Small Wars Journal

The US is not Ready for a Peer to Peer Fight in Europe

Tue, 02/15/2022 - 11:44am

The US is not Ready for a Peer to Peer Fight in Europe

By Keith Nightingale

 

As we all have, I have been watching the impressive Russian ground forces arrayed to invade Ukraine from three sides. Some comments after consultation with a good friend in the Marines:

Upon due consideration, it might have been unthoughtfully wise to not place our military in harm’s way simply because it would have its clock handed to it. Our military, particularly the Army, is tailored for the 20-year war in the Sandboxes-not a Peer conflict.

Of equal import is that all the doctrine, tactics and professional skills are on the Sandbox model. None of our uniforms have had any experience in fighting Peer-Peer.  We went into Korea and Vietnam with a goodly amount of leaders in both officer and NCO ranks who had such experience and could both adapt and train to the threat level required. That no longer exists.

We are also grossly dependent upon sophisticated comms and satellite systems that probably would not exist after the first round. (Sidebar: Find a Lieutenant that can read a map and land navigate with only a compass and paper map.)

Our land units-small units (squad-company/team), the cutting edge and only true maneuver elements, are not trained to operate in isolation from higher.  The trained ability to make crucial decisions absent guidance and control does not exist. NTC and JRTC routinely proves that.

Unfortunately, we are not even close to being a peer force compared to the Russians less nuclear weapons. Consider the following as today’s state of military capabilities:

TACTICAL/BATTLEFIELD GROUND FORCE EQUIVALENCIES / COMPARISONS:

We removed our relatively competent heavy forces in Germany and cannot replace them in less than six months if that and that is with the acquiescence of German which is problematical-The EU has to ask in its heart of hearts: Do we want a US-Russia conflict on our land?

Our ready to go 82d, Ranger Regiment and JSOC forces are completely inappropriate for use against Russia except under the most select of circumstances with minimal to no capability to be a game changer. And casualties are virtually irreplaceable in a timely manner. (Sidebar: The 173d is required to deploy only with NATO approval. If it deploys on an independent operation, the Italians have threatened to bar its return.)

Tough to get a carrier into the Black Sea and it would be a new reef very quickly. Concurrently, POMCUS/heavy force lift ships in sufficient quantity to lift a brigade do not exist other than in converting commercial RO/RO’s.

A robust F35 structure does not exist in Theatre nor are there sufficient heavy lift aircraft to make a dent in reinforcement requirements.

LONG RANGE (NON-NUCLEAR) BALLISTIC MISSILES AND ROCKETS:

The US has NONE in the US Army, and the other Services have NONE OTHER THAN sea-launched and air-launched conventional, low flight level, subsonic cruise missiles. NO long range, land-based, conventional ballistic missiles in the US Armed Forces. How did this happen?

The US National Military Strategy is as much a defense industry-driven wish list of combat systems they want to build, as opposed to a threat-defeating strategy based on US Ground Forces out-matching our peer military adversary.  Russia, for example, has many hundreds (if not thousands) of state-of-the-art missile launchers, tens of thousands of missiles (plus the Zircon that flies at Mach 6-9 - hypersonic speeds), as well as a full suite of tailored, target appropriate warheads, at multiple throw weights that can be selected based on the target to be attacked. We - the US - have ZERO such weapons.

BATTLEFIELD ROCKETS AND MISSILES:

The US has a few hundred (aged) MLRS and HIMARS multiple rocket launchers in the entire US Army and a couple of dozen in the Marines. BUT, their ranges in distance, numbers of launchers, and throw weights are a minuscule fraction of the hundreds of launchers and thousands of rounds in Russian battle groups. The US never converted the US Army’s Pershing family of battlefield missile systems to conventional warheads from their IMF-directed destruction of the nuclear warheads on the Pershing One and Pershing Two missile bodies. While the Russians and Chinese advanced their development and procurement of advanced surface-to-surface (200 to (+/-) 1,000-mile range), non-nuclear missile systems, the U.S. disestablished the Army’s long range missile commands and stopped development and procurement of peer defeating systems. This month, the US Army had a Eureka Moment announcing the establishment of a long-range fires command; BUT – hold your applause - -that’s only the establishment of the HQ, not standing-up any systems of long-range launchers, or missiles or control systems, as the US Army doesn’t have any. Note: the US’s MLRS and HIMARS Systems top out at about 120-mile range for the very few, extended-range variants. The vast majority are in the roughly 29 to 48-mile range.

GROUND BASED AIR DEFENSE (AD) SYSTEMS:

From having peer threat-capable and numerous ground units and AD systems in the US Army’s inventories during the Cold War, that capability has since been dramatically reduced in the US Army to largely shoulder-fired systems, plus three Stryker or Humvee-mobile AD battalions equipped with, at a ready state, 4-AD missiles and 1-25 mm Chain Gun, per vehicle. The Marines have no AD battalions; they removed the ones that they had in the Marine Air Wings in the 1990’s.  Shoulder-fired AD Systems are the Marines only ground-based AD.  Why are the US Armed Forces so ill equipped?  They spent twenty years focused on counter insurgency operations against enemies that lacked offensive aviation assets that would call for US AD units employed in opposition to them. At the opposite side of this scale, the Russians ground forces have huge numbers of modern, armor protected mobile AD systems, as well as shoulder-fired AD capabilities, in units at and above battalion levels.

CONCLUSIONS:

a.  These are just three areas of gross US national defense neglect. There are a dozen more. Just consider the paucity of US Army ground force Electronic Warfare, Cyber, Deception, Cavalry, Mechanized Division-Level units with lethal, mobile, armor protected manned weapon systems with their own, integrated supply and logistics support.

·         Other than the US Army’s 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, and three Stryker brigade combat teams, there are none.

·         The US Marines, our fire brigade along with the 82d, are less capable of combined arms engagement today than at any time since the 2003-14 Iraq War, as to the Marine Corps:                                                                           

         It has no tank units (that’s not a misprint: USMC = ZERO Tanks)

No self-propelled, armor protected artillery or self-propelled, armor protected air defense (AD) systems.

 The most lethal, armor protected mobility systems are the Marines 40-year-old, light armored vehicle-equipped, reconnaissance battalions (LARB’s). But even these lack tank-killing, direct-fire weapons or threat-defeating protective armor.  The LARB’s have no air defense, NBC and EW variants (these were mothballed from Marine FMF units 20-30-years ago).

b.  On the other side of the threat comparisons, and in apparently “combat ready” status in Europe, the Russian ground forces have trained and equipped combined arms forces at numbered Corps and even titled Army levels with their own tanks, infantry fighting vehicle (IFV’s), self-propelled armor protected artillery, rocket/missile battalions, EW, logistics, chemical and biological warfare units, as well as attack and transport fixed wing and helicopter units with linked/secure communications systems (to and from) aircraft to company level ground combat systems to titled army levels (2nd Guards Army, 3rd Shock Army, etc.). On the bright side, there appears to be no evidence of the Russians deploying Operational Maneuver Groups (OMG) near Ukraine, but such units could be task-organized from Corps or Army assets under an OMG command group.

c.  The G. W. Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden Administrations, the US Department of Defense, and our Congress have been derelict in their duties to provide America with ready and peer defeating ground combat unit capabilities.  Rather - we have a ground combat armed force so woefully ill-equipped to fight and win against our peer level threats, such as Russia, that the National Strategy/Policy question is: What they have been focusing on, if not such a vital national military capability? A safe bet would be that one or all of these are their exclusive focus (es): Domestic politics? Their re-election? Increasing their personal celebrity and wealth? Not their concerns or interest?

d.  Apparently, current and past US Administrations, the US Department of Defense, nor our Congress have Defense Capability and Continuity Offices with the job of ensuring that the US Armed Forces retain a peer threat defeating advantage in ground combat systems and units.   Or if they have, they are so far down in the basement as to never see daylight.

e.  The Russians will employ this impressive force to invade across Ukraine’s borders. Our DOD and Armed Forces Lessons Learned offices are about to see how far our ground combat forces are from being fully capable of defeating a Peer, such as the Russians will use imminently. 

f. Biden did DOD and the Nation a great favor, albeit inadvertently, by avoiding any armed conflict with Russia. We now have time to fix what’s broken but will we actually get to it?

About the Author(s)

COL Nightingale is a retired Army Colonel who served two tours in Vietnam with Airborne and Ranger (American and Vietnamese) units. He commanded airborne battalions in both the 509th Parachute Infantry Regiment and the 82nd Airborne Division. He later commanded both the 1/75th Rangers and the 1st Ranger Training Brigade.

Comments

exordis

Sat, 02/19/2022 - 11:06am

Col. Nightingale is absolutely right, but he left out one additional and probably very important factor. Our forces will be outcommanded as well. Remember that the senior officers and civilians currently in charge are the same ones who brought us the fiasco at the Kabul, Afghanistan.airport.

Giving up the Peacekeeper (MX) missiles was insane, and presumably, deliberate on the part of "our leaders."  Not only should the Peacekeepers have been kept, they should have been made rail-mobile, and then either Peacekeepers or Midgetmen built to replace the geriatric Minutemen.

It's clear the US "government" has long had interests other than protecting the American People and our way of life.  Interests actually at direct odds with protecting America.

Obama, like several of his predecessors and successors, is (present tense) a tool of a de facto world government, giving orders to the public "governments" we're expected to believe serve us.  It seems clear to me that the United States has been selected for "elimination" in the so-called Great Reset.

1KoolKat

Fri, 02/18/2022 - 6:57am

Great article Col. Nightingale, long overdue warning call unfortunately I see a greater threat to the US then a defeat by a peer (near peer) in a ground conflict in Europe or ocean conflict in the Pacific.

President Obama (Nobel Peace prize winner, nuclear-zero advocate) 2016 proposed modernization of America's entire nuclear triad, NC3 and infrastructure.

What's up with that? It appears to me that he saw something that scared the hell out of him. You know something like national survival.

They kicked the can (nuclear modernization) down the road until they ran out of road. Now our nation faces a moment of truth (MOT) replace the entire existing nuclear deterrent before it begins to break down.

Air power, LOL.  The Russians have excellent aircraft, with excellent pilots, and most importantly, excellent air defense systems.

US military cheerleaders mistake the past "victories" over countries that were incapable at defending themselves, for omnipotence.

The most important difference between the US armed forces and Russia's or China's?  The personnel themselves.  The Russkiis and the Chicoms don't have to decide which bathroom to use, nor are their personnel going to have psychotic breaks once the tech goes bye-bye for various reasons.  The marginal hardiness of my generation that largely fought Gulf War I is gone - the Millennials and Zoomers now populating the US military think that "hardship" involves Starbucks being out of soy milk.

In short, there is NO scenario where the US and NATO "win" against Russia in Russia's neighborhood.  Even escalating to nuclear means the end of not only Russia but the United States and most NATO states.

"Our leaders" are either insane, or they WANT a US defeat.

Air power, LOL.  The Russians have excellent aircraft, with excellent pilots, and most importantly, excellent air defense systems.

US military cheerleaders mistake the past "victories" over countries that were incapable at defending themselves, for omnipotence.

The most important difference between the US armed forces and Russia's or China's?  The personnel themselves.  The Russkiis and the Chicoms don't have to decide which bathroom to use, nor are their personnel going to have psychotic breaks once the tech goes bye-bye for various reasons.  The marginal hardiness of my generation that largely fought Gulf War I is gone - the Millennials and Zoomers now populating the US military think that "hardship" involves Starbucks being out of soy milk.

In short, there is NO scenario where the US and NATO "win" against Russia in Russia's neighborhood.  Even escalating to nuclear means the end of not only Russia but the United States and most NATO states.

"Our leaders" are either insane, or they WANT a US defeat.

red bongo

Fri, 02/18/2022 - 6:08am

As is typical for Army doctrine lectures, the Col has completely discounted air power, which has proven decisive in every war since inception.  The Col knows the Russians have a very weak air component, with little reserves, which would lead to a massive game of shooting fish in a bucket IF we ever resorted to a conventional war.

The Col’s tired use of long outdated Army systems is nothing more than the usual gong banging for a bigger slice of the budget- which it seems is his only, if dated, expertise.

No disrespect Col, but the 80s Cold War is over.

 

 

RT Colorado, your comment presents two straw man arguments.  First, Col. Nightingale didn't say the US needs to fight a Peer-on-Peer fight in Europe.  He said the US is not READY to fight a Peer-on-Peer fight in Europe.  He merely points out all the shortcomings of our armed forces for such a fight.

Secondly, you say Europe needs to be able to fight and win a Peer-on-Peer fight in Europe.  You're making an irrelevant argument.  The US is a member or NATO and we have our forces deployed in Europe and more specifically in Poland.  Col. Nightingale didn't sign the NATO Treaty and he didn't order US forces into Poland. Again, he made a compelling argument that we are not prepared to fight Russia.

The US is being setup for a military defeat, whether it will be in Europe or Asia, our planned, controlled defeat is in the making.  Our defeat will usher in the Great Reset.

You discount the pathological rot within the populations of NATO countries.  The Slavs, including the Poles, are a lot hardier than most "Westerners."  The average German isn't going to fight Russia, period.  Few in "the West" actually care about principles anymore, despite much talk about "freedom" and "democracy."  "Better Red than dead" has become a truism for them.  They sure won't fight, and possibly die, for principles, "mere ideas."  IF Russia were to breach Polish territory, the Poles will, as their forebears did in 1939, fight, and fight hard, but still lose.  And I doubt NATO would sit well with Russian forces entering Poland, as a drive to Berlin is fairly easy after that (especially from Kaliningrad).  It would likely see the use of tactical nuclear weapons before Warsaw was captured, eliciting a "total response" from Russia, against Europe and North America.

That said, I see no interest from Russia in attacking NATO states.  Even the Baltics.  Ukraine is different, since Ukraine is historically and culturally "Russia" for over a thousand years.  The Russian state was founded in Kyiv (Kiev), after all ("The" Ukraine: "Little Russia").  And most Ukrainians (and those of Ukrainian descent, like myself) have no quarrel with "Great Russia."  Nor should any of us.  Russia has NO "designs" on the world or even Eastern Europe. 

Currently available data suggests 10%, maybe 15% of US armed forces personnel will have incapacitating, likely fatal "health anomalies" as a result of taking the "vaccines," should they be pressed into physically-demanding combat.  Likely another 10-20% will be at "diminished capacity," if they exert themselves.  That's atop the socio-cultural rot and poor physical health of most "Western" individuals prior to the injections.  Witness all the professional athletes having serious or even fatal "health anomalies" while performing, as well as the poor performance of so many Americans in the current Olympics, after the injection campaign.

How well do you know the poles? I lived in the London for 5 1/2 in a Polish neighborhood and they don't have any experience.

Give me a break...the Russians are fighting for their homeland, and it's laughable you think they will be ground down by Poles.

As for the US Military.....the US army is made up of tranny's, and lots of woke people with tinted purple and green hair with lots of tattoos.

Not to mention, many are demoralized from being forced to take a crappy experimental vaccine that doesn't work and they didnt want in the first place.

 

Good luck buddy....the pathetic US military, who couldn't even beat a few bands of sand monkeys are surely going to need it.

RT Colorado

Thu, 02/17/2022 - 11:46am

With all due respect to Col. Nightingale and I say that honestly. The US doesn't need to fight a "Peer-on-Peer" fight in Europe. Europe needs to be able to fight and win a "Peer-on-Peer" fight in Europe and given the relative weaknesses of all the potential "Peers" it shouldn't be a real problem. The unfortunate Poles will take the  brunt to the worst fighting, but by the time the Russians get through the Poles they'll be in no shape to fight anyone, not even Liechtenstein...hell even the Germans could take the Russians once the Poles are done with them. What the US needs is to supply Poland with as much equipment as Poland is willing to take...and sell it to them at bargain basement prices. For every new anti-tank, anti-aircraft/anti-anything the US develops we should make sure the Poles get one. Then when the Poles are stuffed to the gills with every manner of US top shelf piece of gear, we start supplying the Baltic states, except there, we purchase all the gear the Swedes and French want to sell....JAS-39's , Le Cleric tanks, anti-everything/anything until every Latvian has his own personal anti-tank weapon. The secret to beating the Russians isn't fighting them tooth-n-nail but by equipping thier neighbors to fight them tooth-n-nail.