"The U.S. Army Is Out-Gunned In Europe" Topic

"In 2016 RAND war-gamed a Russian invasion of the Baltics. In RAND's scenario, the Russian forces quickly overrun lightly-armed NATO forces. The Western alliance quickly deploys helicopters and air-mobile troops to confront the Russian advance. But NATO tanks are too slow to arrive.

A four-person vehicle crew with the U.S. Army's 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Europe won a personal victory in early February 2019 when they beat out other crews to claim their squadron's "top gun" prize.

But the crew's achievement underscores an uncomfortable fact for the U.S. Army as it struggles to match Russia's own military build-up in Europe…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Even if the US can't deploy quick enough initially to defend the Baltics due to distance and logistics, the Russians won't be able to hold the territory long-term any more than Iraq could hold onto Kuwait in 1991. The US will stage in Poland and roll them back eventually with overwhelming military force.

The article tries to imply that the reduction of larger permanently based armored forces in Europe led to Russia's war with the Ukraine. I think that's a stretch. The Russians did it because they are bad actors.

The idea that the only way to counter tanks is with other tanks is questionable. The lessons from Syria's civil war and US missiles (not even our best or latest versions) tell a different story.

Defense strategy that was in place when East Germany threatened West doesn't apply well to a new eastern push from NATO across thousands and thousands of miles. The deep area defense of West Germany required a quick response and halt of any advance. There is no way we can do that now.

Bring most of it home and re-position what we leave in Poland.

Why does this all fall on what USA is doing. Last time I checked Germany was more than able to field a force that could deter Russian aggression. For various reasons Germany does not wish to do this. So the USA with other more pressing items on its plate is left to question why it has to do it all.

If the US had a large military presence in Poland at the time it might have deterred or at least given Putin pause in annexing the Crimea. Without credible muscle in Europe, trying to extend EU or NATO influence in Ukraine only emboldened Putin and provided him with the perfect opportunity and excuse to "take back" its former enclave. The EU and NATO erred badly in thinking that it can do what it wants in Russia's sphere without the force to back it up.

The Polish Army will beat the snot out of anything the Russians send at them.

The National Interest is interested in obtaining more money for the military industrial complex. This is their M.O.

We don't need more troops in Europe. We need to repair the relationships with our allies, and have an organized foreign policy based on fact. This is what deters the Russians.

"U.S. Army as it struggles to match Russia's own military build-up in Europe" why do we need to match it when NATO is already there? Knowing a few Poles, Russia would get it's arise handed to them.

For various reasons Germany does not wish to do this.

I dunno, I'd just as soon not have a heavily militarized Germany. Doesn't seem to work out for us or the neighbors.