[Goose]

this is in reply to Goose's reply

Thank you for a very interesting and thought provoking series of comments.
I found this one list of US Army Forces now assigned to Europe and Africa.  https://www.europeafrica.army.mil/Units/
Not a lot of combat power in that list.  A couple of brigades not much else.  But they are as you describe them useful "Hostage Forces".

Yes, I saw that one too. Frankly I couldn't figure out what it was telling me. There are units that are known to be (at least partially) in Europe and are not referenced. Who knows what is "real"? At least up through the 90s we pretty much who was where. No more apparently. 

Do you know if we ever fully replaced the of immense proportions hardware drawdowns that took place in the First Gulf War?  If we do not have adequate hardware to be linked up to units being flown in during an emergency, we may be worse off than i thought.

We did not. There are some mitigating factors. Our Army is about 63% the size it was in 1990. Lots of equipment could be abandoned without causing immediate problems because we have nobody to use it anyway. Obviously if we need to expand our Army it will be a problem (duh). It is also true that new types of hardware has been used to replace previous versions. Strykers instead of Bradleys is an example. The appropriateness of such changes and the effects on combat power is in general unspecified and unclear IMO. There are still stocks of hardware at POMCUS sites in Europe to "marry up" with units flown into theater. However there hasn't been a REFORGER since 1993. How well all that would work in a pinch is IMO questionable at best. The Army has also been engaged in lots of "R & D" for "new, advanced concepts" that either failed or didn't lead to procurement. As a result I would say we have enough equipment for our Army and Reserves as presently constituted. Some of it is obsolete. We have some "extra" stocks of things that are not the "latest and greatest" with an unknown number of these that are "runners". We have an unknown (to me) quantity of pre-positioned gear around the world. I am pretty sure this pre-positioned stuff is probably useful but inadequate :-).

I know that in 2017 four multinational Battle Groups were created and stationed in the three Baltic States and Poland and with the invasion of Ukraine NATO agreed to form four more in Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Hungary.  Do all those exists and are they full manned?

I am pretty sure they all exist and their headquarters are fully manned. The size of the "Battle Groups" is whatever feels right and can be scraped together. I think the plan is to have a headquarters group than can support a lot more troops. These Battle Groups" could then in theory be significantly reinforced if God forbid they actually had to fight.  We also rotate the entire staffs regularly to create the ability to create more Battle Groups led by "experienced" staffs. As far as I can tell, most of these Battle Groups main task is training local forces in various ways. The exercises in Romania are certainly that.

How big is a Battle Group in todays world?  The info I can find says that the BG in Estonia is largest and has 1,650 soldiers.  A true Hostage Force and hardly a bump in the road for a Russian Armored division.  A Russian Tank Division is supposed to have around 12 to 14 thousand men, but my guess is they are nowhere near full strength.

Well, the good news is that the area of Estonia along the Russian border is forested and therefore crappy tank country :-). That said, if the Russian Air Force isn't sitting the war out, Estonia is indefensible anyway. Right next to LOTS of Russian airfields and plenty of Russian air defense. Anything that tries to move should be dead at least. The "battle Group" there is indeed (by design) a hostage force. That is one reason the very first thing the Baltics did was join NATO. They know they certainly would be overrun in short order if they didn't have NATO air and sea defense. With NATO support, they still lose but slower. They also wanted Russia to realize that they would end up fighting all along the NATO front, not just in the Baltics where Russia has a much better hand to play. A "Battle Group" is whatever the command says it is. Tactically it is pretty meaningless term. I think the plan is to "fill them out" if hostilities are imminent. Where the troops to do that will come from is the question.

A related question is what forces can the US quickly deploy to Europe? The US has 3 Airborne, 1 Armored Division (yes, exactly 1), 1 Calvary Division, 6  Infantry Divisions and 1 Mountain Division  on active duty. There are also a few independent "Brigades". Quite a few elements of the Airborne Divisions are currently rotating to postings in Europe. We are playing musical chairs with lots of different units at below divisional level.
https://www.army.mil/article/273127/army...eployments
The Army definitely wants a "plug and play" situation where divisional boundaries really don't matter. The composition of the force will be what is necessary to do the job. The Brigade Tactical Group is a concept in vogue. A one point a BTG (not to be confused with a Battalion Tactical Group in Russian parlance) was supposed to be about half a division but I think that concept is out the door.  The problem is once we have deployed out one armored division and one cavalry division (as units or piecemeal) what remaining divisions can be classified as a "heavy" or "mechanized" infantry division and sent to Europe? Airborne divisions are fine but they aren't "heavy infantry". Besides, lots of their parts appear to be already in Europe.  It looks like the plan is to do things piecemeal and take units as necessary from the infantry divisions. Can that work?

Hopefully, Losses in Ukraine, internal politics, and other issues will lead Putin to avoid going West. But if he thinks he can get away with it, who knows.

With you there, but as we know "hope is not a strategy". Problem is, without more troops it kind of looks to me we are stuck rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. As you pointed out, with all our commitments throughout Asia and the Middle East we aren't even able to move around all the inadequate forces we have. If Putin and Xi get together to even threaten strategic objectives, what does the Army do?

[Goose]

this is in reply to Goose's reply

Thank you for a very interesting and thought provoking series of comments.
I found this one list of US Army Forces now assigned to Europe and Africa.  https://www.europeafrica.army.mil/Units/
Not a lot of combat power in that list.  A couple of brigades not much else.  But they are as you describe them useful "Hostage Forces".

Yes, I saw that one too. Frankly I couldn't figure out what it was telling me. There are units that are known to be (at least partially) in Europe and are not referenced. Who knows what is "real"? At least up through the 90s we pretty much who was where. No more apparently. 

Do you know if we ever fully replaced the of immense proportions hardware drawdowns that took place in the First Gulf War?  If we do not have adequate hardware to be linked up to units being flown in during an emergency, we may be worse off than i thought.

We did not. There are some mitigating factors. Our Army is about 63% the size it was in 1990. Lots of equipment could be abandoned without causing immediate problems because we have nobody to use it anyway. Obviously if we need to expand our Army it will be a problem (duh). It is also true that new types of hardware has been used to replace previous versions. Strykers instead of Bradleys is an example. The appropriateness of such changes and the effects on combat power is in general unspecified and unclear IMO. There are still stocks of hardware at POMCUS sites in Europe to "marry up" with units flown into theater. However there hasn't been a REFORGER since 1993. How well all that would work in a pinch is IMO questionable at best. The Army has also been engaged in lots of "R & D" for "new, advanced concepts" that either failed or didn't lead to procurement. As a result I would say we have enough equipment for our Army and Reserves as presently constituted. Some of it is obsolete. We have some "extra" stocks of things that are not the "latest and greatest" with an unknown number of these that are "runners". We have an unknown (to me) quantity of pre-positioned gear around the world. I am pretty sure this pre-positioned stuff is probably useful but inadequate :-).

I know that in 2017 four multinational Battle Groups were created and stationed in the three Baltic States and Poland and with the invasion of Ukraine NATO agreed to form four more in Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Hungary.  Do all those exists and are they full manned?

I am pretty sure they all exist and their headquarters are fully manned. The size of the "Battle Groups" is whatever feels right and can be scraped together. I think the plan is to have a headquarters group than can support a lot more troops. These Battle Groups" could then in theory be significantly reinforced if God forbid they actually had to fight.  We also rotate the entire staffs regularly to create the ability to create more Battle Groups led by "experienced" staffs. As far as I can tell, most of these Battle Groups main task is training local forces in various ways. The exercises in Romania are certainly that.

How big is a Battle Group in todays world?  The info I can find says that the BG in Estonia is largest and has 1,650 soldiers.  A true Hostage Force and hardly a bump in the road for a Russian Armored division.  A Russian Tank Division is supposed to have around 12 to 14 thousand men, but my guess is they are nowhere near full strength.

Well, the good news is that the area of Estonia along the Russian border is forested and therefore crappy tank country :-). That said, if the Russian Air Force isn't sitting the war out, Estonia is indefensible anyway. Right next to LOTS of Russian airfields and plenty of Russian air defense. Anything that tries to move should be dead at least. The "battle Group" there is indeed (by design) a hostage force. That is one reason the very first thing the Baltics did was join NATO. They know they certainly would be overrun in short order if they didn't have NATO air and sea defense. With NATO support, they still lose but slower. They also wanted Russia to realize that they would end up fighting all along the NATO front, not just in the Baltics where Russia has a much better hand to play. A "Battle Group" is whatever the command says it is. Tactically it is pretty meaningless term. I think the plan is to "fill them out" if hostilities are imminent. Where the troops to do that will come from is the question.

A related question is what forces can the US quickly deploy to Europe? The US has 3 Airborne, 1 Armored Division (yes, exactly 1), 1 Calvary Division, 6  Infantry Divisions and 1 Mountain Division  on active duty. There are also a few independent "Brigades". Quite a few elements of the Airborne Divisions are currently rotating to postings in Europe. We are playing musical chairs with lots of different units at below divisional level.
https://www.army.mil/article/273127/army...eployments
The Army definitely wants a "plug and play" situation where divisional boundaries really don't matter. The composition of the force will be what is necessary to do the job. The Brigade Tactical Group is a concept in vogue. A one point a BTG (not to be confused with a Battalion Tactical Group in Russian parlance) was supposed to be about half a division but I think that concept is out the door.  The problem is once we have deployed out one armored division and one cavalry division (as units or piecemeal) what remaining divisions can be classified as a "heavy" or "mechanized" infantry division and sent to Europe? Airborne divisions are fine but they aren't "heavy infantry". Besides, lots of their parts appear to be already in Europe.  It looks like the plan is to do things piecemeal and take units as necessary from the infantry divisions. Can that work?

Hopefully, Losses in Ukraine, internal politics, and other issues will lead Putin to avoid going West. But if he thinks he can get away with it, who knows.

With you there, but as we know "hope is not a strategy". Problem is, without more troops it kind of looks to me we are stuck rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. As you pointed out, with all our commitments throughout Asia and the Middle East we aren't even able to move around all the inadequate forces we have. If Putin and Xi get together to even threaten strategic objectives, what does the Army do?