.
Not to mention the whole influencing a US election…

Daniel S28 Feb 2017 12:16 a.m. PST

Nice map Piper909, I found the NATO/US bases in neutral Sweden, Finland and on the Swedish island of Gotland particularly since no one living in the marked areas have noticed these bases.

The "NATO" base in Mali is actually a UN peacekeeping mission, MINUSMA, which involves numerous non-Nato forces.

I suspect that a further study of the other green dots of the map would reveal similar interesting things.

And last but not least, there was never a promise to not expand NATO and while you may no like it the sovereign and free nations of eastern Europe do have the right to make their own security treaties and alliances regardles of what their former opressors and would be overlords in Moscow thinks.

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP28 Feb 2017 3:18 a.m. PST

How did they get across the channel


I will concede that given the cost of rail tickets, using the chunnel might bankrupt the Russians & end any invasion.

darthfozzywig Supporting Member of TMP28 Feb 2017 11:26 a.m. PST

And last but not least, there was never a promise to not expand NATO and while you may no like it the sovereign and free nations of eastern Europe do have the right to make their own security treaties and alliances regardles of what their former opressors and would be overlords in Moscow thinks.

And the Russians, with a history of being invaded from west and east, do have the right to read NATO expansion eastward as a threat.

The Russians floated out the idea of joining NATO in the early 90s. The Clinton administration shot that down and then marched the borders of NATO east. Hard to not read that as a threat if you're on the receiving end of it.

kiltboy28 Feb 2017 11:57 a.m. PST

Hold on, for a website about historical conflict there seems to be some ignorance about Russia invading Poland in 1939.
Also a massive amount of ignorance on the standards required to join NATO and that includes political and economic requirements not just military.

Russia would not meet them and bluntly refused to even attempt it. Early after WW2 Russia wanted to forge it's own European alliance without the US so that Russia would be the main player in Europe.
Clinton never marched NATO anywhere, those countries joined NATO and their existing militaries were trained and equipped to a higher standard that was required for membership. No marching required or do you really believe that Poland hasn't a military and that Belgium sent it's massive Armored Corps there?

Utter nonsense.

Jcfrog Supporting Member of TMP28 Feb 2017 12:36 p.m. PST

I am pretty sure Turkey must meet your pilitical standarts nowadays ( and in the past) hahaha

Sure there is no pressure, no agenda, every one is doing all on a free will, no bullies. Oh come on. Innocents?

The Russians have a long history of being invaded, back to the Mongols and suffered from it in a way no European nation got anywere near.
It left a deep trauma and a good deal of paranoia. This is ( and was even by Romanovs) at times cultivated by those in power to divert and put blame
When they tell me about everyone wanting a bit or hating them, I usually answer something like" sure ..even the Portuguese?;)"
But they often do have grounds.
I used to have an atlas which put the maps in each county's perspective. Pretty enlightening.
That they feel that way bears no contradiction to the fact they also invaded a bit, esp at the great fun time of tovarich Jughashvili.
This kind of argument reminds me of the dialecric fight with commies in the 80s.

Now we stil did not answer that most disturbing question about that fateful afternoon, no doubt Sunday after teatime.

kiltboy28 Feb 2017 1:18 p.m. PST

Oh please, nobody made anyone join NATO.

Nobody made Stalin invade Eastern Europe in 1939 and if you think he was concerned about the Baltics charge on Moscow you are kidding yourself.
Nobody made the Warsaw Pact invade Czechoslovaklia in 1968 either.
Russia couldn't meet the requirements for membership than and now and that is all there is to it.
Putin's current actions have nothing to do with the historical invasion of 1812 (over two centuries ago) and everything to do with maintaining his grip on power. Do you expect anyone to think Nemtsov was shot outside the Kremlin because of Borodino?
That the KGB destroyed apartment blocks to invade Chechnya because of Stalingrad?

darthfozzywig Supporting Member of TMP28 Feb 2017 1:47 p.m. PST

You are quite uninformed on this topic. There are a number of good books on Russian history available, however, as well as records of US State Department activities in the 1990s, actions in the Balkans in the same period, etc., that will prove helpful.

kiltboy28 Feb 2017 2:53 p.m. PST

Oh quite well informed thanks, or do you expect me to forget what happened in Chechnya, Chechoslovakia, Crimea, Finland Winter War of '39, Molotov-Ribbontrop and teh invasion of Poland, MH17 getting shot down, Nemtsov getting shot, etc. etc.
The 4+2 stated no NATO basing in East Germany and that was it. NATO expansion wasn't covered as the Warsaw pact still existed even Gorbechev has said that but if you want to debate the Balkans as an excuse then we are going into the realms of whataboutisms instead of debating what happens when a former Soviet state i.e. Yugoslavia collapses post communism. You also ignore that the population of those countries have not embraced the Russian model after all that experience of how wonderful it is. The reason is simple and it's the same reason Romania, Poland and others have followed and why Russia can only maintain it by force such as invasion.
It would be terrible for Putin if the population repeated what had happened in those countries..

Oh and one last point Austria isn't part of NATO but is slap bang in the middle of Europe and was occupied post war as well. Yet the WW2 occupying nations left and Austria has decided not to join NATO and is not part of NATO. No country gets forced. Maybe you should read a bit more.

darthfozzywig Supporting Member of TMP28 Feb 2017 6:05 p.m. PST

do you expect me to forget what happened

Remembering and understanding are two entirely distinct processes. It's clear you are not doing the latter. Good luck with that! :)

kiltboy28 Feb 2017 8:29 p.m. PST

Oh understanding plenty, just as how Poland and the Baltics understand exactly what comes from Moscow.
Ukraine also understands as do many others, no luck required on my end as I fully understand that Russia wishes to exert its will by force which is why other countries have turned from Moscow.
Putin is acting out of spite and fear that he will lose authority. It's why he clamps down on dissent, protest and shoots his opposition. I understand plenty I think it is you who do not.

Vostok1728 Feb 2017 11:19 p.m. PST

Oh yo. "The opposition," yes. The real opposition in Russia does not exist in principle.
If you consider all of these jailed journalists and other hipsters as the Russian opposition, then I have bad news for you – they have never been a real opposition. They mostly sat on the salary at the Kremlin, and in Russia as a whole is extremely unpopular (note that Moscow is not Russia). This is due to the fact that many of them had previously been in government (the same Nemtsov), and the man who was in the government, a priori, in Russia is considered complete <beep>.
Real Russian opposition appeared with the slogan "smash the imperialist NATO hawks in their dens" and "restore the Soviet Union", and believes that Putin and the Russian government is still – Western protégés. But this opposition suppressed more in 2007-2008. As a result, remained "the court opposition" in the form of a pseudo-Communists and the Liberal Democratic Party, as well as useless so-called "human rights activists", acting with advance unacceptable slogans.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.