Roleplay: Baltic defences build-up - Part 1

Rythm

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #21
As always, nice work Kato. Some questions tough:

Wouldnt a Helo-force be a waste considering the lack of air superiority?

Somehow i would like the idea of a second reserve infantery regiment, why just one?

The SAM component, do you envisage a short-range system (Stinger) or medium-range (something like Hawk)?

Norway is a go for military purchases, as is Switzerland.

And yes, there is gonna be part 2 , wich might knock your socks off :)
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Wouldnt a Helo-force be a waste considering the lack of air superiority?
Not for peacetime. We need something for SAR etc. The helo squadron would only have like four to six helos anyway.

Somehow i would like the idea of a second reserve infantery regiment, why just one?
Numbers, quite simply. With a second infantry regiment and similar additions we'd pretty quickly employ 8-10% of the entire Gotlandish population. Or 30% (!) of the viable age bracket. That would be just ... insane, for peacetime. For comparison: This would be like Germany keeping an army of 6 million. Or Sweden an army of 500,000 or so.

The SAM component, do you envisage a short-range system (Stinger) or medium-range (something like Hawk)?
Norway is a go for military purchases, as is Switzerland.
NASAMS, if they let me have it. Otherwise, I-Hawk, if i can buy some used anywhere. The Norwegian Military cites the cost of a NASAMS battery at 36 million (with 9 launchers and 54 missiles), so this wouldn't be too pricy.
A few Stingers to back them up, but i consider those under small arms really.


Anyway, that equipment list, again, now with some declarations:

- about 250 trucks (various military and civilian models and sources) (cost: about 30 million)
- 18 surface-to-air missile launchers (NASAMS; Norway) (cost: 72 million)
- 18 surface-to-surface missile launchers (truck-based RGM-84D; USA) (cost: 68 million)
- 24 heavy mortars (M121 120mm; USA) (cost: 2.5 million)
- 24 artillery guns (M198 155mm; USA) (cost: 10 million)
- 18 anti-aircraft guns (Skyguard 75/95 with twin 35mm guns 63/90; Switzerland) (cost: 14 million)
- 42 armoured vehicles and engineer vehicles (various M113 variants; USA) (cost: 30 million)
- 2 light helicopters (Bell 412SP; USA) (cost: 2 million)
- 2 mobile surveillance radars (TPS-ID; USA) (cost: 2.5 million)
- 6 small patrol boats (converted pilot vessels; civilian) (cost: 3 million)
- 2 larger ships (converted offshore supply vessels; civilian) (cost: 4 million)
- 2 small cargo landing craft (civilian sources) (cost: 2 million)

I'd assign at least 10 million to C3 systems as well, but that's easily within the budget. So, so far we're at... 250 million, and only have small arms and ammunition for those and all the above to go (for which we can spend 80 million). Looks good so far, i'd say.

Some of the above numbers i'm guessing, some are calculated together from various sources, some are straight from ordering contracts and such. Should give a good idea at what we're dealing with money-wise, though.

Most of the above systems come with the associated fire control, radars, command facilities and movers/trucks included.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Nice list. :)

Are the above prices including training and technical support?
Technical support, yes (some would also go from the maintenance section of the budget).
Training, i'd hope we could finagle something out of Norway or the US for free, or as part of the contracts. I know that subsequent cost including training can easily double the price, especially for high-technology items, but we can work around that somehow.

If we really need to save some more money, i'd drop numbers on the howitzers, mortars, anti-ship missiles and AA guns slightly primarily, say a reduction to 3/4 to 2/3 of the given number maximum.

The number of NASAMS launchers is also somewhat overkill (Norway operates three times that for a far larger territory to be defended), but along with the SSMs form the "core" defence capability of our army really.

Sources:
1. Prices for some military equipment, numbers there in NOK
2. Prices for civilian boats to be converted, 20% overhead expected for some modifications (light gun mounts etc)
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Area Gotland is an island with a population of about 50000 souls, of wich 15000 are fit for military duty. It is approx. 3000 squarekilometers large and its coasline is 800km. A simple map can be viewed here.
A brief statistical survey of Gotland, with some comparisons:
Population 31-12-2006 - 57297, of which 18312 aged 18-44.
1870 - 54028. Peak 1945 - 59505
Total area 3184 sq km of which 3151 land.

GDP per capita 2005 - 233000 SKr. Sweden 296000 SKr.
In Euros -
GDP 2004
Gotland 1482.6 mn
Sweden 281124 mn
EU 27 10529 bn (10529351 mn)

Per capita GDP 2004 (exchange rate converted)
Gotland 119.7
Sweden 145.4
EU 27 100.0

Per capita GDP 2004 (PPP)
Gotland 99.1
Sweden 120.3
EU 27 100.0

Should give some idea of what is & isn't affordable & doable.
Sources: Statistics Sweden & Eurostat
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
First of all we need to start with the basics before we invest in any advanced capabilities.

Since this sepertist move is very provocative to the sweeds we need to increase the basic capability of gotlands armed forces, since the threat of sweedish intervention is high in the early stages.

First things first get in touch with the isrealis and the chinese, given the attitude of the sweeds, russians and EU to the situation i would not count on the Finns, Norwegans or US to do any arms deals or send any personell to gotland. The Isrealies and Chinese have illustrated in the past that they will do business with just about anyone as long as they are legitimate.

With 18000 odd males of military age, we do have something to work with. The full time regiment (i'll just call it a battalion, regiments dont make much sence to me, too many meanings and it gets confusing), can keep in place in its current form. However including reserves 2 battalions is no were near enough to repell an invasion. 10 million land mines may indeed funnell the attackers into pre prepared kill zones, but 6 light infantry companies are not going to be able to hold jack s*it with 800km of coast to defend.

Ask the chinese to do a deal on large ammounts of small arms, support weapons and ammunition, they should have more than enough in storage and be able to do a rock bottom price on a bulk order like this one, especially as most of this kit will be up for replacement soon. The list should look something like this:

20 000 AK47's as the basic infantry rifle (or AK 74 preferably, but we'll take what we can get). There may be better rifles out there but there is nothing that compares to the AK series in terms of reliability, ease of use and (the big one) value for money, this aint the marine corps after all. for about $2 000 000EU.

4000 RPK's Squad/Section/fire-team support weapon. Same benifits as the AK47. for about $800 000EU

3~5 million rounds of 7.62mm ammunition $300 000EU i'm guessing on that one. with an option for annother 3~5 million if need be.

1500 RPK GPMG should cost about $600 000EU

1000 Draganov SVD sniper rifles $100 000EU

1000 RPG 7, basic support weapon and should be issued to at least every platoon, with 30 000 rounds of ammo, $500 000EU

General Kit Cammies, webbing, entrenching tools, radio's ect ect ect for at least 10 000 personell, (cammies for 20 000) probably worth $1 000 000EU.

200 81mm mortars with 200 000 rounds of ammo for about $500 000EU

200 AGS 30 or QLZ 87 Automatic 30mm grenade launcher with 400 000 rounds of ammo for about $300 000EU

500 QW2 MANPADS for about $1 000 000EU

All this sould cost about $7 000 000EU. Note that the cost are just guestimation and $10~15 000 000EU should be allowed for this, then again $4 000 000 could do it.

The goal for these aquisitions is to equip a much larger force structure composed of national service reservists. But first a training and logistical structure needs to be implemented to train this force and supply it when deployed. The force structure should be as follows:

  • Brigade Command changed to Army HQ group, with HQ staff and signals company

  • 3 Brigade HQ who report to Army HQ: 1st brigade, 2nd brigade & 3rd Brigade each with Staff Signals and medical companies.

  • 2nd & 3rd brigades are composed of 3 reserve Battalions each plus the HQ group and an artillary battalion. 1st brigade is composed of 3 half active, half reserve battalions and is the high readyness brigade, with one infantry company in each battalion being fully active and all the officers being fully active, and an artillary battalion. This brigade has an Engineering battalion, and is motorized.

  • Each Battalion is composed of battalion HQ, 1x Signals company, 3x infantry companies, 1x Fire support company, 1x recon platoon equiped with land rovers. Aeach Infantry company consists of 3 platoons and company HQ. The fire support company is equiped with 6x 80mm mortars, 6x AGS30, 6x PKM and 4x QW2. Each Artillary battalion comsists of 3 batteries, 6x 122mm light guns each

  • Each infantry company consists of 3 platoons, each with an RPG 7, or 3 of them depending on the mission. Each company also has 4 battlefield snipers and 2 artillary observers. Each platoon consists of a Leutennant, 3 sections/squads with 2 fireteams each based arround an RPK (6 per platoon) and 3 riflemen.

The full time element of the Gotland army was (i'm assuming) originally a battalion in the sweedish army, so the personell standards should be quite high. This could be used as a professional core to start a training programe. If additional personell and expertise are needed, there are plenty ex Royal Marine sargent majors floating around the high end private security industry. 100KM2 of remote area of gotland should be aquired by the government and a training facility should be established. It should accomadate 500~1000 cadets. Given the professional base this facility could be up and running fairly quickley. Once it is personell can be trained constantly, with all recruites undergoing a 28 day initial cource, then going on to infantry/signals/artillary school ext. Battalions could be trained at a time (aproximatly 1000 men with all the bits and pieces) 60 days training rotations, with officers attending a seperate staff collage with 60 days additional training at a staff collage. a Seperate sniper school could be inplace with 30 cadets attending at a time, with a total sniper strength of 2~300. Within 14 months all 7 extra battalions would have been through basic training and undergoing additional training every month-two weeks.

Now for larger stuff.

60x 122mm light howitzer, Type 60 with 50~100 000 rounds. These all go out to the brigades.

25x 152mm Type 66 towed guns. These are placed in 3 batteries to be under the command of the artillary division which reports to the Army HQ. 4 used for training.

4~6x HQ7 SAM batteries (if they will sell it) if not then the HQ2.

12 x HY4 Sadsack SSM batteries all under artillary command.

will finish later its way too late...
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
One should also remember that mining your coast and the sea around your island is not going to help the tourism.
And tourism is one of the backbones of Gotlands economy.
So wast military structures and especially minefields are not an option in my eyes.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
One should also remember that mining your coast and the sea around your island is not going to help the tourism.
And tourism is one of the backbones of Gotlands economy.
So wast military structures and especially minefields are not an option in my eyes.
Barracks for 1000-2000 people don't take up that much "horizon" in a city of 25,000 (hell, i was stationed in almost that numerical setup). You can work a limited scope. There are already barracks and so on on both Gotland and, in a limited fashion, on Faro.

Minefields... you could always work with a quick-deployable system, a la the German Skorpion. Norway uses Bv-206 with pretty much the same method for that purpose. These systems carry multiple Metalstorm-lookalike small rocket launch arrays with each tube loaded with multiple mines (example pic).


Regarding conscription, going by Swedish statistics via CIA World Factbook for 2005 and calculating for Gotland population:

- 376 males and 358 females reach military age (19 in Sweden) yearly
- 9,560 males and 9,224 females are considered fit for military service and are in the 18-49 age bracket

(hence that 18,000 number he quoted; note of course that if you even draw just all the males, you'll half your civilian workforce, grinding life to a halt pretty much)


As for the criticism of the size with "only" two battalions of infantry:

a) You don't have the money or people for more really. Sure, you can go all-infantry, but they'll not be happy with 120 hostile Gripens above their head.

b) I never intend to repel a full-out invasion. Hell, if Russia comes by and says "we build our gas pipeline exactly here", it's time to duck your head and take it any day. What you really need is the forces to make Sweden stop its harassment (and they will think twice about it when they know you have decent medium-range SAMs and their fighter on an incursion gets its RWR beeping). And the appropriate forces to protect your EEZ, in particular in respect to fishery rights. I can imagine that you might get some problems there with other Baltic nations soon.

c) Even with only two battalions, with decent artillery backup and forward-reaching interception capability, your forces will be able to strike back any "small" invasion attempt (Estland has an army of 5,000 men, btw). Or any coup attempts (Maldives scenario, anyone?), including by loyal Swedish monarchists.

d) The initial premise was the requirement "to be able to defend Gotland itself for a period of at least 2 weeks". As long as the enemy doesn't gain total air superiority by destroying your SAM network, they'll have problems making a foothold. Both by airborne and amphibious assault. By the second week, you can go asymmetric, if you want, but it would initially play out quite equally. This isn't Normandy. The enemy doesn't land with 30,000 men and tanks in one go, supported by thousands of aircraft and hundreds of ships.
 
Last edited:

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
Barracks
Regarding conscription, going by Swedish statistics via CIA World Factbook for 2005 and calculating for Gotland population:

- 376 males and 358 females reach military age (19 in Sweden) yearly
- 9,560 males and 9,224 females are considered fit for military service and are in the 18-49 age bracket

(hence that 18,000 number he quoted; note of course that if you even draw just all the males, you'll half your civilian workforce, grinding life to a halt pretty much)
Sorry missunderstood the numbers, 3 brigadses are still viable if women take all of the non combat roles. Only 1 or 2 battalions will be training at one time, thats 2000~3000 individuals, maximim. That isnt going to bring the world to an end, its less than 5% of the population. If you ever mobilise to repell an invasion then life is going to grind to a hault anyway so i dont see that as a major issue. The ammount of full timers would not increase that much, so i dont see what kind of major effect this would have on the labour market.

As for the criticism of the size with "only" two battalions of infantry:

a) You don't have the money or people for more really. Sure, you can go all-infantry, but they'll not be happy with 120 hostile Gripens above their head.
You do have the money and the people to train and equip 3 brigades of national servicemen. The money is the smallest issue, you could equip and train them for $40million euro's. Thats less than 20% of your anual defence budget.

And your allways going to have 120 angry grippens over your head. Even if you spent the whole lot on an IADS its not going to be able to deny the sweeds air superiority for long. Those highly sophisticated and verry expensive systems would be the first targets for an impressive sweedish SEAD/DEAD campaign. You might shoot down 10 of them, but then what, you've got 110 angry grippens and all those bucks down the drain with destroyed radars and SAM systems i.e no capability. Sounds like a bad idea to me. IMO heavilly investing in an IADS at the expense of basic capabilityis only feasable if it stands a real chance of denying the opposition air superiority. But in this case, given the capabilities of the likely opponant and the funds available, there is no feasable way we can deny the sweeds air superiority over gotland, at least at the High to Mid altitude, no matter how much of our bucks we invest in an IADS. Given that premace it seems like a bad idea to invest heavilly in very expensive single systems, they will be the primary targets for high to mid altitude air strikes with PGM's and wont last long. Light and Mobile is the name of the game. If you deny them low altitude as much as possible for fixed wings and totaly for gunships, the sweedish airforce wont be able to do much against light mobile forces. Its the only realistic way to operate under hostile air cover.

And 3 brigades of infantry, heavy on mortars, snipers and support weapons weapons, defencding their own ground would be hell for an amphibious expiditionary force that would be light on armour. The sweeds would be forced to pay a horrific cost in retakeing the island. It also abliges the attacker to land in force which increases the complexcity and difficulty of the operation expidentialy. It is by far the best initial investment and is a real detterunt to direct swedish intervention. At the moment, even with a much better IADS, the sweds could retake the islandafter a week of a concerted SEAD/DEAD campaign and the landing of a professional regiment/brigade. Even if the IADS is still putting up a fight the RSAF will still be able to inderdict the battlefield when the landing takes place. They only have two battalions to conted with, who by their nature would have to be dispersed throughout island an therefore could not concentrate on the beachead quickley. With 9 mobilised battalions at least two can converge on the beachead quickley, and with the ammount of support weapons and snipers they are going to be hell do displace, allowing other battalions to reinforce, even under Sweedish air power.

b) I never intend to repel a full-out invasion. Hell, if Russia comes by and says "we build our gas pipeline exactly here", it's time to duck your head and take it any day. What you really need is the forces to make Sweden stop its harassment (and they will think twice about it when they know you have decent medium-range SAMs and their fighter on an incursion gets its RWR beeping). And the appropriate forces to protect your EEZ, in particular in respect to fishery rights. I can imagine that you might get some problems there with other Baltic nations soon.
If i'm getting this scenario right then Gotland has just declared indipendance from sweden. Now historicaly such a move usually doesent go down too well with the original nation, look at chechenia and Taiwan for example. Russia is no were near as much of a threat as the sweeds.

The primary goal for for the armed forces is the protection of the state, and a sweedish invasion is a very real threat in such a scenario, to assume they are only going to harrass you and discount the possibility of direct intervention is highly unrealistic. This was originaly soverign sweedish teritory after all and they are going to see it as within their rights to take it back by force. Now taking that into account it would be criminal IMO for the Gotland government to concentrate on protecting its EEZ or stop the occasional fyover, without adequatly adressing the threat of invasion which would destroy the state. Those capabilities should be well down the list of priorities. you adress the bigest threat first as much as possible and then adress the secondary threats.


c) Even with only two battalions, with decent artillery backup and forward-reaching interception capability, your forces will be able to strike back any "small" invasion attempt (Estland has an army of 5,000 men, btw). Or any coup attempts (Maldives scenario, anyone?), including by loyal Swedish monarchists.
You would be able to put up some resistance with two battalions, however you wont be able to concetrate, and if you are relying on heavy, not so mobile 155mm artillary systems they are going to be primary targets for sweedish air power and counter battery fire. It means you make the sweeds land with something desent, but it also means the landings will proabably be unaposed apart from some arty. However it is no real defence or deturrent to direct sweedish intervention.

d) The initial premise was the requirement "to be able to defend Gotland itself for a period of at least 2 weeks". As long as the enemy doesn't gain total air superiority by destroying your SAM network, they'll have problems making a foothold. Both by airborne and amphibious assault. By the second week, you can go asymmetric, if you want, but it would initially play out quite equally. This isn't Normandy. The enemy doesn't land with 30,000 men and tanks in one go, supported by thousands of aircraft and hundreds of ships.
So the premace states that we should try to defend Gotland for two weeks and not persue capabilities and tactics to actually repell an invasion or make one unfeasible? Sounds a tad urealistic to me. If it was my nation under threat i would be doing everything possible to defend it from invasion first and dealing with illegal fishing later.

Again even if you spent $1BN on an IADS, i highly doubt your going to deny the sweeds the mid to high altitudes for long, which means anything big and expensive will be fair game for PGM's, and then you've got nothing (apart from 2 battalions) to deal with the invasion. Again i think your priorities are mixed up.

So in your view you want to slow them down for a week and then go asymetric in the second week??? sounds like your trying to fail. Going asymetric is the tactic of the weak. You would rather allow your nation to be occupied by a foregin power, leading to an insurgency for a long period of time with large scale fighting in populated areas?? Sure it might work in 10 years, but then you would have to start all over again, not very attractive. I dont know why you wouldn't want to do everything possible to repell an invasion in the first place and go asymetric as the very last choice.

And your right this wouldnt be Normandy. However all amphibious operations do have similarites, especcially when dealing with a contested landing and decend opposition on land, then the only question is scale. With your 2 battalions and some arty you most probably wont be able to deffend the beach, you wont be able to concentrate and with your reliance on heavy arty theres a good chance it wont last long. Then your basically putting up token resistance. The enemy could land with 10 000+ men, and they dont need thousands of aircraft and hundrds of ships to do it. The brits didnt need it in the falklands. They are not facing any naval or air threat, so even using civilan ships becomes a possibility. To discount that capability is again unrealistic. By If they are incapable of landing or sustaining anything more than that logistically then by having 3 brigades of infantry to deter an invasion just by having them in place. 2 battalions doesent go anywere near echieving that.

This capability (lots of infantry which is heavy on light support weapons) is relatively cheap, much less vulnerable to air power and a real deturrent. It makes any armed invasion a massive undertaking for the sweeds and perhaps something beyonde their capability. Ignoring it in order to but sexy SAM systems and OVP's to pose some threat to the sweedish air force and protect fishing is neglegent to the people and nation you are protecting.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
If you ever mobilise to repell an invasion then life is going to grind to a hault anyway so i dont see that as a major issue.
Someone needs to produce the food, electricity, supply the water, build your replacement weapons and ammunition (if you have the industry), get rid of the trash, repair streets and airports, take care of the kids and elderly, man the hospitals, be firefighters. Especially if you intend to fight longer than a week or so.

Light and Mobile is the name of the game.
Except you don't have the terrain, or the necessary "depth of area" for that. Gotland neither has mountains, nor large forested areas, nor real urban zones (other than Visby) for you to fight in. They'll just bomb you into the ground from the air and the sea, if they know what they're doing.

not so mobile 155mm artillary systems they are going to be primary targets [...] counter battery fire.
They'll have to land the counterbattery radars and assorted artillery first.

So the premace states that we should try to defend Gotland for two weeks and not persue capabilities and tactics to actually repell an invasion or make one unfeasible?
Seriously? Our entire population is smaller than our main enemy's peacetime military. And if our enemy isn't Sweden, but Russia or Germany, we can expect tanks landing, and for Russia, enough troops to overrun your island in a single landing. If you give Sweden the necessary time, they'll have the same capability on a dedicated building program. Any invasion is going to succeed, you simply don't have the numbers to fight it off.
 

Cinncinatus

New Member
Scenario: After years of foreign oppression, the Baltic island of Gotland has peacefully declared its independence from the Swedish Crown. The EU isnt pleased, but has choosen not to take action. Sweden on the other hand isnt pleased either, and has made numerous intrusions into Gotlandish airspace and into their territorial waters. A Swedish embargo is in place. Also, Russia has signaled that its first and foremost interest is to secure the area around wich the new gas-pipeline is to be constructed in the baltic sea. This area is, according to the newly elected Gotlandish President, part of the Gotlandish EEZ. The other nordic countries (especially Finland and Denmark) have taken a position of total neutrality in the matter. The Order of the Teutonic Knights (!) have presented a claim on Gotland ranging back to the islands Liberation by them in the 13th century, some German politicians have voiced that Germany should back up these claims.

Area Gotland is an island with a population of about 50000 souls, of wich 15000 are fit for military duty. It is approx. 3000 squarekilometers large and its coasline is 800km. A simple map can be viewed here.

Gotland armed forces Consist of a part-time local defence batalion of about 700 soldiers and a rapid reaction company of about 170 soldiers. The Police also have defence duties and numbers 75 officers. The local denfence batalion has one amphibious company with some older LCPs. The batalion has been motorized since the independence thru the impoundning of a large number of civilian SUVs. The heaviest weapons available is the famous Carl Gustaf grenade laucher, small arms are G3s and FN MAGs with some MP-5s and assorted pistols and hunting rifles. The "Air Force" consist of 8 SAAB 340 and 3 SAAB 2000 Civilian passenger aircraft and 2 civilian Bell Jet Ranger helicopters, all impounded at the airport at independence. The "Navy" consist of 4 civilian RIB, also impounded at independence.

Mission YOU are the new Minister of Defence. Your most important mission is to defend Gotlands national borders, but also to be able to defend Gotland itself for a period of at least 2 weeks. Seeing that Gotland is vastly outnumbered, the government has given you a whooping 20% of the BNP for the first three years, this amounts to 240 million € per year or a total of 720 million €. Obviously, no Swedish items can be purchased. Only smaller items (such as small arms and civilian vehicles) can be purchased from EU-countries. The Government does not want you to get any russian-made items.

What do you do?
In my opinion, Russia is the key to the whole problem. So, Russia wants to build a gas-pipeline, does it? Well, the Minister of Defense or the Secretary of State of Gotland should negotiate a deal with Russia that it gets between 30-50% of the natural gas in return for Russia recognizing the independence of Gotland. The Gotlandian MOD or SOS might have to throw in something else, like fishing rights for Russia on Gotland's Southeast Coast. With Russia backing and recognizing Gotland's independence, Sweden will have to back down. As for Germany, one might point out that Germany has gone through 5 governmental changes since the Teutonic Knights were big and it doesn't really matter if, 800 years later, they still want something. Problem(s) solved.
 
Top