Is the Baltic Fleet a former fleet? Not!


Baltic corvettes on exercises, 2019 year


There is an opinion that the Baltic Fleet is a fleet without a future, that it is outdated and it makes no sense to develop it. There is even a joke about the former fleet. It is worth sorting out this issue.

Some characteristics of the theater of operations located on it countries and their impact on the situation


The Baltic Sea is very small in size and shallow. Depths are generally measured in tens of meters; there are shallows. Geographically, the sea is locked - access to the open ocean from it passes through the Danish Straits, controlled by a country unfriendly to Russia - Denmark. The Kiel Canal is controlled by Germany. Russia controls a few percent of the Baltic coast, and it has only two naval bases on it - Kronstadt (to put it bluntly, more than just a base, it has great infrastructure) and the Baltic Naval Forces. The latter is within the range of the actual fire of the Polish army artillery.

Is the Baltic Fleet a former fleet? Not!

For those who do not remember the map of the region

Hydrology of the Baltic Sea significantly complicates the detection of submarines by acoustic methods, but due to the shallow depths of the submarine it is difficult to hide from non-acoustic ones - primarily radar detection of wave traces on the surface of the water, above a moving submarine, detection of wake traces, detection of heat generated by a submarine using thermal imaging equipment .

The Leningrad Navy base in Kronstadt is located inside the narrow Gulf of Finland, the northern coast of which belongs mainly to Finland, and the southern one to the Baltic countries that are NATO members. The Gulf of Finland can be very quickly blocked by the laying of minefields, which will cut off Northwest Russia from maritime communications. This will be an economic disaster for the country as a whole.

On the shores of the Gulf of Finland is the second most important city in Russia, St. Petersburg, with its port, as well as the most important export infrastructure, for example, the port of Ust-Luga.

Russia owns the Kaliningrad region, located “halfway” from Russian territory proper to the exit from the Baltic Sea. Its population is more than a million people and maintaining a stable connection with this territory is critically important for Russia, and for the population of the Kaliningrad region. Communication with the territory, independent of third (hostile) countries, is carried out exclusively by sea. The lines connecting the Kaliningrad Region with the rest of Russia are thus critical sea lanes that must remain free under absolutely any circumstances.

The population of the countries of the Baltic region is mostly hostile to the Russian Federation. This has both historically determined reasons, and is due to the absolutely insane and unrepresentable for the average Russian citizen incandescence of anti-Russian propaganda. For example, in Sweden, for example, dramatic feature films are made where the Russian military massively poison the population of Sweden with rains contaminated with psychotropic substances, and this is taken seriously and does not cause any rejection of the mass audience. The attitude of the Poles also does not require comments, with the exception of the population of the regions bordering the Kaliningrad region. The population of Finland is largely suspicious of Russia, although it is very far from hostility to the level of Poland or Swedish paranoia.

The British and US Navy have free and unlimited access to the Baltic Sea thanks to the position of Denmark and can deploy there almost any forces, the strength of which is limited only by military expediency.

The risk of a full-scale war in the region is low - all countries that are in it to a greater or lesser extent are “friends against” the Russian Federation and will not fight among themselves, but a full-scale attack on Russia should be considered unlikely due to its nuclear status (although it cannot be completely ruled out ) At the same time, the intensity of anti-Russian propaganda in the media of some countries has already led to a partial loss of an adequate perception of reality by their population and political leadership, and this creates risks of local clashes of limited scope.

This risk is especially enhanced by the fact that the US leadership is firstly interested in such clashes, and secondly, it has an almost unlimited influence on the mechanisms for making foreign policy decisions in some countries, whose population is no longer able to evaluate the actions of their authorities adequately. Moreover, opportunities have been outlined for introducing mentally ill people who are sick from a medical point of view into the power structures of the same Poland, an example of which some time ago was the Minister of National Defense of Poland Anthony Matserevich. With such cadres, gaining the United States, Britain, or another opponent of Russia of their own kamikaze country, willing to sacrifice themselves in the war with Russia, is a purely technical task that can be done at any given time.

The specifics of hostilities in the Baltic


The small distances between the bases of the warring parties, as well as a large number of skerries where you can mask and hide warships, have led to the fact that to ensure, if not victory, then at least non-defeat in the Baltic, the belligerent has only one way of acting - decisive offensive to neutralize as quickly as possible fleet the enemy. This theater of operations does not give other options, the speed of any operations on this theater is too high due to its smallness, and the enemy simply needs to be forewarned in everything.

During the First World War, both Russia and Germany ignored this situation and as a result, none of the parties in the Baltic region achieved a strategically significant positive change in the situation, which made all the losses incurred in the battles by the parties largely in vain. The Germans made the right conclusions from this. During the Second World War, the very small German-Finnish forces, consisting largely of mobilized civilian courts, were able to effectively neutralize the disproportionately larger Baltic Fleet of the RKKF in the very first days of the war. The reason for this was the possession of the initiative and the pace of operations ahead of the enemy.

The Baltic Fleet, in terms of its numerical superiority over any potential enemy in the region, could not oppose anything to this.

There were a lot of reasons for this state of affairs, today we can safely say that the Baltic Fleet, like the RKKF as a whole, was in a state of systemic crisis, which determined its effectiveness.

What was the Baltic Fleet supposed to do?

Use your light powers and Aviation for effective reconnaissance to great depths, and large surface ships to prevent German offensive mining operations in the Gulf of Finland. There were enough forces for this, the courage of the personnel, too, in the end, the Soviet pilots opened fire on German ships for the first time even before the “canonical” moment of the outbreak of war at 03.30 in the morning of June 22, 1941. The command had an understanding of when the war was about to begin, and the circle of future opponents was clear. If such measures were taken in advance, no blockade of the fleet would have occurred and it could have had a completely different influence on the course of the battles.

But nothing was done, for a complex set of reasons. The results are known.

Another feature of military operations in the Baltic is that it is the only theater of operations where light forces are really capable of performing a wide range of tasks independently, and where surface ships are more likely to engage in battle against other surface ships than anywhere else.

Another specific feature of the theater of war, also stemming from its geography, is the possibility of waging a mine war on a scale that is nowhere else possible. For a long time mine loaders were a very common class of warships both in NATO and in neutral countries, and even today it is minzags that are the main warships in the Finnish Navy.

The current state of the Baltic Fleet of the Russian Federation


At present, the Baltic Fleet of Russia is still a “fragment” of the Baltic Fleet of the USSR. This is not an association created for a task or tasks, it is the remnants of what was previously there and what should have acted in completely different conditions. The structure of the Baltic Fleet of the Russian Navy, its naval staff, and the forces of the Naval Aviation that are in the fleet are not based on any doctrine or concept of combat use. It’s just “a lot of ships” and no more.

We give some examples.

There is a clear neglect of the submarine forces of the Baltic Fleet, at the moment they include one operational submarine B-806 "Dmitrov". Hypothetically, she will soon be joined by another company - Alrosa, but first she must get out of the repair and make the transition to the Baltic.

There is a misunderstanding of what surface forces and where the fleet should possess - the most valuable and large fleet ships, 20380 project corvettes, are based in Baltiysk, where Polish artillery can get them. There is also the flagship of the fleet - destroyer "Persistent", naturally, when it comes out of repair.

The Undaunted project that is being repaired by the 11540 TFR project may still come out of it without the Uran missile system that it’s “relying on”, however, there may still be options.

But with the available anti-mine forces there are no options - even if the minesweepers that the Baltic Fleet had could fight modern mines, then they would not be enough. But they can’t. In general, the attitude of the Navy to the mine threat in the Baltic is not much different from the attitude to the mine threat in the North or the Pacific Ocean, but, as has just been said, even the geography in the Baltic favors the conduct of the mine war, and the neighbors are preparing for it.

In general, the Baltic Fleet is not ready for a serious war.

This is not surprising. On the website of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation The main tasks of the Baltic Fleet are defined as:
—Protection of the economic zone and areas of production activity, suppression of illegal production activities;
- ensuring the safety of navigation;
—Performing government foreign policy actions in economically important areas of the oceans (visits, business visits, joint exercises, actions as part of peacekeeping forces, etc.).


Explicitly, the Defense Ministry assigns to the Baltic Fleet the character of a sort of "ritual" formation, the purpose of which is "to appear, not to be." Hence the lack of an intelligible strategy for the existing deliveries of new ships to the Baltic - they exist, but they are largely unsystematic in nature, which does not correspond to the model of threats that Russia faces in this theater of operations.

Threats and Tasks


The “model" war that can be waged today against Russia is the war with Georgia in August 2008. That is, this is a conflict in which Russia, under the cover of a provocation, is attacked by a kamikaze country acting in the interests of third countries (for example, the USA), which inflicts losses on people and equipment, and then suffers a military defeat, but at the cost of inflicting Russia colossal foreign policy damage. At the same time, the issue of military losses and political damage are interconnected - the less capable the military organization of Russia has shown itself to be, the greater the political damage. The fate of the kamikaze country does not matter, moreover, the stronger it gets, the better for the beneficiary of the conflict. Thus, the stronger Russia hits back, the better for the beneficiary of the conflict (in the first approximation, this is again the United States and the bureaucracy of the NATO bloc).

The Baltic is an ideal place for such provocations. Firstly, due to the presence of at least four potential kamikaze countries - Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Secondly, thanks to the presence of a country that itself will not engage in offensive military operations against Russia, but will gladly play the role of the victim - Sweden. Thirdly, due to the presence in Russia of an extremely vulnerable point - the Kaliningrad region, separated from the territory of the Russian Federation. Fourth, due to the fact that it is technically possible to concentrate the main efforts of the parties on the sea, where Russia not only does not have adequate naval forces, but also does not understand how to use them, and what is the essence of naval war in principle.

What could be the object of such a provocation?

Kaliningrad region. As soon as a certain beneficiary needs a war with the participation of Russia, it is necessary to attack a point that Russia cannot fail to defend. In 2008, they were peacekeepers in South Ossetia and its civilian population.

When in 2014, the Americans needed to provoke a Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Ukrainian troops deliberately fired on the civilian population of Donbass, since their masters believed that Russia would not be able to stay away in this case. Then we managed to evade the open invasion, limiting ourselves to less ambitious measures, but in the case of a hypothetical attack on Kaliningrad it doesn’t work out that way, we’ll have to openly beat back.

In what form can an attack occur? In any, depending on the extent of the conflict required by the beneficiary. So, in the minimum version, this could be artillery shelling of military facilities in Baltiysk from Poland, with the simultaneous propaganda pumping of its population that it is shelling itself or that shells are exploding at the crooked Russians, and they are trying to make “good forces ". Any response from Russia to this will be defeated as unprovoked aggression.

In a tougher version, such a shelling will only be the beginning, followed by a continuation of various kinds of retaliatory actions. At this stage, the war is very convenient to transfer to the sea in order to exclude the possibility for Russia to realize its superiority on land.

The possibility of such a transfer is very real. For this, it is enough that NATO is not the subject of the conflict, but that it be an independent operation of the Polish armed forces, for example.

In this case, Russia will be in a situation where it does not border the attacking side on land. Moreover, in order to immediately set all the traps, the enemy can behave as follows - the former Soviet republics of the Baltic States verbally condemn the actions of the attacking side - Poland, and demand that it abandon the continuation of hostilities, initiating ceasefire negotiations with Russia. At the same time, foreign military contingents in the Baltic countries will be strengthened.

Thus, Russia has lost the political basis for the “breakdown” of the corridor to Kaliningrad by force - on its way are countries that have supported it itself, albeit in words, and which are members of NATO, and have the right to apply for help from other countries of the bloc in accordance with the fifth article of the NATO Charter. And who do not participate in the attack on the Russian Federation. An attack on these countries in such conditions, and even when there are military units of other NATO countries that are also not openly involved in the conflict, will be political suicide for the Russian Federation, and potentially fraught with a really big war with unpredictable consequences.

Further, the enemy can take any measures to block Kaliningrad from the sea, for example, massive offensive mining, to which the Russian Federation has nothing to answer. Any blow from Russia to neutral countries is already a victory for the USA, Belarus’s refusal to participate in the war and Russia's permission to release Kaliningrad from land is already a victory for the USA, and even the threat of nuclear weapons this is a double victory, since it will vividly show the whole world the incapacity of Russia even when defending its territory and its near-zero value as an ally.

In fact, absolutely any outcome of such a war will be a defeat for Russia and a victory for its enemies, except for one thing - lightning defeat by Russia of the forces that the enemy will use against it, without serious damage to its territory and population, and without prejudice to the neutrals, whose roles in such a scenario as NATO will not come out strangely. But for this, Russia at least needs to maintain communications with Kaliningrad behind itself, in order to quickly deploy large forces there sufficient to decisively defeat the enemy, which requires a capable fleet, which is absent and which the Russian Federation, apparently, does not plan to have in the Baltic at all.

Moreover, what is very important - the defeat of the enemy must be completed faster than the beneficiary of the conflict (for example, the United States) can deploy its forces in the region - by the time they arrive, everything should be finished.

Such a scenario is far from the only one. There are much more difficult solutions. If the sanction pressure on the Russian Federation continues, it will be possible to bring matters to a sea blockade of Russian ports, and the enemy dominating at sea will be able to do this somewhere near the Danish Straits. Moreover, it is possible to wrap up any vessels with neutral flags going to or from Russia without touching the vessels under Russian, then from the point of view of international law, the Russian Federation will have no reason to intervene - neither its territory nor its vessels are touched.

A way out of such a crisis would be to force Denmark to pass ships through the straits under the threat of damage anywhere else, and at the same time to deploy the Northern Fleet and the Baltic Fleet in the Baltic to make blockade actions impossible. And again we are talking about the need to have a fleet adequate to the tasks.

The danger is a combination of several scenarios of hostilities and provocations. So, during a crisis around Kaliningrad, NATO, regardless of Poland, can inspire another round of provocations with submarines in Swedish territorial waters (see “Submarines and psychological warfare. Part 1 » и “Submarines and psychological warfare. Part 2 »), which may contribute to the involvement of Sweden either in a war with Russia or NATO or in blockade actions against the Russian Federation and in any case will cause Russia significant political damage.

In addition to military crises, the Baltic Fleet also has peacetime tasks unrelated to the actual military operations in the Baltic. So, it is Baltiysk that is the military base closest to the Atlantic. The presence of a number of large surface ships in the Baltic in peacetime is quite rational, since they are closest to those areas of the oceans where naval forces are currently operating (with the exception of the Mediterranean, which is closest to get from the Black Sea). Actually now this is the only task that the fleet is fulfilling for real.

At the same time, with the mass of military scenarios, the presence of large surface ships in the Baltic will be on the contrary, unjustified, and the Navy, on the contrary, should be ready to withdraw them to the North in advance or deploy them to the Atlantic together with the forces of other fleets.

It is important to understand that nowhere else is there such a gathering of anti-Russian countries as in the Baltic, nowhere else are there such opportunities for intrigue against Russia as in the Baltic. Both in Ukraine and around the Kuril Islands, bilateral confrontations are possible, one of the parties in which the Russian Federation will be. In the Baltic, anything is possible, and at an extremely high pace.

What will be fraught with the victory of a country over Russia at the Baltic Theater? By shutting down, even temporary, the economy of the second most important region in the Russian Federation - the North-West of Russia, together with St. Petersburg, as well as the loss of connection with the overseas territory of the Russian Federation - Kaliningrad, where, again, more than one million people live. This is a catastrophe. True, if, due to the banal shortage of minesweepers or anti-submarine aircraft, one has to resort to nuclear weapons, it will not be much better.

Conclusions on the importance of the Baltic Fleet


In peacetime, the Baltic Fleet is important for naval operations by surface ships in the Atlantic, the Caribbean and the Mediterranean Sea. However, the limited location and the limited value of such ships in some variants of the conflict on the Baltic Sea requires that the number of large surface ships be limited.

At the same time, the importance of submarines and light forces remains. The Baltic Sea is the only marine theater where light forces will be able to carry out a wide range of tasks independently, without the support of large surface ships and nuclear submarines. However, they will be dependent on aviation.

The Baltic region is a place of potential military conflict that will take on unusual forms - a high-intensity and high-tech conflict of limited proportions, in which one of the parties will pursue goals that are far from a military victory, which will require adequate goal setting from Russia. The fighting will be characterized by their highest pace - on the verge of losing control by politicians, since in some cases the belligerents will have no choice but to maintain an ultrahigh pace of operations.

Purely Russian specifics will be the need to be prepared to deploy both naval forces and the floating rear in the sea at the very first reconnaissance signs of any impending provocation. At the same time, since the issue of possession of communications between Russian territories in the Baltic will be key, not only the fleet forces, but also the airborne forces and even parts of the marine corps and airborne and ground forces should be prepared for actions to destroy enemy ships, for example by raids against its naval land bases by evacuation by air or sea.

The key issue of victory will be the speed of naval operations and other operations against the enemy fleet.

During the Second World War, it was the Baltic Theater of Operations that turned out to be the most difficult for the USSR. There is no particular reason to believe that today the situation will be different. It is already complex - Russia borders on the Baltic Sea with a host of hostile countries and has only two naval bases, while Poland is slowly modernizing its naval forces, and with its modest numbers it already has three submarines in service, and surpasses the Baltic Fleet in terms of the number of minesweepers and Sweden has technological superiority over the Russian Federation in naval underwater weapons, anti-submarine ships and aviation, and a number of other weapons.

Also, the most important quality of the Baltic Fleet should be its readiness for a mine war, both in terms of defense and in terms of offensive mining. With this, everything is bad, individual ships are practicing mining, but exercises on massive productions are not carried out for a while, as far as mine action, everything has already been said in principle.

It is worthwhile to outline what the Baltic Fleet's forces should be.

Baltic Fleet for the first half of the 21st century


As we recall from the article “We are building a fleet. Theory and Purpose", The fleet must establish dominance at sea, if possible without a fight, if not, then leading battles with the enemy’s Navy, in which the latter must be destroyed or defeated and forced to flee.

The specifics of the Baltic is that the fleets of potential opponents are mainly represented by surface ships. In addition, with the hypothetical deployment of the Navy of non-Baltic countries in the region, it will also be carried out mainly by surface ships - for nuclear or large non-nuclear submarines the Baltic is small (although technically they may well operate there), the risks of losing them in an unfamiliar hydrological environment are very high . But large US and NATO surface ships on the Baltic Sea have deployed more than once, including aircraft carriers - the last time it was the Spanish UDC with Harrier II aircraft. Thus, Russia, with its budgetary constraints and insufficient resources, should have forces and means in the Baltic Fleet for the destruction of surface ships.

The most logical for the Baltic seems to be the massive use of light forces as the main strike means, and slightly more powerful strike ships to protect them. The small size of the Baltic Sea makes it possible to ensure fighter aircraft on air duty to protect naval strike groups. In this situation, the “composition” of forces looks like this: large NKs (for example, 20380 project corvettes or other multifunctional corvettes upgraded to increase the effectiveness of air defense and anti-aircraft defense) under the protection of fighters from the coast are forces that ensure combat stability (consider - defense against any forces and means of the enemy) light forces that perform the main missile missions, as well as defending against any forces and means of the enemy ships of the rear.

What light forces should these be? Given the need for strikes on surface ships, these should be high-speed and nautical missile boats, inconspicuous in the radar range. And it is necessary to make an important reservation. There can be no question of turning such a boat into a Death Star. It should be a simple and cheap ship with a small displacement. It should not be a pity to lose him (now we are not talking about the crew). But it has to be really fast. For example, the old Turkish Kartal-class missile boats with a displacement of two hundred tons and a tail carried four RCCs and had a maximum speed of 45 knots on four not-so-powerful diesel engines. More importantly, they could travel long distances at high speed, so with the 35 nodal course these boats could go 700 miles and nothing would have broken with a high degree of probability.


Kartal is not a good role model, but definitely a “direction worth looking into."

Of course, this example from the past is not entirely relevant - today we need much more powerful electronic weapons. But, nevertheless, these missile boats are a good demonstration of the approach to light striking forces in the form in which they have a right to exist. Our “Lightnings” of the 1241 project in any of its modifications are “ideologically” very close to the desired version of the ship, but they lack stealth in the radar and thermal ranges, and besides, they are probably too expensive, given the gas turbine power plant. You need something simpler, cheaper, more inconspicuous, smaller and, perhaps, quite a bit faster. And in principle, while the Lightning is in operation, the development of such a cheap missile boat is quite real.


Rocket boat of the 12411M project of the Pacific Fleet

In no case should such a ship be confused with an RTO. The modern XRMK X-ray project “Karakurt” costs about ten billion rubles, which completely deprives it of sense as an attacking “unit” - it is corny too expensive to climb under fire. In addition, he lacks speed in comparison with a missile boat. And as part of the "heavy" forces - he is too specialized. There is no anti-aircraft defense, there is no anti-torpedo protection, you cannot put a helicopter on it ... Of course, they will have to be used in that capacity while they are in service, but gradually the role of Caliber carriers in the Baltic should be taken by multifunctional corvettes and submarines, and if before this will come - ground launchers. As for Buyanov-M, these are pure floating batteries, and they are able to influence the outcome of the armed struggle to the very minimum extent.

“Heavy” forces will engage in battle when an adversary tries to get a “light” attack with a massive attack, or, as an alternative, when a third party’s naval force breaks through the Danish Straits if it is decided not to let it in. And if it becomes possible to establish dominance at sea, especially with the destruction of enemy submarines, then such ships will be able to accompany landing troops, support them with fire of their guns, provide basing of helicopters, including attack ones, capable of operating along the coast, and provide for the blockade of enemy ports and air defense of naval formations landing troops and convoys.

They will be able to prevent the enemy from entering the areas where anti-submarine search is being conducted, and they themselves will be able to lead it in the future, when instead of the IPC of the 1331 project there will be other ships, whatever they are.

We need submarines, but of a smaller size and displacement than what we are doing today or even what we plan to do. Moreover, it is critical for the Baltic to have a VNEU - the boats will have a couple of days of deploying force until the enemy adapts to the hostilities, then his aircraft will hang over the sea and, firstly, it’s unlikely to emerge at least under the RPD to charge the batteries, and secondly, it will be very relevant to perform separation from the anti-submarine forces of the enemy in the submerged position, and for a submarine devoid of VNEU this will mean a complete consumption of electric power in literally one hour. The presence of VNEU is critical for the Baltic Sea.

Boats should be small - so the Poles are armed with diesel-electric submarines of the “Cobben” class, with an underwater displacement of 485 tons. It is the small size that is critical for reducing the likelihood of a boat being detected by non-acoustic methods. Yes, and on the shallows easier to work. Against this background, our “Halibut” with their 3000 and more tons in the Baltic look somewhat strange. You should not understand this as a call for the mass construction of ultra-small boats, but definitely for the Baltic, our “Halibut”, “Varshavyanka” and “Lada” are too large. The Amur-950 project with VNEU would be close to some ideal submarine in terms of its displacement and dimensions, for the conditions of the Baltic Sea, if someone would do it and VNEU.


Figure submarine "Amur-950" - alas, only a picture

In aviation, Ka-52K helicopters can play a huge role, but provided that their radars are replaced by more efficient ones. If on warships operating in the far sea and ocean zones they feel sorry for the place - helicopters in independently operating formations should be able to deal with submarines, then in the Baltic countries such highly specialized fighters will be quite out of place, especially if you can debug their interaction with surface ships . They will be able to act due to the small distances on the theater of operations from the coast, including on the “coast-ship-coast” rotation.


Ship-based combat helicopter Ka-52K Katran

This, of course, does not eliminate the need for naval assault regiments on the Su-30СМ and for a full-fledged base anti-submarine aviation, which we, alas, do not have today. If necessary, such forces, if available, could be transferred from other fleets.

It is especially important to pay attention to the mine war. We must set a minimum of hundreds of mines per day of hostilities. For this, submarines, aircraft, and landing ships, and, the very same “light forces” - missile boats, can be involved. Nothing prevents one from five to six mines in each place of a different type. In the end, during the Great Patriotic War, torpedo boats completely laid mines. Moreover, since we are building simple and cheap boats, nothing prevents us from having “light” forces and high-speed mine production boats, even simpler and cheaper than a missile boat equipped with a primitive set of self-defense equipment and armed with mines. Such boats could well act at the time of impact on the coast of our aircraft, and under its cover, and provide speedy and accurate staging of a large number of mines of various types, such that for technical reasons aviation cannot set.


Figure of the created Taiwan high-speed minzag boat with a displacement of 500 tons. It is possible and simpler and cheaper

This fact is also indicative - out of forty-five warships of the Polish Navy, twenty are minesweepers. Apparently, we will first have to come to the same proportions, and then realize that in the old days minesweepers absolutely correctly and naturally had more powerful weapons than today. We will have to “return to the true path” in this matter too.

What tasks can such a fleet accomplish?

To seize dominance at sea faster than the beneficiaries of the conflict deploy their naval forces to the Baltic and put the Russian Federation in need of accepting the unwanted escalation of the conflict, destroy the opposing surface fleets, leaving the anti-submarine forces (corvettes, IPC, as long as they exist and aviation, when it will be reanimated) few enemy submarines on the theater of operations.

Ensure the escort of convoys and amphibious units to communications secured by the Baltic Fleet. To ensure the impossibility of the blockade of Kaliningrad, who would not try to fulfill it. If necessary, to succeed with the help of curtains from their submarines, minefields, deploying fleet forces at a distance favorable for attack, and to ensure that forces of third countries do not pass through the Danish Straits.

To create, thus, a favorable operational regime in the entire Baltic Sea, to ensure the possibility of landing operations against an enemy who does not want to surrender and continues to resist.

In general, carry out the usual naval work for its intended purpose.

And in peacetime, the Baltic Fleet’s ships go to Cuba, the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean anyway, you just need to use their capabilities there correctly and wisely.

And certainly there can be no question of treating the Baltic Fleet as in the famous naval joke: “The Baltic Fleet is a former fleet”. The Baltic is our most difficult theater of war, and potentially the most problematic, with vulnerabilities like the coastal city of St. Petersburg (does Russia have a comparable vulnerability in general?) And frankly crazy neighbors. And that means that, in the right version, the Baltic Fleet should continue to prepare for difficult wars both organizationally and technically. Indeed, traditionally the most difficult naval wars of Russia take place here. The future in this sense is unlikely to be very different from the past.
Author:
Photos used:
Information support department of the Baltic Fleet Western Military District Press Service, webmandry.com, navalanalyses.com, Wikipedia commons, USC, Andrey Bakaenko, globalsecurity.org
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

291 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Hunter 2 24 November 2019 07: 37 New
    • 8
    • 5
    +3
    Yes, the situation is complicated, as in the whole in the Navy! But, the Twice Red Banner Baltic Fleet, an important component of the concept of Our security! It is necessary to strengthen not only the DCBF, but also its ground component. I am glad that progress has finally begun on this issue!
    1. Ross xnumx 24 November 2019 07: 46 New
      • 14
      • 21
      -7
      For those who do not remember the map of the region

      We all remember. We even remember the exploits of the Baltic sailors and their ability to fight where it is impossible to imagine ... We even remember about:

      This is me in connection with the blocking of the exit from the Baltic Sea.
      One thing can be said: Russia needs the Baltic Fleet, albeit not as powerful as the North or the Pacific. But keep potential opponents neighbors in a state of amazement, we are simply obliged.
      1. Bar2 24 November 2019 09: 08 New
        • 20
        • 20
        0
        The population of the countries of the Baltic region is mostly hostile to the Russian Federation.


        since Timokhin undertook to write articles on fuel, then one must be precise in definitions.
        The population of the Baltic region i.e. the peoples of the Baltic regions are not hostile to the Russian people, but are quite friendly and even friendly. Politicians and governments are hostile to countries, they are generally different people, they set the rules of the game and laws. But we should bring troops into the Baltic states, as in 40th year the peoples of these countries will meet us with flowers.
        1. Dart2027 24 November 2019 09: 16 New
          • 10
          • 3
          +7
          Quote: Bar2
          about we should send troops to the Baltic states, then as in the 40th year the peoples of these countries

          Yeah, in theory. Here are just a theory and life are slightly different.
          1. Bar2 24 November 2019 09: 27 New
            • 10
            • 10
            0
            Quote: Dart2027
            Yeah, in theory. Here are just a theory and life are slightly different.


            here you are




            https://topwar.ru/4053-o-prisoedinenii-pribaltiki-i-bessarabii-k-sssr.html
            1. timokhin-aa 24 November 2019 10: 18 New
              • 13
              • 2
              +11
              Especially the Poles will meet with flowers, yeah
              1. Bar2 24 November 2019 10: 55 New
                • 8
                • 9
                -1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Especially the Poles will meet with flowers, yeah


                for our Slavic brothers it is necessary to pursue a meaningful policy aimed at REMOVING obstacles between peoples in the form, first of all, of languages, religions and culture in general. We are SLAVES and brothers in blood, and all sorts of Latin and Catholics are alien and superficial, which divides our peoples, it must be removed and when we speak the same language, we will understand each other.

                here is the Statute of the King of the Commonwealth of Zhigimont 3 1588.




                written
                .transfer all the constitutions (resolutions of the Sejm) to the Russian language and in the Russian language all the statute is written ..
                1. alexmach 25 November 2019 09: 33 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  transfer all the constitutions (resolutions of the Sejm) to the Russian language and in the Russian language all the statute is written

                  Firstly, it’s not for you, but for the local Russians, who made up half of the population there, mainly residents of Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine. And secondly, no one, in fact, fulfilled this requirement in reality. The Poles simply dominated in the Commonwealth, that's all.
                  1. Bar2 25 November 2019 09: 46 New
                    • 3
                    • 2
                    +1
                    Quote: alexmach
                    Firstly, it’s not for you, but for local Russians,


                    Well, for you.
                    Quote: alexmach
                    And secondly, no one, in fact, fulfilled this requirement in reality.


                    you just don’t need to include your fictions and think out for the king. So the constitution of the Sejm in Krakow was in Russian and written in Russian, it says one thing, that for the non-Russian population of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Germans and Tatars (Lipka Tatars) were introduced, and the rest of the country’s inhabitants are Poles, Litvinians, and Russians — they all spoke Russian.
                    1. alexmach 25 November 2019 12: 37 New
                      • 3
                      • 1
                      +2
                      and the rest of the country’s inhabitants are Poles, Litvinians, and Russians — they all spoke Russian.

                      Well, yes, yes, yes .. Poles spoke Russian .. of course.
              2. Nemchinov Vl 24 November 2019 11: 43 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                The presence of VNEU is critical for the Baltic Sea.

                perhaps that is so. Please tell me, and the P-750 project, there (in the Baltic), could not be a more successful alternative - Amur-950 ?! The question is connected with the point that it personally seemed to me that in the future the creation of VNEU is closer than Amur (well, this is my subjective opinion, do not judge) ?!
                1. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 13: 57 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Not delved into it specifically yet.
                2. SVD68 27 November 2019 08: 36 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  If we are talking about the latest P-750B model, the Malachite CEO said that they would need 5-6 years to create an engine. But the engine is fundamentally new, not previously created on such principles. So the terms can be safely doubled.
            2. Dart2027 24 November 2019 10: 24 New
              • 15
              • 3
              +12
              Quote: Bar2
              here you are

              But in the USSR, the same Baltic states at the sight of Russian funny faces crooked and stated that they did not understand Russian. So tell tales about fraternal peoples and friendship of peoples to someone else.
              1. IL-18 24 November 2019 22: 28 New
                • 10
                • 0
                +10
                Quote: Dart2027
                in the USSR, the same Baltic states at the sight of Russian funny faces crooked and stated that they did not understand Russian
                In 1988-1990 he served in Riga. After six months of service, I had the opportunity to hang out in Riga at least every day. Consequently, and communicate with local. Interestingly, there have never been any excesses with the Latvians (Russian-speaking citizens still call them labuses). Despite the fact that I did not always change into a citizen. By the way, there are many examples of obvious coexistence from local representatives of the non-titular nation, which, in my opinion, played an obvious role in legislatively fixed abominations in relation to non-Latvians. At the expense of meeting with flowers, I’ll say right away that she will not be. And will not be anywhere. More precisely, there will be people in any country who will take up the club, even if they had sympathy even for the country that came to them. This is normal. Therefore, our diplomats, military, politicians do not need to be afraid to speak with regret about the same Lithuania as a country doomed to destruction in the event of a threat to the Kaliningrad region, unless, of course, it capitulates in advance. That Latvia, as a threat from the right flank of the operation to protect the Russian (!) Territory, will also lose its statehood. It is better for Estonia to immediately withdraw from all blocs and unions by exacerbating relations between the Russian Federation and NATO, by providing Baltic Fleet to the Naval Forces of Tallinn. Finland and Sweden should not tire of reminding that maintaining their neutral status should be the most important task for them, otherwise many future generations would also regret it if they would. Naturally, this should not be a threat. This should be presented as a subject of bitter inevitability, from the appearance of which all of Russia will experience severe sadness, and to overcome it everything will happen very quickly. And of course, always express deep sympathy to the peoples of these countries.
            3. LeonidL 27 November 2019 04: 29 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              History shows that with equal zeal and joy the Baltic states and, by the way, the Czechs and Ukrainians met both Germans and Soviet troops and will always be so. Russia had no friends except the Navy and the Army, and never will be.
        2. Ross xnumx 24 November 2019 09: 27 New
          • 10
          • 2
          +8
          Quote: Bar2
          The peoples inhabiting the Baltic regions belong to the Russian people NOT JUST

          Quote: Bar2
          Hostile countries make politicians and governments, these are generally different people, they set the rules of the game and laws.

          Not devoid of logic and positive words ... good
          I can assume (in continuation of your statement) that when people get into power, they completely forget why they are there and who their tireless care should be. Such spoiled "grown-up kids" gather for some summits and begin to measure their habits and jet height, and ordinary people suffer from all their quacks ... Well, yes it is - line-by-line lyrics.
          hi
        3. 210ox 24 November 2019 13: 22 New
          • 6
          • 1
          +5
          They will not meet us with flowers there. We are already “Rusaks” for them, that is, the Russian Akkupanty through A. However, in the 40th they not only met with flowers there, just lurked and waited for what would happen.
          1. Andrey Grad 26 November 2019 01: 49 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: 210ox
            They will not meet us with flowers there. We are already “Rusaks” for them, that is, the Russian Akkupanty through A. However, in the 40th they not only met with flowers there, just lurked and waited for what would happen.

            Flowers and with tears will be met by all of us Russians living in the Baltic states and we are not few, but 40% of the population. This is May 9th in Riga.
        4. user 25 November 2019 14: 05 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Thus, Russia has lost the political basis for the “breakdown” of the corridor to Kaliningrad by force


          If the Commander-in-Chief behaves like the DNI forces (volunteers, the north wind, the occupation forces - well, as you like) when approaching Mariupol instead of entering the city, there was such an opportunity, they stood and tried to agree with someone - probably with one of local oligarchs, then everything will be as described above. Instantly you need to react with the transfer of hostilities to their territory, well, or immediately punch the corridor, simultaneously striking at decision centers and not necessarily nuclear weapons, regardless of the opinion of the world community and their all kinds of bodies. Not responding to all kinds of intermediaries. All the same, we will remain extreme at any outcome of events.
      2. Proxima 24 November 2019 11: 00 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        In the same, to put it mildly, the Black Sea Fleet would be in a difficult situation if Sevastopol and Crimea were under NATO control, and all this went ..
        1. Octopus 24 November 2019 13: 46 New
          • 4
          • 2
          +2
          Quote: Proxima
          The Black Sea Fleet would be in a similar, to put it mildly, difficult situation if Sevastopol and Crimea were under NATO control

          Excuse me, is he in any other position now? Assuming that Erdogan’s friend had that knife in the back was not the last?
          1. Proxima 24 November 2019 14: 19 New
            • 6
            • 1
            +5
            Quote: Octopus
            Excuse me, is he in any other position now? Assuming that Erdogan’s friend had that knife in the back was not the last?

            What does Erdogan and its straits have to do with it? You do not understand the strategic importance of Crimea? With the loss of the naval base of Sevastopol, Russia had only the coast from Taman to Adler, as well as complete control over the Kerch Strait and in fact the entire Sea of ​​Azov, plus the coastal strip of the entire Crimean peninsula.
            1. Octopus 24 November 2019 14: 48 New
              • 4
              • 9
              -5
              Quote: Proxima
              You do not understand the strategic importance of Crimea?

              Crimea, without the “Big New Russia,” is the new West Berlin. At first, his allies saw him as a digging under the peaceful system of socialism, and he turned out to be eggs jammed in the door. Crimea hangs on one bridge, Kaliningrad in general, on the goodwill of NATO countries and dad, it is not yet known which of them will begin to derail trains before.
              Quote: Proxima
              plus the coastline of the entire Crimean peninsula.

              And what does it give you?
              1. Proxima 24 November 2019 14: 56 New
                • 4
                • 2
                +2
                For some reason, the warring parties in the Great Patriotic War understood the strategic importance of Crimea and Sevastopol. Hence, such a fight for him. But in your opinion, du..raki they were, where they are to you a great strategist! fellow What can I convince you of? request
                1. Octopus 24 November 2019 15: 09 New
                  • 5
                  • 6
                  -1
                  Quote: Proxima
                  For some reason, the warring parties in the Great Patriotic War understood the strategic importance of Crimea and Sevastopol.

                  I have lousy news for you. Over 80 years, much has changed, and not for the better.
                  1. Eroma 25 November 2019 00: 14 New
                    • 4
                    • 2
                    +2
                    Crimea was both strategically important in the 18th century, and remained important in the 21st century. Nothing has changed, who owns it controls the Black Sea! bully
                    And today, he can also look at the Eastern Mediterranean.
                    1. user 25 November 2019 14: 10 New
                      • 1
                      • 2
                      -1
                      And today, he can also look at the Eastern Mediterranean.


                      Of course it is, but the Crimean bridge in wartime is as one of the comrades wrote above

                      and he turned out to be eggs clamped in the door.


                      And this is true.
                      1. Eroma 25 November 2019 22: 57 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Is not a fact! The goal is certainly tempting, but look at the distances from where it can hit and think how it can be done? The task is not trivial hi
              2. Good_Anonymous 24 November 2019 15: 10 New
                • 7
                • 3
                +4
                Quote: Octopus
                Kaliningrad in general on the goodwill of NATO countries and dad


                If you looked at the map, you would see that Belarus does not even border the Kaliningrad region. So, Kaliningrad does not hang on either good or bad will.
                1. Octopus 24 November 2019 15: 20 New
                  • 2
                  • 2
                  0
                  Quote: Good_Anonymous
                  Belarus does not even border the Kaliningrad region.

                  I know. However, even from St. Petersburg to Kaliningrad, trains go through Vitebsk. It may be possible to redo it through Riga, but so far it has not been redone.
                  1. Good_Anonymous 24 November 2019 15: 46 New
                    • 2
                    • 6
                    -4
                    Quote: Octopus
                    However, even from St. Petersburg to Kaliningrad, trains go through Vitebsk.


                    Ships, cars and planes also through Vitebsk? smile
                    1. Octopus 24 November 2019 16: 12 New
                      • 3
                      • 4
                      -1
                      Quote: Good_Anonymous
                      Ships, cars and planes also through Vitebsk?

                      You are right, one dad Kaliningrad will not close. It is also necessary to quarrel with NATO. By the way, but not yet?
                      1. Good_Anonymous 24 November 2019 16: 16 New
                        • 2
                        • 3
                        -1
                        Obviously not yet. And, in general, even the prospects of a serious quarrel are not visible (at least I do not see - Timokhin obviously has a different opinion).
                  2. Igor V 25 November 2019 16: 39 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Octopus
                    However, even from St. Petersburg to Kaliningrad, trains go through Vitebsk. It may be possible to redo it through Riga, but so far it has not been redone.

                    In Soviet times, the St. Petersburg train went through Daugavpils, that is, it captured a small piece of Latvia, which suddenly became terribly independent. From this went additional fees, visa requirements. Instead, trains turned through Belarus.
      3. The comment was deleted.
    2. novel66 24 November 2019 10: 06 New
      • 8
      • 2
      +6
      hi Lesh! hi oh doubts gnawing at me heavy ... it’s easier to cut through the suwalki than to do something sensible in the Baltic .. and this is with a limited conflict, and if that happens, the sea will evaporate!
      1. timokhin-aa 24 November 2019 10: 19 New
        • 8
        • 4
        +4
        Yes, it’s not easier, it’s a task for the corps, and then to keep it still. And technically it may not be possible, Belarus will shabby and hello.
        1. Andrey Grad 26 November 2019 02: 50 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Kaliningrad - Achilles heel. An ideal solution for Russia and Russians in the Baltic states would be to create a situation of exchanging territories - the Kaliningrad Oblast for Kurland and Estonia. The return of the territories of Estonia and Courland with their ports to the country and the resettlement of Nazi peoples in the Kaliningrad region, where they would create a mono-ethnic state, and the Russian people moving from Kaliningrad to Kurland would not feel cut off. Overlapping the Gulf of Finland for opponents will become meaningless, given the fact that Russia has the ports of Libava and Vindava.
        2. LeonidL 27 November 2019 04: 41 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          You are persistently pulling into the paradigm of past wars! In the event of a war, who will ask Belarus to "crouch"? What will be for this time? Such a scenario is possible only in the case of the "proponents" of Poland and the Baltic states ... as Saakashvili’s independence. But the likelihood of such a scenario is close to zero - the big popes from NATO are clucking, and their sense of self-preservation is still quite developed. But even in this case, srdsts and forces are more than enough not only for the corridor, but for this entire territory. But why is it needed?
  2. New Year day 24 November 2019 07: 38 New
    • 11
    • 6
    +5
    ... for the breakdown of the corridor to Kaliningrad by force ...

    It would be necessary to get Belarus’s consent to the corridor and it’s not clear whether it will be
    1. mark1 24 November 2019 08: 03 New
      • 8
      • 3
      +5
      Everything is muddy with Belarus. It is necessary to be able to launch a very powerful massive return missile attack on targets in Poland from the territory of the Kaliningrad Region (right up to nuclear tactical) and NATO’s neutrality game will end immediately, and then even Suwalk corridor. at least diagonally across the whole Baltic. The main thing is not to get involved in the game according to their rules.
      1. Hunter 2 24 November 2019 08: 14 New
        • 7
        • 6
        +1
        Quote: mark1
        Everything is muddy with Belarus. It is necessary to be able to launch a very powerful massive return missile attack on targets in Poland from the territory of the Kaliningrad Region (right up to nuclear tactical) and NATO’s neutrality game will end immediately, and then even Suwalk corridor. at least diagonally across the whole Baltic. The main thing is not to get involved in the game according to their rules.

        Well, for what, in your opinion, are the Iskander OTRKs located in the Kaliningrad Region, the DKBF replenished with new RTOs - Caliber carriers, is enhanced by the S400 air defense systems? wink
        Europe can sleep peacefully! yes
        1. mark1 24 November 2019 08: 33 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: Hunter 2
          Europe can sleep peacefully!

          That's it!
          Quote: Hunter 2
          The main thing is not to get involved in the game according to their rules.
    2. Good_Anonymous 24 November 2019 15: 12 New
      • 1
      • 6
      -5
      Quote: Silvestr
      It would be necessary to get Belarus’s consent to the corridor


      Corridor where - to Lithuania? To Poland?
  3. Amateur 24 November 2019 07: 49 New
    • 5
    • 17
    -12
    Navy Baltiysk. The latter is within the range of the actual fire of the Polish army artillery.

    The Gulf of Finland can be very quickly blocked by the laying of minefields, which will cut off Northwest Russia from maritime communications. This will be an economic disaster for the country as a whole.

    Is it really necessary to comment? This is even cooler than the statements of Ukrainian field marshals about an attempt to capture Ukraine from the Crimea.
    1. timokhin-aa 24 November 2019 10: 27 New
      • 11
      • 6
      +5
      You don’t need to comment at all. You need to read as much as possible. The history of World War II, mine operations in the Baltic, what the Nord and Cobra groups are, how many mines they put on June 22, 1941, what percentage of Russian exports are exported by sea, what is the share of this export from the ports of north-west Russia, what is the distance from Navy Baltiysk to Polish territory, what is the effective range of 155 mm Polish self-propelled guns, etc.

      And you do not need to comment on anything.
      1. Lopatov 24 November 2019 11: 20 New
        • 14
        • 2
        +12
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        You need to read as much as possible. The history of World War II, mine operations in the Baltic, what are the Nord and Cobra groups, how many mines they put on June 22, 1941

        Great tip.
        In light of this advice, why do we need a fleet?

        Quote: timokhin-aa
        what is the range of the actual fire of 155 mm Polish self-propelled guns, etc.

        Using foreign shells, Polish artillery will be able to shell the entire territory of the Kaliningrad exclave.
        In the light of this knowledge, why do we need a fleet?
        1. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 13: 58 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          In light of this advice, why do we need a fleet?


          For example, to ensure the transfer of reinforcements to Kaliningrad. And do not let anyone send reinforcements to Poland.
          1. Lopatov 26 November 2019 16: 36 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            For example, to ensure the transfer of reinforcements to Kaliningrad. And do not let anyone send reinforcements to Poland.

            The reinforcements cannot be relocated. Poles can also create an “A2AD zone” that does not allow this.
            As for “not letting anyone”, an attack on other people's ships is tantamount to aggression against NATO. Isn’t it easier then to immediately extinguish the Baltic states? The result will be the same.
            1. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 21: 51 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              The specifics of a war at sea is that you can always get off the topic.

              For example, transport on the Amer flag receives a torpedo.

              We declare that it was not a torpedo but a mine, and that it did not seem to be ours, we type mined south.

              Is this a bellie incident? More likely no than yes.
              1. Lopatov 26 November 2019 21: 58 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                For example, transport on the Amer flag receives a torpedo.

                For example, a Russian frigate receives a torpedo.

                Unfortunately, this game can not be played with just one goal. And they are obviously ready to play like that.
                1. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 22: 09 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  The Russian frigate may or may already have anti-torpedoes. Otherwise, you are right, but there are no options - either chopping until someone backs off, or immediately have a jar of vasilin with you.

                  I personally am for the first option.
                  1. LeonidL 27 November 2019 04: 54 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    You, dear Mr. Timokhin, for any option that completely excludes your personal presence in the place of the events you are proposing. Of course, you do not need Vaseline on the couch, and you prefer to give others the right to act on bridges and military posts.
                    1. timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 12: 34 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Why do you think so? I still shoot not bad, oddly enough, and I have the RAP, and if there was a big war I would be there, only on the ground with my legs, and not on the ship, but then, as it happened, you can’t return the past.

                      Do not judge people by yourself, so I'll tell you. It’s you who will hide like a rat and think who to substitute in order to gain something from this, other people are not like that.
                      1. LeonidL 29 November 2019 02: 51 New
                        • 1
                        • 2
                        -1
                        Dear Mr. Timokhin, you are, as always, at odds with logic. Well, what's the use of your shooting skills in a modern war? You yourself confirm my postulate that on a warship your spirit will not be fulfilled. On the ground, this is unlikely to be with legs, except in an attempt to reach the cellar, and which of you is already a fighter, since you can’t turn back the past. But if you don’t turn back the past and you haven’t tried naval service, why are you trying so hard to drive a public wave against people who have served this service from cadet to admiral’s epaulets? And in conclusion, not knowing me, do you blame me for measuring you on my own and “substituting” someone there? I clearly brought you to the clear, proving that you never served in the Navy, that you don’t have naval knowledge, that you know very little Russian naval history. I do not understand your attempts and accusations (not me personally, to put it mildly to my heart), but how many times have you unfoundedly called the leadership of the Ministry of Defense and the Navy the Mafia, and non-professionals and other things? Perhaps you are simply overwhelmed in your failure by those who have reached the highest ranks, embroidered stars and lompas? Envy is not good! For example, I took place, and therefore I do not envy.
                      2. timokhin-aa 29 November 2019 09: 54 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Well, what's the use of your shooting skills in a modern war?


                        Well, I have such a VUS, what can I do? The question by the way shows what kind of a military you are, a normal officer would never write such a stupid thing. Which completely shows that here you are just the impostor.
                        The fighter from me is quite normal, the young ones run faster, but that's all. Yes, and not much faster, to be honest, a little bit.

                        I clearly brought you to clean water, proving


                        You are a crazy person, Leonid L., I never tried to impersonate myself as a naval officer. Never and nowhere. What other people tell about me there is their business and their responsibility. So what did you expose? You exposed your voices in your head.

                        You are a sick person. Heal before it’s too late, you nobleman held.
                      3. LeonidL 30 November 2019 01: 07 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        My dear Mr. Timokhin, although you are, in your words, the “peasant son,” you should not be envious. Most likely, you got your own VUS after you graduated from the three at the military department of a state-owned university in Soviet times, otherwise you would know that an old man like you, even with shooting skills, will not be of special use in modern warfare, it's not that VUS, it's a vusik. Would you be an expert in electronic warfare or IT, then it is still possible. Your admirers have repeatedly and repeatedly claimed about your "naval officers", but for the first time you publicly acknowledged my innocence. As you can see with logic, I have enough order and experience, too, to determine whether a person served in the Navy or not, and whether he served at all. So now you confess that you are not a professional and an amateur, so what do you want, stir up kind water? Well, a cherry on the cake - I don’t insult you, all the more unfounded, and you just come out with some animal hatred. According to this there is a wise saying about Zeus who is angry, and you, dear, are far from a Thunderer.
                      4. timokhin-aa 30 November 2019 13: 36 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        I can only repeat - heal before it’s too late. Nobody feels any hatred towards you, I don’t generally comment on your writings, it’s just not worth it. One attack after another, without real actual content. By the way, we were quite normally communicating with you, until the schizos slant you.

                        While you are still able to find the door of a psychiatrist without any help, go. Then it will be too late.
                      5. LeonidL 1 December 2019 02: 41 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Again, you, my dear, fall into hysteria. According to the principle - "scho on mane and tebe." You don’t even understand what you are writing - I don’t have anything personal to you and didn’t have. I try to explain to readers the lack of common sense and logic, the lack of solid and valid knowledge in your opus on the topics of the Fleet. Why write about something you don’t know, that you haven’t studied, don’t understand the service, and so on? What is the purpose? My opinion is purely destructive. Look at your comments - they are full of contempt, a kind of omniscience, even hatred. What should you call Mr. Timokhin (albeit veiled) as a pig, before whom you do not want to throw your beads? Yes, and you are trying to insult me ​​one way or another. As for the psychiatrist, for example. It is indecent, shallow. But here you should undergo an examination with a tomography of the brain, I'm afraid that you have a tumor there - it causes all the problems. Find a good specialist. Maybe it's not too late. Good luck Mr. Timokhin!
  • LeonidL 27 November 2019 04: 51 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    "In the light of this knowledge, why do we need a fleet?" - to build a mighty and strong fleet in the Baltic - to take money and squander money, but this is precisely the purpose of Mr. Timokhin’s articles.
    1. timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 12: 34 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      We need to cut everything, leave only the border guards, right?
      1. LeonidL 29 November 2019 02: 39 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        No, just what is already available in the near future is enough, there’s nothing to do with submarines, but it makes sense to strengthen coastal complexes. But, again, this is my personal opinion. Neither you nor I possess the entirety of the information, therefore we will provide the right to make decisions to current professionals.
        1. timokhin-aa 29 November 2019 09: 46 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Well, I own the information. That is the trick.
          1. LeonidL 30 November 2019 01: 13 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Do not flatter yourself and do not invent, Mr. Timokhin. Golubchik, you, so briskly and greyhound attacking and insulting the leadership of both the country, and the Moscow Region and the Fleet’s leadership, are not allowed to get real information on the cannon shot. My advice to you is to go in the kitchen, jump, run, shoot, sell, even write articles on history, but don’t make professionals laugh, don’t try to create a naval theory on the quagmire of amateurism, don’t involve “the public” and “activists” in the booze unless of course you are really a patriot, and not just another Rezun or Failed. Good luck.
  • Amateur 24 November 2019 13: 16 New
    • 5
    • 14
    -9
    And you do not need to comment on anything.

    Under the cover of night (21.06.1941/4/XNUMX) terrible Finnish and Estonian minesweepers mine the Gulf of Finland. At dawn, the gallant Polish sweets begin the systematic execution of East Prussia. Having barely opened their eyes and learning about it in the Kremlin, in a panic, they begin to pack bundles of dollars and euros, so that they could quickly slip to the Galapagos Islands. And the inhabitants of Moscow go to Red Square with posters: "Minin and Pozharsky! November XNUMX, you were wrong! Welcome the pans from the European Union. Save us before the hedgehogs run out of food. (Almost Tom Clancy." End of Red October ")
    1. kemnik 25 November 2019 09: 48 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Bggg ... he is in Africa.
      1. kemnik 25 November 2019 09: 50 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        I wanted to say: He is a genius and in Africa a genius. (as here, however, they protect the Geniuses from well-deserved epithets).
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. Amateur 26 November 2019 14: 40 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Do not comment, do not disgrace anything.

        Mr. Timokhin! The president of one very proud and musical republic also decided to shoot from cannons. But not even to Russia, but to its peacekeepers. How it all ended, you probably know, although referring to 1941. After 8-8-8 people wishing to shoot in Russia, it significantly decreased despite your forecasts.
        PS Do not be rude!
        1. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 14: 54 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          The main thing is to keep the hat cap smeared. After all, the life-giving effect of 888 will be forever, right?
          1. Amateur 26 November 2019 14: 58 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            After all, the life-giving effect of 888 will be forever, right?

            Russia will be forever!
            But among the citizens of Russia, unfortunately, there is also a Kolisurengoy.
            Every family has its black sheep"
            (popular wisdom)
            1. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 15: 30 New
              • 0
              • 3
              -3
              With such residents, the eternity of Russia is also, so to speak, in doubt. It is necessary to be treated on time.
              1. Amateur 26 November 2019 16: 47 New
                • 1
                • 3
                -2
                Mr. Timokhin! When you wrote your article, you probably wanted to convey some thought to your readers (at least that was the case in my time).
                Won't you be so kind as to briefly explain which one.
                I have at least four options. But I will not infringe on your copyrights yet. And so we are waiting with!
                1. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 21: 53 New
                  • 1
                  • 3
                  -2
                  My beads are over, sorry.
                  1. Amateur 27 November 2019 06: 59 New
                    • 2
                    • 1
                    +1
                    When you wrote your article, you probably wanted to convey some thought to your readers

                    Clear. Instead of thought, you had beads.
  • LeonidL 27 November 2019 04: 49 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Yes, only Mr. Timokhin can comment! In this case, explain, a connoisseur of history, why KBF broke through the barriers in the 41st and 42nd pl. And pretty much scared the Germans with their presence in communications with the Swedes and Finns, but in the 43rd all the boats that participated in the breakthrough boats of clever Travkin died and not a single one entered the Baltic Sea? And the ships died under the command not of newcomers, but of such aces of commanders as Lisin (captured by the finals), Osipov, Mokhov ...
  • Unknown 24 November 2019 08: 29 New
    • 17
    • 3
    +14
    the author is right - the Baltic, we have profiled. smart people spoke about this back in 1991- that the Baltic Limitrophs, after the collapse of the alliance, would immediately flee to NATO. all the more significant DKBF bases, such as Klaipeda, Liepaja, paldiski, for which enormous amounts of money were spent, will be lost and looted, and then they will go to NATO. And the network of coastal airfields? Aviation controlled the entire Baltic Sea during the USSR. so that the entire coast from Klaipeda to the Ust-Luga is not under our control. the Balts can call any Varangians to themselves. here are such things. it’s only a shame that R.I. and the USSR throughout the course of, not only centuries, strengthened the Baltic direction, how many wars and Russian blood were shed, how many people do not live there and everything in one fell swoop down the drain. not all bases, airfields , and the infrastructure, it was impossible to leave at home, but the Baltic states sideways? there are Americans on the cube, they keep the base and nothing. protection of national interests. and we have our interests very close, tea is not overseas, from narva to St. Petersburg on the highway it’s only 120 km.
    1. Andrey Grad 27 November 2019 01: 42 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Kaliningrad is the Achilles heel of Russia.
      An ideal solution for Russia and Russians in the Baltic states would be to create a situation of exchanging territories - exchange the Kaliningrad Oblast for Kurland and Estonia.
      1. The return of the territories of Estonia and Courland with their ports to the country.
      2. The resettlement of Nazi nationalities in the Kaliningrad region, where they would create a mono-ethnic state.
      3. Russian people from the Kaliningrad enclave are moving to Kurland and Estonia.
      In summary:
      for Russia and Russians
      - removes the problem of protecting and supplying the western territory with a possible blockade of the enemy
      - military and export-import non-freezing ports appear
      - blocking the Gulf of Finland for the enemy will become meaningless
      - the region is developing economically and do without subsidies

      for the Nazi peoples:
      - there is an opportunity to create a mono-ethnic state (a dream comes true)
      - the "threat of assimilation" of their small people by a large people disappears
      - reduced opportunities for the use of small nations in the political game against Russia
      - Western interest in the Baltic states as a bridgehead against Russia is falling and tension is decreasing in the region.
  • Thrifty 24 November 2019 08: 36 New
    • 0
    • 12
    -12
    And the Baltic Sea is very cold, in early spring it is necessary to bathe in those hot heads from the United States and NATO that want a war against Russia. Alexander, hi but will it not be cheaper to financially withdraw from the reserve and backwaters of warships built back in the USSR, the same destroyers and anti-submarines, and their total modernization? Indeed, on a national scale, these are dozens of pennants, capable of eventually reaching the oceanic expanses to protect the interests of the country. Of course, they will tell me that the destroyers of the project 956 wear out the boilers, and they did not even design new engines for them. And why not build the same boiler turbines, taking into account new technologies? It will be faster and cheaper; it’s definitely enough for 10 years to operate. And during this time, the defense industry will create a full replacement for them.
  • knn54 24 November 2019 09: 26 New
    • 6
    • 3
    +3
    Agreeing with the author, I would also like to note the Pacific version - when the Japanese (very strong) fleet, with the support of aviation, begins landing on Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands. Especially since Japan is not a NATO member, but there are Yankees bases there. There is no peace treaty, the population is very negative about the loss of the "northern territories" And this can be done in parallel with the Polish. Swedish version.
    I would like to add the following, similar articles, videos should be thrown in the media. That would be clear for people (I think there are adequate in Eastern Europe, Scandinavia) what they are preparing for.
    And lastly, ALL Fleet problems are now being solved by land leaders, and the Navy Commander-in-Chief essentially means nothing
    1. Nemchinov Vl 24 November 2019 14: 55 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: knn54
      when the Japanese (very strong) fleet, with the support of aviation, begins landing on Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands.
      Nope ... I think something that will not start. Do not escalate, this is too much.
      1. LeonidL 27 November 2019 05: 05 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        This is not even busting, but just nonsense, but there are also China, and there are very vague internal processes going on there, and how the map will lie down is not clear. The Baltic is now limited to the Marquise puddle and the ships there for this position are in sufficient quantity, for parades and demonstrations of flags. As a matter of fact, there is a situation there from the point of view of the pre-war and war periods as in 1943. At the Black Sea Fleet, today everything is balanced, and taking into account trips to the Mediterranean Sea from other fleets is sufficient. My opinion is that the government is quite consciously and prudently, not succumbing to the cries and articles of "bulk", "cutters" and other activists from pseudo-naval creativity, is building the Northern Fleet and the latest asymmetric weapons, with their presence they stop the desire to attack the Russian Federation. Victory in modern warfare is its warning. And do not succumb to the exhortations of Mr. Timokhin about the readiness for the war of the past.
  • Paul Siebert 24 November 2019 09: 28 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    He served at the Special Design Bureau in 1990 in Baltiysk on a missile boat of the Lightning project.
    The power of anti-ship missiles and speed - they are relevant today!
    Then the main base of the Baltic Fleet was Tallinn.
    But the base in Baltiysk is objectively the best base in the Baltic! The Germans knew where best to control the region. No wonder Pillau was their main base kriegsmarine! Not Kiel, not Brest, not Narvik — precisely Pillau — with many harbors of a purely military profile, developed maritime infrastructure, many small satellite towns with storage areas, a repair base, and naval garrisons.
    Now all this economy is ours.
    Provided that we approach the matter prudently: saturate the naval group, strengthen anti-ship missile forces, develop the already good Baltic marines in several garrisons, get an insurmountable line of defense, objectively controlling the region, capable of solving any tasks!
    1. mark1 24 November 2019 09: 47 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      The combination of ships of the type pr.1239 "Sivuch" in the Baltic would not be out of place. or (and also) pr 903, and 904 (for special operations)
      1. timokhin-aa 24 November 2019 10: 29 New
        • 4
        • 3
        +1
        Absolutely superfluous. The ship should be either relatively versatile or cheap.
        1. mark1 24 November 2019 10: 42 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          relatively versatile or cheap.

          It is a dream of all Russian admirals to buy pennies for a penny. Somewhere, somewhere there is a middle ground
          1. timokhin-aa 24 November 2019 18: 06 New
            • 3
            • 4
            -1
            So far, the Russian admirals proceed from the principle of shoving the uncanny. Nobody is thinking about the golden mean.

            The opposite is true.
            1. mark1 24 November 2019 18: 42 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Duck after all, and I about the same thing - only in profile ...
            2. LeonidL 27 November 2019 05: 07 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              Admirals regularly visit Mr. Timokhin once a week ... Do not tell people! What the admirals do is not known to you and glory to God.
    2. timokhin-aa 24 November 2019 10: 30 New
      • 7
      • 5
      +2
      That's right, but there is a nuance - an undefended base in Baltiysk with a missed first strike.
  • The leader of the Redskins 24 November 2019 09: 28 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    An extensive article, but I won’t say that I agree with it one hundred percent ... The geography and condition of the fleet, yes, but the tactics and strategy of a possible conflict .... There are too many options to talk about specifics.
    1. Scaffold 24 November 2019 15: 59 New
      • 1
      • 5
      -4
      The cases are, if I am not mistaken, the fifth grade of the school.
    2. LeonidL 27 November 2019 05: 08 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      The vastness of the article is not evidence of the vastness of the knowledge and horizons of the author.
  • rocket757 24 November 2019 09: 48 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Everything rests on the "postulate" that it is impossible to conduct military operations against a nuclear power without the risk of receiving "vigorous greetings!"
    He postulate does not require confirmation, as it were, but who knows how it will go on!
    1. timokhin-aa 24 November 2019 10: 28 New
      • 8
      • 5
      +3
      He, postulate, confirmation, as it were, does not require


      He has been repeatedly refuted
      1. rocket757 24 November 2019 10: 45 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Where was the conflict with a serious threat to the vigorous power?
        Falklands disproportionate to the parties to the conflict? Indo Pakistan butting? Arab Israeli bickering?
        It would be possible to speculate about Israel, but everything is there, everything is covered in such darkness ... not to build thoriums from films.
        And nothing more.
        1. Simple 24 November 2019 11: 33 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          It seems, as if on the example of history, we can conclude: in order to "squeeze" something from a nuclear power - a military conflict is not necessary.
          1. rocket757 24 November 2019 11: 50 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Simple
            It seems, as if on the example of history, we can conclude: in order to "squeeze" something from a nuclear power - a military conflict is not necessary.

            Facts have events to be .... throw it out of a song of words!
            1. Simple 24 November 2019 11: 55 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              What the author is right about is that the creation of Russia's problems in the Baltic Sea is most likely to succeed for NATO countries.
              1. rocket757 24 November 2019 12: 06 New
                • 3
                • 2
                +1
                The most lousy probability and risk. Therefore, it was stated that in this case, "vigorous" arguments, "smaller in caliber," are and are always at the ready.
                This item is included in the doctrine of our defense and everyone knows this!
                Lousy, but otherwise, so far, it does not work.
                1. timokhin-aa 24 November 2019 18: 17 New
                  • 4
                  • 5
                  -1
                  Let's work out with you.

                  Introductory - the enemy stops the vessels coming from Ust-Luga for 24 hours, then releases them. In a month, the port's cargo turnover is halved. Ships under the Russian flag does not touch.

                  Use nuclear weapons?

                  For reference, the same tactics of the Russian Federation on the Sea of ​​Azov led to DEMOGRAPHIC changes in Mariupol. This is for those who are not in the know.
                  1. rocket757 24 November 2019 18: 35 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    We will use nuclear weapons

                    Business will ALWAYS find a way out, if interested!
                    Russia is not Papuan or dill, very many are interested in cooperation and trade with it.
                    1. Octopus 24 November 2019 19: 17 New
                      • 0
                      • 3
                      -3
                      Quote: rocket757
                      Business will ALWAYS find a way out, if interested!

                      Uh-huh.
                      at 300% there is no such crime that he would not dare to commit, at least under pain of the gallows


                      This arithmetic means that any imported product will cost 4 of its price (before the home state taxes on it), and any export product, on the contrary, will cost a quarter of its price. Oil for $ 15, iPhone for $ 4K, yeah.
                      1. rocket757 24 November 2019 19: 25 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Quote: Octopus
                        This arithmetic means that any imported product will cost 4 of its price (before the home state taxes on it), and any export product, on the contrary, will cost a quarter of its price. Oil for $ 15, iPhone for $ 4K, yeah.

                        This all means that you do not know geography and history passed by the subject, flew at a gallop.
                    2. Simple 27 November 2019 00: 48 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: rocket757
                      Business will ALWAYS find a way out, if interested!



                      Everything rests on mutual dependence. But believe that Europe is easier to find an alternative to this dependence than Russia.
                      So far, Russia is no weaker than 1998. now and then business will always find a way out (you mean, first of all, Russian interests - right?).
                      But only until then. ...
                      1. rocket757 27 November 2019 07: 08 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Simple
                        But believe that Europe is easier to find an alternative to this dependence than Russia.

                        Believe me, it’s NOT EVERYTHING easier, but on some issues it’s very DIFFICULT and far from immediately!
                        Mutual dependence, well-established economic MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL LINKS!
                        Nobody wants to change this, it’s not profitable!
                        This is my version of events and circumstances .... I do not pretend to be absolute.
                  2. Nemchinov Vl 24 November 2019 23: 29 New
                    • 5
                    • 0
                    +5
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    For reference - the same tactics of the Russian Federation on the Sea of ​​Azov led to DEMOGRAPHIC changes in Mariupol. This is for those who are not in the know.
                    Listen to you, so the birth rate in Mariupol rested solely on prostitutes leaving for maternity leave, thanks to the sailors entering the port ?! "Oh such," - as Anatoly Shariy likes to say ?! Here you should "like", well, at least for resourcefulness ...
                    1. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 13: 55 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      A lot of youth left
                  3. alexmach 24 November 2019 23: 57 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    For reference, the same tactics of the Russian Federation on the Sea of ​​Azov led to DEMOGRAPHIC changes in Mariupol.

                    Something tells me that other factors influence the demographic situation in Mariupol much more strongly.
                    1. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 13: 56 New
                      • 0
                      • 3
                      -3
                      A lot of young people left, that's what the conversation is about. Moreover, this was in direct connection with the damage to the economy from quasi-blockade
                      1. alexmach 26 November 2019 15: 43 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Moreover, this was in direct connection with the damage to the economy from quasi-blockade

                        This is how it is known that because of the blockade?
                        Mariupol is actually a "front-line" city. There and in the suburbs at one time it flew in, and for sure some curfew regime was established. To leave from, in my opinion, is not a bad idea at all, even without sanctions.
                      2. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 15: 51 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        From one of the locals. With the blockade, everything sharply escalated
                      3. alexmach 26 November 2019 15: 58 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        With the blockade, everything sharply escalated

                        It's funny But now, as I understand it, is the "blockade" also over? Somewhere information slipped that Russia restored the previous regime of passage of ships and refused those checks. Is anything known about this?
                      4. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 16: 01 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        I didn’t attend specifically, but it seems that you are right.
                2. Nemchinov Vl 26 November 2019 18: 38 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  A lot of young people left, that's what the conversation is about. Moreover, this was in direct connection with the damage to the economy from quasi-blockade
                  Well, unfortunately, in our southeast, quite a large part of the able-bodied population, and not just young people, traveled from other cities (absolutely not at port cities). (some to Poland, some to Belarus, and some to Russia, to work) ... and I assure you, this has little to do with the quasi-blockade of the Mariupol port ... Therefore, he higher distorted blooper-
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  For reference, the same tactics of the Russian Federation on the Sea of ​​Azov led to DEMOGRAPHIC changes in Mariupol. This is for those who are not in the know.
                  , - looked enough, -
                  Quote: alexmach
                  Funny.
                  , as the observant comrade noted (if not comically) ...
                  For this reason, do not be angry, - Alexander. I poked myself above absolutely without malice, just your early comment, literally disposed to it ... Please forgive me, if I have not at least touched your vanity. I really didn’t really want to offend you (as in other matters, any other person).
            2. LeonidL 27 November 2019 05: 13 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              The enemy, a kind of cunning adversary, stops his ships, and the Russians let go ... Already funny!
    2. LeonidL 27 November 2019 05: 11 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      This once again confirms the thesis about the role of the individual in history, in other words, if the lion is at the head of the herd, then you won’t succeed, but if Yeltsins, Gorbachevs and Shevarnadze with the Yakovlevs ... then easily.
  • Octopus 24 November 2019 13: 56 New
    • 7
    • 4
    +3
    Quote: rocket757
    Where was the conflict with a serious threat to the vigorous power?

    The first conflict with a threat to a nuclear power is Berlin 1948.
    The first direct combat operations of non-nuclear countries against a nuclear power - 1950 Korea.
    Quote: rocket757
    And nothing more.

    And what do you call a threat to a nuclear power? The introduction by Estonia and Finland of the order of passage of ships along the Gulf of Finland is similar to the Sea of ​​Azov for Ukraine - is this a threat or not?
    1. rocket757 24 November 2019 14: 38 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Octopus
      The first conflict with a threat to a nuclear power - Berlin 1948

      It is far-fetched, there are no territory of minke whales. The occupation zone is completely different. Then, "growl" with tank engines, this is not fighting.
      In Korea, what is the threat of striping? Other nuclear powers were not officially involved there.
      Then, we do not discuss all sorts of things if only yes. Only real fighting and real threat. It is clear that some of them preventively crashed, but no one will succeed in this.
      1. Octopus 24 November 2019 15: 04 New
        • 4
        • 5
        -1
        Quote: rocket757
        Far-fetched, there are minke whales

        There were American forces. And there was already a flying B-36 and an atomic bomb, and some didn’t. Nevertheless, they didn’t begin to transport AB aircraft to Moscow, but coal to Berlin. Do not confuse the Berlin crisis of the 48th and 61st years.
        Quote: rocket757
        In Korea, what is the threat of striping?

        This is some kind of optical illusion. For Americans, Korea is equal to Normandy + Ardennes in the number of people killed. It is as if the USSR had to repeat Stalingrad + Kursk.
        Quote: rocket757
        Only real fighting and real threat

        At what point are the hostilities real and the threat real? Is supply cuts a real threat or not yet? People’s Governor? Polite German-speaking people?
        1. Good_Anonymous 24 November 2019 15: 19 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Quote: Octopus
          For Americans, Korea is equal to Normandy + Ardennes in the number of people killed. It is as if the USSR had to repeat Stalingrad + Kursk.


          This is distorted, so distorted.
          1. Octopus 24 November 2019 15: 21 New
            • 3
            • 5
            -2
            Quote: Good_Anonymous
            This is distorted, so distorted.

            Do you have any substantive objections? Can you name WWII operation, where the Americans lost more killed than in Korea?
            1. Good_Anonymous 24 November 2019 15: 41 New
              • 4
              • 4
              0
              Quote: Octopus
              This is distorted, so distorted.

              Do you have any substantive objections?


              Yes of course. Comparison of Stalingrad and Kursk (478 thousand + 254 thousand, in both cases - only irretrievable losses) with Normandy and the Ardennes (10 thousand + 108 thousand, in both cases - total losses) it is difficult to call even distortion.

              Quote: Octopus
              Can you name WWII operation, where the Americans lost more than in Korea?


              Once again I will quote you: "it is as if the USSR had to repeat Stalingrad + Kursk." So, the Union in Stalingrad and Kursk lost (only killed) 0.37% of the population, the United States in Normandy and the Ardennes lost (killed, wounded and captured) 0.08% of the population.

              And by the way, on Wiki in Korea, the United States lost 37904 people. So here you told a lie.
              1. Octopus 24 November 2019 15: 53 New
                • 3
                • 5
                -2
                Quote: Good_Anonymous
                And by the way, on Wiki in Korea, the United States lost 37904 people. So here you told a lie.

                Accurate in terms. Just for the killed Normandy and the Ardennes, and only one Americans - this is 20 + 20, where did you get 10 thousand common for Normandy - a mystery. Perhaps if this is only a landing figure.
                Quote: Good_Anonymous
                Comparison of Stalingrad and Kursk with Normandy and the Ardennes

                What confuses you? This and that are the most famous operations in Europe of their countries. The Americans, however, can focus on their Second World War, not the Soviet one.

                Another thing is that Normandy and the Ardennes were far from being the largest US battles of WWII in terms of losses, but who knows?
                1. Good_Anonymous 24 November 2019 15: 58 New
                  • 1
                  • 2
                  -1
                  Quote: Octopus
                  Just for the slain Normandy and the Ardennes and only Americans


                  You talked about the USA - naturally, you are only obligated to consider American losses.

                  it's 20 + 20


                  On the one hand, it’s interesting where you got these numbers and what they relate to, on the other hand, in general, it doesn’t matter, because for comparison with Stalingrad and Kursk this difference does not matter.

                  Quote: Octopus
                  What confuses you?


                  Nothing bothers me. It’s just that the losses differed significantly both in absolute and relative numbers, so it’s hard to call a comparison of them even by juggling.
                2. Octopus 24 November 2019 16: 19 New
                  • 2
                  • 5
                  -3
                  Quote: Good_Anonymous
                  On the one hand, I wonder where you got these numbers and what they relate to.

                  Switch to the English wiki.
                  Quote: Good_Anonymous
                  it doesn’t matter, because for comparison with Stalingrad and Kursk this difference does not matter.

                  You have been told twice that this is the main (from the point of view of the press) battles in your theater. Americans in a hole that wasn’t needed his 44th year, not Soviet. As for the absolute size of losses, this is a separate conversation.
                3. Good_Anonymous 24 November 2019 16: 25 New
                  • 2
                  • 3
                  -1
                  Quote: Octopus
                  The Americans in their unneeded hole repeated their 44th year, not the Soviet one.


                  But you equated them (more precisely, equated the American years 44-45 to the largest battles of 42-43).

                  And no, the Americans did not repeat. Losses in the Ardennes - 89-105 thousand, in Korea - 34 thousand (data from the English-speaking Wiki).
                4. Octopus 24 November 2019 16: 28 New
                  • 2
                  • 4
                  -2
                  Quote: Good_Anonymous
                  But you equated them (more precisely, equated the American years 44-45 to the largest battles of 42-43).

                  I can equate to El Alamein.
                  Quote: Good_Anonymous
                  Losses in the Ardennes - 89-105 thousand, in Korea - 34 thousand (data from the English-speaking Wiki).

                  You in vain are comparing the common in the Ardennes with those killed in Korea. Find the dead in the Ardennes, scroll down.
                5. Good_Anonymous 24 November 2019 16: 31 New
                  • 2
                  • 3
                  -1
                  Quote: Octopus
                  You in vain are comparing the common in the Ardennes with those killed in Korea. Find the dead in the Ardennes, scroll down.


                  You started talking in riddles and hints.
                6. Octopus 24 November 2019 16: 37 New
                  • 2
                  • 4
                  -2
                  Quote: Good_Anonymous
                  You started talking in riddles and hints.

                  yes sho there is
                  An official report by the United States Department of the Army lists 105,102 casualties, including 19,246 killed, 62,489 wounded, and 26,612 captured or missing
                7. Good_Anonymous 24 November 2019 16: 52 New
                  • 1
                  • 2
                  -1
                  Quote: Octopus
                  An official report by the United States Department of the Army lists 105,102 casualties, including 19,246 killed, 62,489 wounded, and 26,612 captured or missing


                  If you summarize with your data above, it is still less than in Korea (39 thousand versus 34 thousand).
  • rocket757 24 November 2019 15: 22 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Far-fetched ... what a threat to the AMERICAN STATE?
    The simple question is, can you answer?
    If not, there is NOTHING to discuss further.
    The question is, who called them to Korea? Yes, and much more?
    1. Octopus 24 November 2019 15: 36 New
      • 2
      • 4
      -2
      Quote: rocket757
      The question is, who called them to Korea?

      They themselves came to fulfill an international duty, so to speak.

      Again. Here is a conflict between a nuclear state and a non-nuclear state. And what, whom did it stop? Regarding the threat to the STATE capsloc - in the 45th, there was no threat to the US STATE, but you are.

      Your argument boils down to the fact that all kinds of Korea-Cuba are seeds, but OUR LAND is ANYONE ANOTHER CASE. That is, some purely psychological troubles that are not evaluated in terms of a balance of forces.
      1. Good_Anonymous 24 November 2019 15: 52 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -1
        Quote: Octopus
        Your argument boils down to the fact that all kinds of Korea-Cuba are seeds, but OUR LAND is ANYONE ANOTHER CASE.


        It is so. When people face the prospect of dying, many will be ready to die for their land, and few will be for Cuba with Korea.

        Quote: Octopus
        That is, some purely psychological troubles that are not evaluated in terms of a balance of forces.


        And they do not need to be evaluated in terms of a balance of power. In terms of risk-benefit, try.
        1. Octopus 24 November 2019 16: 24 New
          • 2
          • 3
          -1
          Quote: Good_Anonymous
          When people face the prospect of dying, many will be ready to die for their land,

          How bloodthirsty you are.
          And what did 2014 show you in this context?
          Quote: Good_Anonymous
          In terms of risk-benefit, try.

          You are absolutely right. Therefore, to organize a large war in the Baltic for the enemies of Russia is irrational. There are much more convenient places.
          1. Good_Anonymous 24 November 2019 16: 29 New
            • 2
            • 3
            -1
            Quote: Octopus
            When people face the prospect of dying, many will be ready to die for their land,

            How bloodthirsty you are.


            I’m never bloodthirsty. It is just that this will be the question in the event of a war (which, I hope, will not be).

            Quote: Octopus
            to organize a big war in the Baltic for the enemies of Russia is irrational


            Personally, I find it difficult to name at least someone who would be rational to arrange a war for Russia. I may have a lack of imagination smile
          2. Octopus 24 November 2019 16: 35 New
            • 0
            • 4
            -4
            Quote: Good_Anonymous
            It’s just that this will be the question in case of war

            You have some enthusiastic ideas about the war. Especially for a person who, I suppose, lives in a warring country. That is non-combatant. That is, somehow.
            Quote: Good_Anonymous
            I may have a lack of imagination

            It’s strange. They regularly write in VO that the restless enemy is not asleep. External and internal.
          3. Good_Anonymous 24 November 2019 16: 40 New
            • 1
            • 3
            -2
            Quote: Octopus
            You have some enthusiastic ideas about the war.


            Well, which ones already are. I myself was not in the war, I just read.

            Quote: Octopus
            Especially for a person who, I suppose, lives in a warring country. That is non-combatant.


            The country in which I live is listed on my profile. And you have paranoia. That is not paranoia smile

            Quote: Octopus
            They regularly write in VO that the restless enemy is not asleep. External and internal.


            For this we love VO smile And the paper will endure. The Internet will tolerate more.
          4. Octopus 24 November 2019 16: 54 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            Quote: Good_Anonymous
            The country in which I live is listed on my profile.

            In the profile, this is not visible to others, as far as I can tell.
        2. mark1 25 November 2019 05: 42 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Octopus
          restless enemy does not sleep

          What a restless you!
  • rocket757 24 November 2019 16: 50 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Yes, I don’t understand how “common people” who bring freedom and democracy under the wings of their bombers, like those who export a bright social future to a foreign country! One field thistle!
    There is OWN EARTH, there may be vital safety interests that need to be studied under a microscope !!! That's all.
    1. kemnik 25 November 2019 10: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      "One thistle field." What time! And Hitler = Stalin, right? Familiar songs.
      1. rocket757 25 November 2019 10: 26 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Stalin rebuilt Russia, after the great destruction! The image of the collector of land RUSSIAN ... and leave behind with their br-r assumptions.
        The desire to bring light and enlightenment everywhere and always, in the late Soviet period, can be evaluated in different ways.
        Okay, they helped the freedom-loving peoples of Africa, and somewhere else they’ll get rid of the colonialists! This can be understood, to a certain limit, but why climbed into Afghanistan ??? This turned out to be a thistle, the thorns of which rushed into us in a very sensitive place ... by the way, not only there turned out a thistle! We had to work harder.
  • timokhin-aa 24 November 2019 18: 14 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    Where was the conflict with a serious threat to the vigorous power?


    And now with a serious one? Frivolous are not counted, but the Falklands - the potential loss of British territory in the war - we will write in frivolous. And you are fast. laughing
    Well, let's get serious.
    The offensive of Peng Dehui in Korea in 1951. The very existence of US troops in the region is threatened - and there are many of them. Will it go?

    On the other hand, what prevents holding the threat below the nuclear threshold, but at the same time causing serious political damage to the attacked nuclear country?
    1. rocket757 24 November 2019 18: 43 New
      • 2
      • 5
      -3
      Korea is not the US TERRITORY .... everything, the debriefing is "over".
      The Falklands ... were controlled by conventional weapons, NOTHING threatened the metropolis, but there were vigorous arguments on the ships.
      1. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 14: 04 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        From the point of view of many amers, the whole world is their territory. They perceive everything differently, not like us.
        1. rocket757 26 November 2019 14: 19 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          From the point of view of many amers, the whole world is their territory. They perceive everything differently, not like us.

          This has long been known, but this does not mean that it’s worth adapting only to them!
          Now this is a peculiar moment! Everyone who was “the coolest of all” got a lot of problems and they won’t disappear at the click of a finger.
          Here either take advantage of the moment, build your own and your own, or quietly crawl away into ... a corner.
          So far, nothing is clear, except that China so far is taxiing to the starting line ... to understand in which direction ???
          1. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 14: 53 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            Yes, no one adapts to anyone, reread the thread from the beginning, the question of whether it happened that non-nuclear countries attack nuclear.
            1. rocket757 26 November 2019 16: 43 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I explained that there is a difference, butting somewhere far away, in overseas territories, and the threat of the metropolis in its "home" territory.
              Is there a difference or is it the same thing?
              Only about Israel it can be said that there was a real threat to the preservation of the state or its main part, but everything is dim there, somehow glorious to God, which did without vigorous excesses.
              Someone will risk experimenting again like this ???
              1. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 21: 52 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                For Americans, there is no difference. I know a little what kind of contingent this is. For many of them, this is one and the same in practice.
                1. rocket757 26 November 2019 22: 11 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Everything in life happened .... ambition and arrogance above the roof and complete prostration of spirit, when this arrogance was knocked down, by accessible methods.
                  People are so similar, wherever they were born, in similar situations they do not behave very differently.
    2. Eroma 25 November 2019 21: 43 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      The article is vital, but not convincing in the first place with examples! Poland does not have any claims to Russia, as I know. Russophobia is based on the fear of the Russian invasion of Poland, what for they will tease those who are afraid? But without a direct collision, they will weaken us with all hands, but the role of kamikaze is not for them!
      The Baltic states can try to solve territorial disputes such as force, but they have such a 5th column that any conflict with Russia is an internal explosion with our help, of course, and they’re khan, so they deployed NATO battalions in order to cope with the Russian-speaking population!
      Any shuher in the Baltic Sea, without the consent of Germany, is not possible, but they have invested loot in the Nord Stream and their economy is not sourly dependent on the stable operation of these gas pipes, and the traffic of German goods is also important, so they are on our side.

      If you still agree with the possibility of provocation, then in Kaliningrad there are enough forces to stop the provocation against the region and give a multiple answer!
      The position of the Baltic states in the case of the issue with Poland is not important, the position of Belarus is important, which, if the aggression from the NATO countries (Baltic States) is condemned, will be the same in the trend and as an ally miss Russian troops to release Kaliningrad, with a high probability!

      Purely military: the main weapon for defeating surface targets is missiles. The main problem is the identification of the enemy against the background of neutrals, aviation does it best, and UAVs are safer than all. Here you have the complex of forces for the destruction of the provocateurs! And Russia is not Ukraine which has nothing to answer for inspection in principle. It is enough for us to withdraw the guard even with a machine gun and our flag, and threaten to destroy the base from which ships violating shipping come, this is enough!
      We will not attack anyone, but if we are touched by surrender and even the BBC will not be able to imagine otherwise.

      Therefore, the fleet in the Baltic is not an unambiguous thing, in a conflict with NATO it has no room for maneuver, because the entire coast is hostile, except for 2 points Kronstadt and Kaliningrad. How can act is not clear. And most importantly, he does not decide what at the initial stage and is likely to be destroyed.
      But I agree to create the Minotralt forces, with 76 mm guns, minzags and against the provocateurs will also be in the subject.
      1. Octopus 26 November 2019 01: 19 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -1
        Quote: Eroma
        It’s enough for us to get the guard out with a machine gun and our flag,

        Suppose he comes across a mine. It is not known whose.
        Quote: Eroma
        and threaten to destroy the base from which ships violating shipping come,

        Norfolk?
        1. Eroma 26 November 2019 09: 27 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Norfolk ... well, you swung! Against the United States and the entire Baltic Fleet is not enough! This will not be provocation, but war! If the United States announces a blockade, they will not even have to deploy anyone. crying ocean vessels do not go to the Baltic ports, cargoes come to us with transhipments in European ports (Holland, for example) to smaller vessels (also European by the way), the same route in the opposite direction! The United States is enough to whistle and the entire cargo flow will rise on command! stop except probably oil vessels, this is our export.

          With regards to mines, I agree with the development of minotral forces. But the fact of the installation of mines is unlikely, in the first place it is not realistic to quietly do it! Today is not 41 years old, radars, sonars, Internet traffic accounting, horseradish slip! Secondly, the probability of undermining European ships is beyond the limit, without stopping traffic, who will decide on such a gamble without the consent of the rest of Europe?
  • Andrei Nikolaevich 24 November 2019 10: 00 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    Very interesting article. But an article for naval officers. Let them express their opinion.
  • SVD68 24 November 2019 10: 27 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    I completely agree with the respected author on the description of the situation in the Baltic Sea and the principles of warfare there.
    But there are two serious objections to the ship's crew.
    1. Cheap missile boats will not allow you to win the pace. Here we need strike and hovercraft. Yes, expensive, but just for the Baltic, their benefits are critical.
    2. Submarines. It makes sense to return to the P-750 or even P-550 projects. But the use of VNEU on them seems to be a chimera, which again ends in the absence of boats in the ranks. It’s better to switch to lithium batteries.
    1. mark1 24 November 2019 10: 51 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      3. And as much aviation as possible!
    2. Avior 24 November 2019 11: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Very expensive. And reliability is another question.
    3. timokhin-aa 24 November 2019 18: 19 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      1. Cheap missile boats will not allow you to win the pace.


      They are not fighting on their own.
      1. SVD68 25 November 2019 19: 24 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Other ships are even less capable of intercepting initiative and anticipatory action.
    4. kemnik 25 November 2019 10: 03 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      And a hundred ekranoplanes "Eaglet".
      1. SVD68 25 November 2019 19: 27 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        WIG - a false idea.
  • Pavel57 24 November 2019 10: 55 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    To perceive any provocation as the beginning of a war.
    1. LeonidL 27 November 2019 05: 23 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quite right, no one will have time to build up and find out the time, because everything else is from the evil one. Today, war can only be won by preventing war — hence the “perimeter” (“Dead Hand”) and the latest weapons — an asymmetric response. And playing boats by the number of barrels and torpedo tubes in the Baltic is easier and safer on your computer. Fleets are needed where real threats to national interests are possible - the North from all those who are thirsty and TF with the foreseeable development of internal events from China.
  • Sergey Obraztsov 24 November 2019 11: 13 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    What about UDC? Would their presence not make it possible to "get" to the countries of provocateurs bypassing NATO countries? And in Kaliningrad, the Iskander stands ....



    Or do you think smoke happens without fire and ammunition for them with a range of more than 500 km declared does not exist?
    1. Lopatov 24 November 2019 11: 30 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Here above hinted to pay attention to the Polish artillery.
      Iskanders in the Kaliningrad exclave is pure politics. As the "troops" of NATO in the Baltic states. Their military purpose is very limited. Carry out artillery during the first launches.
      1. 30hgsa 24 November 2019 12: 11 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        You reassured the Poles. Iskanders have time to give only one salvo ... in which there will be missiles with special b / h aimed at the base of the fleet, air defense, missile defense, headquarters, places of deployment of troops .... :))) And then they won’t be able to - they will cover with artillery: )
        1. Lopatov 24 November 2019 12: 52 New
          • 7
          • 1
          +6
          Quote: 30hgsa
          You reassured the Poles. Iskanders have time to give only one salvo ...

          Strictly speaking, with proper organization, they will be able to hit the launchers immediately after launching one missile.

          Quote: 30hgsa
          in which there will be missiles with special b / h

          They will start with such warheads only in one case, to ensure a retaliatory strike against the United States.
          That is not considered option.
          1. 30hgsa 24 November 2019 12: 57 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            One is enough. As for the retaliatory strike ... Does anyone outside the psychiatric hospitals still have the option of a non-nuclear war with NATO under consideration? :))) And in the Baltic only NATO. Or are you predicting a war with Finland? All ideas and thoughts on the topic of the war in Europe with the countries of the NATO bloc without the use of nuclear weapons are unscientific fiction. In the event of a conflict there will be either a limited nuclear war in Europe or a global nuclear war, the third option is a war in Europe developing into a global one. Everything else is barren fantasies.
            1. Lopatov 24 November 2019 13: 02 New
              • 6
              • 2
              +4
              Quote: 30hgsa
              One is enough.

              No.

              Quote: 30hgsa
              Does anyone outside the psychiatric hospitals still have the option of a non-nuclear war with NATO under consideration?

              And where does NATO?
              I agree, they are obliged to do something if Russia attacks Poland. But if the Poles start the war, NATO will be able to declare "unfriendly neutrality"

              Quote: 30hgsa
              limited nuclear war in Europe

              The Americans themselves recognize that this Holy Grail (for American strategists) is unattainable. And any nuclear escalation will ultimately lead to a full-fledged exchange of blows between us and the United States.
              1. 30hgsa 24 November 2019 13: 12 New
                • 2
                • 4
                -2
                If the Poles start the war, Poland does not have a fleet commensurate even with the current BF.
                4 ancient Swedish submarines that can certainly sink, I don’t know about surfacing. 2 old American frigates "OHP". They have aviation in order to gain superiority in the sky - 80 fighters. All. So the Poles have nothing to catch without NATO. While they will try to storm Kaliningrad, parts of the MP and Airborne Forces, and then motorized rifles, will be transferred there by sea and air.
                And here you definitely do not need any mines. And the Iskander ... is a NATO deterrent rather.
                And when the tanks go to Warsaw ... NATO will harness. Like an unjustified and disproportionate use of force and hello armageddon.
                1. Lopatov 24 November 2019 13: 31 New
                  • 7
                  • 1
                  +6
                  Quote: 30hgsa
                  If the Poles start the war, Poland does not have a fleet commensurate even with the current BF.

                  And they don’t need him.

                  Quote: 30hgsa
                  And when the tanks go to Warsaw ...

                  Tanks have not yet learned to fly.
                2. timokhin-aa 24 November 2019 18: 21 New
                  • 8
                  • 4
                  +4
                  If the Poles start the war, Poland does not have a fleet commensurate even with the current BF.


                  Cover the cap-thrower please.
          2. LeonidL 27 November 2019 05: 25 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            If Iskander, don’t bring the Lord of course. give a volley, then there will be no one to answer, therefore, do not worry about the PU. Yes, they will not worry at all ...
      2. Sergey Obraztsov 24 November 2019 13: 10 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        It’s simply impossible to hide NATO’s preparations for this hypothetical conflict. This is not a single month’s business. The deployment of troops of this magnitude is not a quick matter.
        1. Lopatov 24 November 2019 13: 27 New
          • 10
          • 3
          +7
          Quote: Sergey Obraztsov
          It’s simply impossible to hide NATO’s preparations for this hypothetical conflict.

          And here is NATO?
          It's about Poland.
          And she is actively preparing, more than one year ... They are rearming, and they started earlier than us. They drive their personnel through local conflicts (according to rumors, and through the Donbass), they increase the number of their aircraft and are actively preparing mobile reserves

          In fact, the Polish army is one of the most combat-ready in NATO. In reality, and not like the Ukrainians.
  • abc_alex 24 November 2019 11: 18 New
    • 12
    • 1
    +11
    And yet, despite the fact that I am not an expert in maritime affairs, it seems to me that the author initially posed the problem incorrectly. He immediately limited Russia to the rules of the classical war at sea. Meanwhile, this is obviously a losing path. No matter how much Russia produces minesweepers, corvettes, and small submarines, NATO will have two more. Is always. No matter how carefully Russia conducts an operation against one kamikaze country, there will always be a second such country. For all of NATO and for all other Baltic countries, we will not have enough ships or boats. With all due respect to the analysis of the author, this is the path to defeat. Play by their rules.
    The concept of war in the Baltic requires a fundamentally different approach, that same asymmetric response. Especially if the issue is of strategic importance.
    The author probably correctly pointed out the need for quick offensive operations at sea. But I venture to add that the same actions should be on the political front. No non-central status of Belarus in this matter should be accepted. Put forward an ultimatum to the Baltic states, at least with the requirement for Lithuania to establish a corridor in Kaliningrad. And do not be afraid to directly threaten Denmark with a missile strike on the capital. The Danes showed themselves as pathological cowards in 2MB, they will get scared this time too. It’s impossible to step on the sea and “no matter what happens” in politics. They will devour. The collective responsibility of small NATO countries should be a compensator for the rule of collective security. Each bptican country must know exactly where and how it will fly from the Russians, if the neighboring country decides to play war with the Russians.
    1. Octopus 24 November 2019 14: 03 New
      • 2
      • 8
      -6
      Quote: abc_alex
      And do not be afraid to directly threaten Denmark with a missile strike on the capital. The Danes showed themselves as pathological cowards in 2MB, they will get scared this time too.

      Let me remind you that Denmark is roughly the size of the economy in Israel, Poland is twice as large.

      How long will it take both to create their own nuclear weapons?
      1. Eroma 25 November 2019 22: 14 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Eternity! We will already transfer to starships and will have energy shields! laughing
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. Lopatov 24 November 2019 11: 31 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      Quote: Operator
      "artillery shelling of military facilities in Baltiysk from Poland",

      This is pretty easy to do.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. timokhin-aa 24 November 2019 18: 23 New
            • 4
            • 4
            0
            with a depth of formation of a standing wave of 800 meters or more


            Andryusho, your doctor doesn’t need to. You have no idea about the subject of discussion, get away from the keyboard.
        2. Lopatov 24 November 2019 12: 42 New
          • 8
          • 1
          +7
          Quote: Operator
          But what does the BF have to do with it?

          Nothing to do with it. The forces of the fleet cannot solve the problem.
          1. timokhin-aa 24 November 2019 18: 24 New
            • 2
            • 5
            -3
            The fleet can hold communications and ensure the transfer of army reinforcements.
            1. Lopatov 24 November 2019 18: 26 New
              • 7
              • 0
              +7
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Fleet can hold communications

              And this problem is not solved.
              It is possible to make a "stop wheel", to prevent the supply of Poles and the Baltic States by sea, as well as the transfer of troops.
              Throw and supply themselves, will not give.
              1. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 14: 02 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Why all of a sudden?
            2. Nehist 25 November 2019 05: 04 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Only at the first stage! Then, just the current forces will not be enough, which you yourself wrote in the article. (Unfortunately, you know the response of our higher headquarters.)
              1. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 14: 07 New
                • 0
                • 2
                -2
                But the opponent will also suffer losses - the point of the move is precisely to win several. days that KOR must stand. In order not to beat him off later. Then there’s a fork for pshekam - either they upset, or the Airborne Forces in Gdansk.
                1. Lopatov 26 November 2019 16: 32 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  But the adversary will also suffer losses

                  Shooting ships from the shore and mining expeditions to the exclave?
                  1. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 21: 48 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    No.

                    You consider everything in a complex - both we and they have joint operations with the fleet, aviation and the army. Each performs its task.

                    So, by the end of the first day, both ground units and aviation of the parties will suffer losses. Their strength will decrease.
                    Fleets too. The task of our aircraft (not only the default, but all) is to maximize the losses of the portman and minimize their losses. Under these conditions, it may well turn out that the adversary will not be able to interrupt the supply of KOR by sea, for example, because VKS competently and on time went through his naval base and he had a few "units" afloat, and he hid in the sea naval aviation, submarines and ships.
                    Then the Navy may well paralyze the actions of the enemy fleet wherever our aircraft can disrupt or weaken the enemy’s attacks from the air.
                    Then the second step - if the enemy’s aviation is weakened too much and can’t attack surface ships anymore, then it becomes possible to block its ports now and prevent anyone from supplying the enemy with weapons, etc.

                    That's about what the fleet has to do with it.

                    If the enemy is cunning enough to climb into the attack when our planes are busy with other tasks, or the weather does not allow them to fly, the fleet should be able to defeat it at sea.

                    Etc.

                    The ultimate goals strictly according to the theory are to ensure their communications (Petersburg-KOR) and cut off the enemy's ones (block Gdynia, Gdansk, etc.)
                    So that the army team at some point found that the enemy could not shoot because there was nothing and was sitting without fuel.
                    1. Lopatov 26 November 2019 22: 09 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      Under these conditions, it may well turn out that the enemy will not be able to interrupt the supply of KOR by sea

                      It's unlikely.

                      Take the ideal option: our super-powerful fleet of 40-50 atomic destroyers in the Baltic Sea sawed them all out and carried out ships with reinforcements and grub-solar-cartridges. Let it all be placed on unfashionable BDK. Despite the fact that "the very concept of such ships is morally obsolete," only they are able to unload adequately and quickly.

                      But the problem is that the Poles will not allow this to be done. Their Lobsters from Poland will control 100% of the coast of the Kaliningrad exclave, even through GMLRS
                      1. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 22: 16 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Well, you as a military man should not write such a thing. Since when is the possibility of an enemy fire strike here or there an absolutely and in no way surmountable obstacle?
                        They and we have art. MLRS intelligence, aviation, artillery, SpN. All hollow each other, tomorrow there will be fewer guns than today, and today less than yesterday, etc.

                        From the point of view of the blockade of KOR, Cobbens and mines, including self-propelled or aviation Quickstrike type, are much more concerned. This will cause much more hemorrhoids, and the banal basing of large ships in Kronstadt and thorough reconnaissance in the pre-war period helps with artillery. At the first reconnaissance signs of a possible strike - ships at sea.

                        For this, I propose to tie up with war in the comments, an ungrateful affair. Neither cards nor intermediaries, some disgrace, not a dialogue, by golly.
                2. LeonidL 27 November 2019 05: 29 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Are you all serious? Already funny!
  • Sunstorm 24 November 2019 11: 27 New
    • 10
    • 2
    +8
    “The Leningrad Navy base in Kronstadt is located inside the narrow Gulf of Finland, the northern coast of which belongs mainly to Finland, and the southern one to the Baltic countries. The Gulf of Finland can be very quickly blocked by the laying of minefields, which will cut off the north-west of Russia from sea lanes. This will become an economic disaster for the country as a whole. ".. After that, reading is no longer interesting. Why? Where and to whom do we bring goods for export? Where do the pipes go, with gas and oil? Oh, neither to the countries, whether NATO .... Given such a blunder in analytics .. there’s no point in reading further.
    1. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 14: 03 New
      • 0
      • 4
      -4
      You make a mistake, the countries from which the threat emanates are listed in the article
      1. Sunstorm 26 November 2019 16: 11 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        You make a mistake, the countries from which the threat emanates are listed in the article

        Quote: Sunstorm
        “The Leningrad Navy base in Kronstadt is located inside the narrow Gulf of Finland, the northern coast of which belongs mainly to Finland, and the southern one to the Baltic countries. The Gulf of Finland can be very quickly blocked by the laying of minefields, which will cut off the north-west of Russia from sea lanes. This will become an economic disaster for the country as a whole. ".. After that, reading is no longer interesting. Why? Where and to whom do we bring goods for export? Where do the pipes go, with gas and oil? Oh, neither to the countries, whether NATO .... Given such a blunder in analytics .. there’s no point in reading further.

        You basically do not understand what I mean? I’m chewing. Russia sells oil and gas through pipelines, which in the event of any conflict with the Baltic countries fly into the pipe this is 1. One of the largest buyers of gas is Germany - the NATO country, this is 2. No tankers will pass through the Danish Straits accompanied by at least the "grandflit" , missiles and barreled artillery and aviation, even if only ground, is 3. Add 1 + 2 + 3 ..... =? Russia, in principle, cannot economically benefit from a conflict with NATO countries - THEY are its largest buyers! Russia, in principle, will not be able to protect its tankers and pipelines in the Baltic with any number of ships, simply because this is not possible in principle! Therefore your whole text is NONSENSE and a waste of timeand.
        1. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 21: 41 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          You see what's the matter.

          All the introductory articles in the article stipulate that NATO, as a single entity, is not involved in the conflict.

          For example, an article contains such a condition.
          For this, it is enough that NATO is not the subject of the conflict, but that it be an independent operation of the Polish armed forces, for example.


          Or

          Moreover, in order to immediately set all the traps, the enemy can behave as follows - the former Soviet Baltic republics verbally condemn the actions of the attacking side - Poland, and demand that it refuse to continue the fighting, initiating ceasefire negotiations with Russia. At the same time, foreign military contingents in the Baltic countries will be strengthened.

          Thus, Russia has lost the political basis for the “breakdown” of the corridor to Kaliningrad by force - on its way are countries that have supported it itself, albeit in words, and which are members of NATO, and have the right to apply for help from other countries of the bloc in accordance with the fifth article of the NATO Charter. And who do not participate in the attack on the Russian Federation.


          Thus, you are not arguing with the article I wrote, but with your voices in your head.

          Here is another proof. You write

          Russia, in principle, cannot economically benefit from a conflict with NATO countries - THEY are its largest buyers!


          But after all, according to the introductory items listed in the article, this is not Russia starting, right? And not NATO. Why did you write it then?

          So nonsense is what the voices in your head whisper to you. And the article is quite normal.
          1. LeonidL 27 November 2019 05: 35 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            "So nonsense is what the voices whisper in your head. And the article is quite normal." - Great argument! A sort of Napoleonism. And in what time frame do you fit the collapse of NATO? You probably do not know that while NATO is a single organism and an attack on one country immediately involves the rest of the company? Or will Poland risk, like a suicide bomber, kamikaze, committing grief to commit suicide alone in a war with the Russian Federation? Yes, by the way, knowing the rest of the members and warning that they would not intervene? Already very very funny!
          2. Sunstorm 27 November 2019 18: 10 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            All the introductory articles in the article stipulate that NATO, as a single entity, is not involved in the conflict.

            Yeah, Poland joined NATO .. ​​that would then abruptly throw a war on a state possessing nuclear weapons ... alone, I will not argue logically. Discuss such nonsense all the more.
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Thus, you are not arguing with the article I wrote, but with your voices in your head.
            You are wrong, I do not argue with the article, I immediately said
            Quote: Sunstorm
            Given such a blunder in analytics ... there’s no point in reading further.

            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Here is another proof. You write

            Russia, in principle, cannot economically benefit from a conflict with NATO countries - THEY are its largest buyers!


            But after all, according to the introductory items listed in the article, this is not Russia starting, right? And not NATO. Why did you write it then?

            And what did you prove by this?) Is it really about who started what?) It's about the fact that the conflict in any form is not profitable for Russia, and it is not possible to change because .... NATO countries largest buyers of the Russian Federation
        2. LeonidL 27 November 2019 05: 31 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          You probably don’t know that Mr. Timokhin simply cannot make mistakes in principle! He is the truth in the latest computer instance!
  • Avior 24 November 2019 11: 33 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Interesting article.
    But, it seems, the author underestimates the role of aviation in all these events.
    And if coastal aviation is relevant in the Gulf of Finland, then problems will arise with Kaliningrad in the event of an active conflict affecting the enclave.
    It is unlikely that Ka52 will fix the matter.
    And by the way, can they be used, except for Kuznetsov, and, possibly, Gren?
    After all, they were made under Mistral, and not under frigates.
    1. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 14: 03 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Yes, even let them fly from the shore, only the Baltic is small to fill them in corvettes.
  • voyaka uh 24 November 2019 11: 35 New
    • 10
    • 1
    +9
    Russia can defend the Baltic only with the help of aviation. Heavy Su-35 and Su-57 fighters and Su-30 fighter-bombers can cause some damage to the enemy and frustrate his plans.
    Well, and the Iskanders. If they manage to give the first salvo.
    1. 30hgsa 24 November 2019 12: 00 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      It will not work there to defend with the help of aviation - the enemy has stupidly more aviation, more airfields, less average flight time. Therefore, air battles as well as the fleet do not make sense. It is possible and necessary to defend the Baltic with coastal complexes and tank divisions at the border :) For we can still ride a tank wave under the nuclear weapons and occupy the fleet bases and airfields. But to fight by the fleet or to gain superiority in the air - no :)
      1. voyaka uh 24 November 2019 12: 34 New
        • 7
        • 1
        +6
        "coastal complexes and tank divisions on the border :)" ////
        ----
        I have doubts ... Tank divisions quietly advanced until the era of precision weapons in aviation.
        Aircraft have learned to confidently (not a bundle of NUR, but SD aiming) get into moving tanks only from the 80s.
        Today, without eliminating the air supremacy of the enemy, it is impossible to bring tanks into battle - they will be greatly thinned from the air before entering the battle.
        Everything in flexible defense comes down to aviation. Not to air defense, coastal missiles, etc. - these are passive measures.
        1. 30hgsa 24 November 2019 12: 37 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Dominance in the air is eliminated by the use of tactical nuclear weapons at aerodromes. We cannot win air superiority over Europe with our aircraft - we have much less of it. Therefore, aviation does not make sense as the main means of warfare in Europe. The only effective means in which we have superiority are tanks and fuel dispensers. Coastal complexes - a passive measure, which however will not allow just to land an assault.
          1. voyaka uh 24 November 2019 12: 46 New
            • 7
            • 2
            +5
            War with the use of nuclear weapons is difficult to predict. The uncertainty factor is very large.
            And I do not consider it.
            More or less, something can only be counted in a conventional war.
            In it, the Americans have a very definite (and true) principle: do not start ground operations until gaining air supremacy.
            For this reason, having foiled this dominance, the Russian army will also frustrate ground operations. That is, the war will come down to a border draw and peace talks.
            1. 30hgsa 24 November 2019 12: 49 New
              • 6
              • 1
              +5
              And there will be no other war with NATO countries. Or not at all. And it makes no sense to consider any other war in the Baltic. There is only NATO and stubborn neutrals. The choice between a limited nuclear war in Europe / global nuclear conflict. It makes no sense to consider a non-nuclear conflict with Poland itself.

              As for air supremacy ... the Polish Air Force + Germany + Britain - under four hundred only fighters of the 4th and 5th generation. Add what tightened mattresses. How will you win superiority? Where do you get so many cars from?
              1. voyaka uh 24 November 2019 13: 15 New
                • 5
                • 1
                +4
                There are few cars. Because, the budget is wasted on passive defense and on a huge assortment of aircraft, but each one comes out in small quantities. If you focus on the fighters for gaining dominance in the air, the Su-57 and Su-35 and on the fighter-bomber Su-30, this will cool the potential aggressor more than the S-400 batteries. Which is not so difficult to deceive by means of electronic warfare and pass.
                1. 30hgsa 24 November 2019 13: 18 New
                  • 4
                  • 0
                  +4
                  Any additional deployed APs of ours will be easily countered by the movement of aircraft mattresses to their bases in Europe. They have only F-16s and only a thousand in the Air Force.
                  To get involved in the conventional arms race, you need to have an economy at least comparable to the economy of the enemy. We don’t have one.
  • 30hgsa 24 November 2019 11: 55 New
    • 7
    • 2
    +5
    A big war in the Baltic is currently impossible. The Great War is a global conflict using all types of weapons. The fleet in the Baltic will not play any role in it. PU KR in the Kaliningrad region - will play, but the fleet - no. Again, we don’t need to protect the enclave with the fleet - there, either we will break through Lithuania with tanks, or the enclave will inevitably fall. And any fleet will block the NATO fleet and aircraft in the region. That, if that Germany is at hand.

    Small war is also impossible in the Baltic. There are all countries or NATO members or staunch neutrals, such as Finnish.

    So why invest in the Baltic Fleet if we do not have the Northern Fleet, Pacific Fleet, and the Black Sea Fleet? This is a spray of power on an unnecessary theater. It is necessary at the moment to do what we really can - raise the Black Sea Fleet, at the expense of frigates / corvettes / dpl, and build a nuclear submarine, deploying production capacities for the production of ships of the ocean zone for Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet.

    As for minesweepers ... and who will let you mine mines in the Baltic? There on the left and on the right are the airfields of our strategic partners.

    Therefore, all that is needed in the Baltic right now is the PSKR and a powerful coastal defense in the form of a bit of aviation and mainly coastal complexes. And so the main shield of the Baltic is motorized riflemen and tankers, who can reach the fleet bases and enemy airfields, only the union Belarus is not eager to let them go to the borders :(
    1. LeonidL 27 November 2019 05: 37 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Common Thought!
  • demiurg 24 November 2019 11: 56 New
    • 10
    • 3
    +7
    Brilliant idea to mine the Baltic Sea. Brilliant, I would say.
    1. Any NATO country finds a mine can delivered by Russian microminsags.
    2. “Absolutely by accident” a ferry / cruise ship passes through the mines.
    3. The entire Internet is filled with photos of the bodies of children and women in burnt life jackets, in fuel oil, with pecked eyes.
    4. With a clear conscience, an international tribunal may be convened.


    Even a “cheap” minesweeper or RCA is tens of millions of bucks + crew. Highly specialized, and not all-weather products. Plus, the lack of air defense as such, any meeting with any enemy aircraft is fatal. And this, again, the headlines in the newspapers, "another minzag has been sunk today," ___ Russian sailors perished. And a beautiful video of the flight of Maiverik or Hellfire, with spectacular badabum at the end.
    99% of the KBF tasks are solved by aviation and coastal units. No fleet will save Kaliningrad from Polish aggression.

    Behind who the sky will be on the sea, that will be the Baltic. And no matter what kind of fleet anyone has. Just 41 years old, it was very clearly shown. There were minesweepers for minesweeping, but they could not mow. As well as hiking submarines. There was no aircraft for cover.

    The fleet will carry out miserable work in any conflict in the Baltic. Any ship without air defense will be demolished. Any ship with sane air defense is very expensive, and still it will not last long against massive air raids. I repeat, aviation and AWACS / RTR will decide.
    1. 30hgsa 24 November 2019 12: 05 New
      • 2
      • 6
      -4
      Tamanians and Kantemirovs will decide :) In case of war, breaking through the Baltic states and Suvalki corridor to the fleet and aviation bases in Poland and Germany :) Aviation in Europe will not be able to - the region is too saturated with aviation and NATO air defense.
      1. demiurg 24 November 2019 12: 21 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        There will be no war with Poland, let alone with Germany.
        Firstly, these are NATO countries.
        Germany can’t fight in the next 20-30 years with Russia. Gas from the North Sea ends. The American will simply kill not only the economy, but more importantly the standard of living of Europeans.
        so gritting our teeth from fierce love for each other we will be friends.
        And Poland without NATO cannot be corny. Of the three submarines in the sea, only one can go. Whether it can sink and then emerge is a moot point. Both mega-units, although scrap, but without rockets. The rest of the fleet is from the 70s of the USSR. Air Force at the level of the 90s. Su-17 and MiG-29 without major upgrades. AWACS and RTR no.
        United extinctions for any significant provocation have no strength, no means.
        The remaining Baltic countries, in principle, do not want to fight with us.
        1. Lopatov 24 November 2019 12: 56 New
          • 6
          • 4
          +2
          Quote: demiurg
          And Poland without NATO cannot be corny.

          Not a fact, not a fact at all ...
          1. demiurg 24 November 2019 14: 29 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Quote: Spade

            Not a fact, not a fact at all ...

            Be able to start hostilities. It is unlikely to get out of the conflict without catastrophic losses. PTRC quickly, decisively destroy the energy and economy of the Polish state. The Kaliningrad division will be enough for all power plants and large substations, electric and gas pumping. Letting oil change in. Then amuse yourself by letting KR down the bridges and government buildings.
            1. Lopatov 24 November 2019 14: 37 New
              • 4
              • 3
              +1
              Quote: demiurg
              It is unlikely to get out of the conflict without catastrophic losses.

              Georgia succeeded.

              Quote: demiurg
              PTRC quickly, decisively destroy the energy and economy of the Polish state.

              They can’t. They will be "carried out" by artillery long before the moment when they can play a tangible role.
              1. bk0010 24 November 2019 18: 08 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                Quote: Spade
                Georgia succeeded.
                Hence the ideas about the "country of kamikaze." It was necessary at least to crucify Saakashvili. If the patient understands that he, if something happens, will arrange Dresden, then there will be no one who wants to play the role of kamikaze.
                1. Lopatov 24 November 2019 18: 23 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Quote: bk0010
                  Hence the ideas about the "country of kamikaze."

                  That's the whole point.
                  In the gateway, "souls of beautiful impulses" do not understand. And rather mistaken for weakness.

                  According to modern Georgians, "Russia provoked the evil Saakashvili and attacked, after which it was stopped by the allies of Georgia, the United States and NATO."
                2. Octopus 24 November 2019 19: 01 New
                  • 2
                  • 3
                  -1
                  Quote: bk0010
                  If the patient understands that he, if something happens, will arrange Dresden, then there will be no one who wants to play the role of kamikaze.

                  In fact, how a small but proud country should behave in such a situation has long been known.
                  Act Three.
                  July 1940 of the year.

                  Germany. Hey, little lilac ...

                  Switzerland (correcting). Independent State Swiss Confederation.

                  Germany. In short. Will you give up?

                  Switzerland. No.

                  Germany. Why?

                  Switzerland. We can not.

                  Germany. Everyone can, but you can’t?

                  Switzerland. We have a federation. And decentralization.

                  Germany. AND?

                  Switzerland. Under our laws, the government cannot decide on surrender.

                  Germany. What about the president?

                  Switzerland. And the president cannot.

                  Germany. And who can?

                  Switzerland. None. We somehow did not think about it.

                  France (half-strangled). And so it was possible?

                  Germany. Switzerland, you hesitated.

                  Switzerland (modestly). I am trying.

                  Germany. Well then, I’m you ... Togo ...

                  Switzerland (interrupting). Italy will be one.

                  Germany. Fool! I will capture you. I have an operation plan ready.

                  Switzerland (taking out a notebook). Me too.

                  (Switzerland is launching the Redoubt plan: bridges and tunnels are being mined, fortifications are being built in the mountains, the army and the fully armed population are ready to defend themselves to the last bullet)

                  Germany (softly). Switzerland, I'm sorry to upset you, but I’ll capture you anyway. Just now, not in two days, but in three.

                  Switzerland (waving notebook). Three and a half. I counted everything.

                  Germany. What `s next?

                  Switzerland. And then we will blow up the roads and tunnels, go into the mountains and grind your army for years.

                  France (sad). And what, and so could it be?


                  Unfortunately, now only the same Switzerland and Israel know about such methods, in part.
                  1. bk0010 24 November 2019 19: 32 New
                    • 5
                    • 1
                    +4
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Switzerland. And then we will blow up the roads and tunnels, go into the mountains and grind your army for years.
                    What years? Who will sit there? They will burn everything on the plains, they will not let them harvest - in a year, the reserves will run out and all (well, almost all) will die of starvation in the mountains.
                    1. Octopus 24 November 2019 19: 43 New
                      • 2
                      • 3
                      -1
                      Quote: bk0010
                      after a year, the reserves will run out and all (well, almost all) will die of starvation in the mountains.

                      Do the letters CHRI say anything?
                      1. bk0010 24 November 2019 23: 48 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Yes. Does your last name Ermolov say anything?
                      2. Octopus 24 November 2019 23: 59 New
                        • 2
                        • 3
                        -1
                        Quote: bk0010
                        Does your last name Ermolov say anything?

                        Well, making 50 years of guerrilla warfare, as under Yermolov, is still unrealistic. But 10 years was literally just recently. And in that case, everyone was more or less agree that what is happening is an internal affair of the Russian Federation, and you propose to genocide a foreign state, it seems.
                      3. bk0010 25 November 2019 18: 28 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        It seems that the conversation was about how Hitler could deal with Switzerland ...
                      4. Octopus 26 November 2019 01: 20 New
                        • 1
                        • 2
                        -1
                        Quote: bk0010
                        Hitler could deal with Switzerland ...

                        Genocide ethnic Germans?
                      5. bk0010 26 November 2019 12: 35 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Well, they didn’t want the Reich.
                      6. Octopus 26 November 2019 12: 59 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        So what? Does that make them less Aryan?
                      7. bk0010 26 November 2019 13: 00 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Worse. Traitors.
  • timokhin-aa 24 November 2019 18: 26 New
    • 2
    • 5
    -3
    Be able to start hostilities. Unlikely to get out of the conflict without catastrophic losses


    Have you read the article you are commenting on?
    1. demiurg 24 November 2019 18: 57 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Read. And I did not understand how small boats without air defense and submarines can stop the Polish tanks.
  • alstr 24 November 2019 12: 35 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    By the way, the Encanders very easily drop the bridge from Denmark to Sweden and shipping will be closed for a long time to the Baltic. And all that is Baltic is drowned by the Air Force from both sides.
  • Vadmir 24 November 2019 15: 39 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Any NATO country finds a mine can delivered by Russian microminsags.
    Actually, you can find a mine even if Russia doesn’t put it, and then, you’re right,
    3. The entire Internet is filled with photos of the bodies of children and women in burnt life jackets, in fuel oil, with pecked eyes.
    4. With a clear conscience, an international tribunal may be convened.
    And the downed Boeing in the Donbass is proof of this.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • malyvalv 24 November 2019 12: 29 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    For warfare in the Baltic, given the distance, aviation is primarily important. The Kaliningrad region is militarily nothing more than an "unsinkable" aircraft carrier.
    If we can gain air superiority over the Baltic, then no adversary fleet will be scary. It is also true that if we cannot gain superiority in the air, then our fleet and nose will not stick out of the bases and will fight off the enemy with local air defense. And here the fleet structure is by and large not so important. The actions of the fleet will in any case be secondary in nature.
    Although it should be noted the importance of the presence in the right amount of small ships of "hunters" and minesweepers to stop the "partisan" actions of the enemy in a mine war.
  • Hikaro 24 November 2019 12: 54 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    The army of the Baltic states is mainly for guerrilla sabotage! Suval border or corridor a place well known and NATO! Accordingly, there will be no easy breakthrough! Had a conversation with the Polish military, in Poland they know the danger of a breakthrough and are ready for this! The article focuses on the naval component in a potential war, while the result will depend on the ground component of the group, including the airborne forces. And yes, any military actions in this region will cause both an economic catastrophe and rapid development into an exchange of nuclear weapons strikes, which will follow, I think everyone understands!
    1. LeonidL 27 November 2019 05: 40 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Poland is always ready for anything ... only the results are always not very good for it.
  • Private-K 24 November 2019 13: 24 New
    • 3
    • 5
    -2
    Good article.
    Only some points are missing.
    1st: the energy dependence of these same European countries on the Russian Federation. The European elite controlling the energy systems of Germany, Benelux and Scandinavia will strongly oppose the "military unrest" in the Baltic. This fact dramatically and fundamentally reduces at least some military conflict in the region.
    2nd, either I read poorly, or the author did not pay any attention to the issues of sabotage and counter-sabotage. That is, the Baltic is exactly the place where those acquire increased importance. For example, diversion - damage to the gas pipeline (interested in the United States, Britain). Diversions on the Navy, in ports, and other infrastructure facilities are potentially interested in all parties. Subversive actions are relatively low in human and resource costs, and can lead to results that seriously change the situation and even to strategic actions.
    3rd - mine weapons cost money and not small ones. And just throwing hundreds and hundreds of mines is unlikely to be a resource-efficient occupation. Moreover, the Russian Federation with Mormins is not the best situation. (Not to mention the fact that Mormina’s weapons are not selective and can launch a steamboat with civilians - a fierce PR effect. But mine complexes - minesweeping, constant surveillance and reconnaissance - should be developed.
    4th. Like it or not, coastal aviation reliably "shoots" the Baltic Sea up and down. Anyone who is able to organize air supremacy over the Baltic Sea or prevent his opponent from conquering it will control the general situation. For no one will let the boats into battle knowing that they can be quickly and with a high guarantee sent to the bottom of airplanes and helicopters, etc. ... Attack air regiment, fighter air regiment, UHV umbrella (especially long-range S-400), helicopter submarine squadron, squadron of minesweepers, naval attack helicopter squadron ... A reliable set of means for controlling water space ... Well, it is very doubtful, that someone will get into trouble.
    5th. Small submarines with VNEU it is good. But is it really necessary? Dear thing - will it pay off? IMHO, confine yourself to the BF of the 8-10th Corvette class NK (from 700 to 1500 tons, 1-2 percussion, 1-2 PVO-PRO, 2-3 PLO-MF, 3-5 multifunctional MFs), some airborne subversive sea and landing means - enough for the coming decades. And there it will be seen.

    Threat After about 20 years, Sweden will begin a sharp decline and will not be able to do anything in the region. By the way.
  • g1v2 24 November 2019 13: 26 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    I AGREE WITH SOMETHING. BUT WITH MUCH NO.
    1. There is no talk of any limited war in the Baltic. There are two neutrals that NATO countries will certainly not be fighting alone. That is, the war against Poland = the war against NATO. Accordingly, in the event of an attack on Kaliningrad, the Balts will have to be swept away, not even paying attention to what they say. What they say is not interesting to anyone. I don’t even consider the option of a war with a single country of NATO - it is not real.
    2. With Belarus, an extremely muddy story. There is a significant share of probability. that in case of war, the Old Man will declare neutrality. As he recently stated. that Belarus was constantly forced to participate in other people's wars. So the main blow should be through Lithuania and Latvia. And such a development should be considered the main one.
    Again, one must be prepared in the event of Luke's betrayal to carry out a coup and troop deployment in the Republic of Belarus.
    3. The tasks of our fleet in the Baltic should be as follows.
    and. Be prepared to lock the Baltics from the inside, preventing the enemy from transferring significant forces to the theater of operations. To do this, you must be able to block the Danish Straits and the Kiel Canal. To bring down bridges, locks with missile strikes and arrange remote mining with an attack by minesweepers of the enemy with aviation and PCR. Mine stocks and well-developed mining schemes are needed. Plus, strengthening aviation in Kaliningrad.
    b. Defense of the Kaliningrad fortified area. 11 The corps is subordinate to the fleet, the fleet is fully responsible for the defense of Kaliningrad and the escort of convoys to the mainland. Accordingly, corvettes 20380 will contribute to the defense of enemy aircraft from the sea and will escort convoys.
    at. Protection of St. Petersburg and Kronstadt from the sea. Peter is seriously fortified and can be strengthened by land, for the fleet this task is not the main one.
    The complete blockade of the Baltic States from the sea and the prevention of any reinforcements and supplies to the sea.
    e. The complete cessation of shipping to enemy ports in the Baltic and the deployment of an air defense zone in the region. MRK, missile boats and corvettes will cope with aviation.
    e. Prevention of serious mining by the adversary of our communications. As well as the constant trawling of the water areas of the bases. Pieces 6 Alexandrites (3 each in Kronstadt and Baltiysk) are a necessity.
    g. Destruction of the fleets of NATO countries in the Baltic. Given that the Polish fleet can be attacked directly from the pier or from the coast, the war should begin with its destruction. You can pre-mine some objects and zones with saboteurs and remote mining. In general, the Polish fleet should cease to exist as a combat unit on the very first day of the war. Next, the attack of the German fleet and the Baltic armada onyx and x35.
    h. It is necessary to do what the Baltic Fleet was supposed to do in World War II, but did not. Constantly attack the coast of the enemy. Hamburg, Copenhagen, Gdansk, Klaipeda, Riga, Tallinn, Liepaja must lose any industrial significance and all critical infrastructure. Again, terminals for receiving LNG in Lithuania and Poland can be attacked immediately or even captured. They are expensive and helpful. If that - you can bang them.
    In my opinion, in the very first weeks of World War II, the Baltic Fleet was not supposed to be in Tallinn, but turned into ruins of Helsinki. Even with the threat of big losses. It is stupidly located on the opposite side of the bay. Such actions would certainly ease the situation later on the Karelian front. Or maybe they would have forced the Finnish side to negotiate.
    Well, and accordingly, in terms of cash. My IMHO. 6 corvettes are or are under construction. In my opinion, the MPK 1331 should be changed to 2038x 1k1 corvettes. MRK of old projects and missile boats to Karakurt. Total pieces 12 corvettes 2038x and pieces 12-18 mrk. I agree with the submarines - you need something like Piranhas or Amurov 950 for 4 torpedo tubes - 6 pieces. Also, over time, instead of Sarych and 2 11540 - 3 frigates 22350. For everything about all of them enough. Well, as I said, 6 pieces of Alexandrites - 3 per base. Plus replacement of old BDKs with new ones - 1k1. request hi
    1. Avior 24 November 2019 15: 50 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      . I don’t even consider the option of a war with a single country of NATO - it is not real.

      Limited conflict? Why not real?
      One of the serious problems of entering the war in the West is to convince the population that war is needed.
      Vietnam has long taught this.
      And if you do as you suggested, the problem will be successfully resolved.
      1. g1v2 24 November 2019 18: 40 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        I can admit that some NATO countries such as Germany will not fulfill their obligations under Article 5 of the Charter. But I don’t absolutely believe that a country like Poland will commit suicide by attacking the second army of the world. The United States will not be able to stand aside, since there are their contingents there. An option with a kamikaze country is possible, but only in one case - if it is not a member of NATO. And we have a whole block of such countries - GUAM. But perhaps without Azerbaijan. The union of Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova is quite suitable for the role of kamikaze. But they have nothing to do with the Baltic - this is the Black Sea history.
        And as for the conviction of the population, the United States has already resolved this issue by dehumanizing the likely enemy. Serbs, Iraqis, us and so on. All these stories, from doping to Skripals and crying about homosexuals and other LGBT people, are precisely within the framework of this strategy.
        1. Avior 24 November 2019 19: 32 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          And what bothers you in such a hypothetical attack? World experience shows that such conflicts do not necessarily end in a big war.
          This may be a limited conflict at sea, for example, a blockade, under some pretext, it is clear that it is not the first one it encounters.
          And the fact that the second army, so we are talking about the forces at a particular theater of operations.
          And it will not be easy to transfer from other theaters, there will immediately be tension.
          And this could be a NATO country, especially if it does not affect land.
          I don’t see any suicide from Poland if the conflict is at sea
        2. Octopus 24 November 2019 19: 33 New
          • 2
          • 4
          -2
          Quote: g1v2
          The union of Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova is quite suitable for the role of kamikaze.

          Well, as for Moldova, there are 2 battalions of Russian soldiers without heavy weapons in a completely isolated theater of operations, plus 100500 instructions to remove them from there, including the UNGA resolution. If someone decides to enforce this GA resolution, then these battalions have zero options. Someone starting with the Romanian Armed Forces, 2, in fact 3 divisions.

          As for Ukraine and Georgia, there is no need to suicide them. Thanks Russian world There is a great option to aggravate without much risk, especially if it is guaranteed that the issue with 58A or 8GvA will be resolved in an extreme case. Guaranteed by a third party capable of actions of this magnitude, of course.
  • Zusul 24 November 2019 14: 05 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    The article seems to be well-painted, but somehow black and white at all. Actually extreme cases are considered and, frankly, very unlikely. Plus there is a stretch. For example, we were attacked by Poland (a NATO member), we are worried that we should not be disturbed by the retaliatory attack of the tribals (also NATO members). And there and there it is, in fact, a batch with NATO.
    Fleet renewal and a clear strategy are 100% necessary things, but you have to be realistic: where is the money, Zin? I doubt that it will turn out to be possible to take, and, like 70 years ago, a gigantic effort of forces to realize all the author’s proposals for the five-year period. The situation is not the same, people are not the same. Instead of a comfortable life, no one wants to tear the fifth point 18 hours a day for soldering for the sake of an ephemeral goal.
    It is easier and cheaper (and more logical in my opinion) to convince 200 percent of our sworn partners that a military conflict with any member of NATO will automatically mean delivering strategic attacks to all NATO members.
    And to convince not just with the words of the president on decision centers, but in the official doctrine of the use of nuclear weapons.
  • Vadmir 24 November 2019 14: 07 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    If necessary, to succeed with the help of curtains from their submarines, minefields, deploying fleet forces at a distance favorable for attack, and to ensure that forces of third countries do not pass through the Danish Straits.
    How can one prevent the passage of the forces of third countries if they do not fight with us? How can landmines and submarines, not to mention surface ships, block the territorial waters of the non-combatants of Denmark, Sweden, Finland, without starting a war with them? And through these same territorial waters you can go almost to St. Petersburg. And to establish a blockade between Finland and the Baltic states, however, you yourself wrote that the blockade can also be arranged in the Danish Straits themselves. Why even drag the fleet into the Baltic Sea - Poland can also be helped via land, and the communication with Kaliningrad can be interrupted by Polish barrel artillery and aircraft with Polish identification marks (Poland may increase the number of aircraft, and pilots with non-Polish names at the same time) . But aviation can either melt our large surface ships or force them to go under the air defense umbrella in Kronstadt. After all, our airfields in the Kaliningrad region are quite easy to disable in the first hours of the conflict, and it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to operate from the mainland of our aviation. So, no convoys will reach Kaliningrad.
    The only way to defend Kaliningrad is the escalation of the conflict in the Baltic states, with all the risks resulting from this, including the likelihood of a major war with all of NATO. But in my opinion, this probability is below 50%, since everyone understands that a big war can develop into a global nuclear war.
  • Vadmir 24 November 2019 14: 44 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The most logical for the Baltic seems to be the massive use of light forces as the main strike means, and slightly more powerful strike ships to protect them.
    I agree with your conclusion, but it contradicts the concept of ship unification you are promoting.
    In my opinion. ship unification is very good, especially from an economic point of view. And Americans have been on this path for a long time. But the US has oceans and the conditions for using the fleet are very similar. We have four very different potential marine theater of operations, not counting the Caspian.
    The shallow Baltic, as you correctly wrote, needs light forces that do not need high seaworthiness or autonomy.
    The warm Black Sea, where the fleet has some scope, but there is a need to go to the Mediterranean Sea. There is the problem of straits. Here you can’t get by with light forces, but the Carriers are useless, they won’t be released through the straits.
    The harsh North, with powerful storms, difficult ice conditions, but in fact, closed to the Atlantic. Here the MRC with corvettes will be extremely uncomfortable, not to mention the boats. But on the other hand, atomic cruisers with atomic destroyers are redundant.
    The huge Pacific Ocean with its typhoons and gigantic distances, and you also need to look into the Indian Ocean. Here, ships with a huge range and autonomy are needed, and this is best provided by nuclear reactors.
    So it turns out that we need four completely different fleets with different ships. And unification is contraindicated for us, despite all its economic attractiveness.
    1. timokhin-aa 24 November 2019 18: 30 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      I agree with your conclusion, but it contradicts the concept of ship unification you are promoting.


      In part, that's why I offer a cheap boat. Plus to normal and unified ships.
    2. Vladimir1155 24 November 2019 23: 40 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: Vadmir
      Carriers are useless, they will not be released through the straits.

      they will be completely released, they are not needed for another reason, there are no tasks.
      Quote: Vadmir
      The harsh North, with powerful storms, difficult ice conditions, but in fact, closed to the Atlantic. Here the MRC with corvettes will be extremely uncomfortable, not to mention the boats. But on the other hand, atomic cruisers with atomic destroyers are redundant.
      The huge Pacific Ocean with its typhoons and gigantic distances

      quite similar water areas by tasks and size of ships, 1st rank, nuclear submarines, 2nd rank of nuclear submarines, frigates (in tch 1155) BDK 3rd rank of Karakurt, minesweepers, That's all the required ship's crew, apart from the fact that there are old projects left (IPC corvettes cruiser) ..


      BF and CFL = Buyan M and minesweepers, MDK.
      PF = Karakurt submarines, Buyan M, minesweepers, BDK, MDK

      Quote: Vadmir
      you must look into the Indian Ocean.

      what for? although by the way one 1144 is enough for this, and even two of them remain
      1. Vadmir 25 November 2019 04: 42 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        1st rank, nuclear submarines, 2nd rank of nuclear submarines, frigates (including 1155) BDK 3rd rank of Karakurt, minesweepers, That's all the required ship
        So what can they oppose, say to the Japanese fleet? After all, the conflict for the Kuril Islands is quite possible. The Japanese Navy includes 38 destroyers, 4 helicopter destroyers, 6 frigates, 7 missile boats, 19 submarines and other minzags, minesweepers, and landing ships. And the proximity of Hokkaido to the South Kuril Islands also means the superiority of the Japanese Air Force in the air in this region. What tasks can your second ranks solve - to die heroically?
        In addition to the fact that there are old projects (IPC corvettes, cruisers).
        So they are already old. their resource is not infinite and modernization does not completely solve this problem, only briefly prolonging their inevitable decommissioning.
        BF and CFL = Buyan M and minesweepers, MDK.
        That is, air defense and anti-aircraft defense are not needed there at all?
        PF = Karakurt submarines, Buyan M, minesweepers, BDK, MDK
        Well, and what task can they accomplish? In this region, Turkey alone has 16 frigates, 8 corvettes and 16 submarines.
        what for? although by the way one 1144 is enough for this, and even two of them remain
        Then, that the Indian Ocean, the traditional zone of responsibility of the Pacific Fleet. But the project 1144 cruiser alone should act? There will not be two in the same fleet. And what problem will he be able to solve alone, except for “showing the flag”?
        they are not needed for another reason, there are no tasks.
        At least the air defense squadron. And in local conflicts, an aircraft carrier is the main striking force and a tool for projecting this same force.
        Or do you think that war can only be global? And only with the USA?
        1. Vladimir1155 25 November 2019 15: 08 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Vadmir
          The Japanese Navy includes 38 destroyers, 4 helicopter destroyers, 6 frigates, 7 missile boats, 19 submarines and other minzags, minesweepers, and landing ships. And the proximity of Hokkaido to the South Kuril Islands also means the superiority of the Japanese Air Force in the air in this region. What tasks can your second ranks solve - to die heroically?


          I have already written several times that the fleet must be urgently withdrawn from the Sea of ​​Japan, leaving there a couple of karakurt and a couple of minesweepers both in the Baltic and CFL. There are more ships of the third trang in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, and there is a dail there. All Pacific Fleet in Kamchatka only there he has a real task, namely access to the sea of ​​nuclear submarines, this is generally the only task of the Russian Navy! And as for Japan, it’s stupid to consider destroyers there, in the event of a conflict with Japan, a nuclear strike, including the forces of the Kamchatka nuclear submarines.
          Quote: Vadmir
          That is, air defense and anti-aircraft defense are not needed there at all?
          Yes, on CFL and BF air defense and PLO is provided by aviation, it needs to be developed!
          Quote: Vadmir
          Well, and what task can they accomplish? In this region, Turkey alone has 16 frigates, 8 corvettes and 16 submarines.
          They can carry out tasks in local conflicts, with limitrophies, work in Syria, and against 16 frigates, the Russian Federation does not have as many as 1155, only a nuclear core in the event of a conflict with NATO, and if we consider other weapons, it’s not ours benefit will turn out.
          Quote: Vadmir
          Then, that the Indian Ocean, the traditional zone of responsibility of the Pacific Fleet.
          what for? You didn’t answer my question in the same way, but you are broadcasting your stereotype in the “zones of responsibility”, Russia is not responsible for the Indian Ocean at all, and there is no need to answer for it.
          Quote: Vadmir
          At least the air defense squadron. And in local conflicts, an aircraft carrier is the main striking force and a tool for projecting this same force.
          Or do you think that war can only be global? And only with the USA?

          continue about responsibility in the Indian Ocean, again ..... why? I remember Paul first declared war on Spain, but the Spanish king wrote "it is useless our armies will never meet." so why? and what forces? having to us the whole country of 30 thousand tankers and infantry, where and why can Russia meddle? Does the Russian Federation have colonies that need to be protected? What kind of shipping protection can we talk about if all the trading partners of the Russian Federation are international multinational corporations controlled by the owners of the US Federal Reserve? Most likely, only one TNK Vangvard controlling 95 percent of world property, including at least half of the property in the Russian Federation? And by the way, explain what kind of ephemeral "air defense squadron" of which could the aircraft carrier Kuznetsov be able to carry out through his aircraft link, which is good time to sell to India or China? And where did you read on “projection of force” and “main impact force”, did this link of your aircraft with light load turn into your main force in your dreams? but okay a couple of links? And as for the "projection of force" ...... this pearl always mentally provokes a homeric laughter ....... in order to project it, you must first have it, and it doesn’t exist to project it further than 500 km from its borders. Yes and no, there is an ICBM
          1. Vadmir 25 November 2019 15: 31 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            And as for Japan, it’s stupid to consider destroyers there, in the event of a conflict with Japan, a nuclear strike, including the forces of the Kamchatka nuclear submarines.
            Do you really think that because of 3 small, almost uninhabited islets and a group of very tiny someone will strike a nuclear strike? Will his country be exposed to the risk of either total isolation and blockade, or in general the risk of a retaliatory nuclear strike from the allies of Japan? Having at stake the lives of millions?
            Why then do Russia need an army, aviation, navy - according to your logic, the entire defense budget should be spent only on nuclear weapons and anti-nuclear bunkers. I see no reason to comment on the rest - you still can’t prove anything, neither arguments nor facts will suffice.
            1. bk0010 25 November 2019 18: 32 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Not because of the islands, but for the attack on the Russian Federation. And yes, they will, no doubt
            2. Vladimir1155 25 November 2019 23: 12 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              According to the military doctrine of the Russian Federation, non-nuclear forces are designed for one local conflict at a distance of no more than 1500 km from the borders. Russia has officially stated that it will use strategic nuclear forces against any country that attacks the Russian Federation, including three “small" islands, but what if you can attack? and Russia will not begin to answer, it’s possible to go so far .... young man, this is not spillovers, but attacks on the territory of the country. conclusion, if Japan had only two destroyers, then it could count on a caliber defeat, and since Japan has a lot of strength, a clear nuclear response is obvious, and in Japan, the physical removal of the world map as such is forever, so they don’t attack
              1. Vadmir 25 November 2019 23: 39 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Russia has officially announced that it will use strategic nuclear forces against any country that attacks the Russian Federation, including three "small" islands
                Here is an excerpt from the military doctrine of Russia.
                27. The Russian Federation reserves the right to
                use nuclear weapons in response to use against them and
                (or) its allies nuclear and other types of weapons of mass
                defeat, as well as in case of aggression against the Russian
                Federation using conventional weapons, when at risk
                posed the very existence of the state
                .
                The decision on the use of nuclear weapons is made
                President of the Russian Federation.
                This is an official document. It is written in black and white when the very existence of the state is threatened. And here is the local border conflict in the Kuril Islands or Kaliningrad?
                1. Vladimir1155 26 November 2019 03: 05 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  an attack on the Kuril Islands and especially Kaliningrad is a threat to the existence of the state, do you really think differently, young man
  • xomaNN 24 November 2019 15: 32 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    It is more reasonable to strengthen the Kaliningrad enclave with air defense and ground-based missile systems, from Iskander to Ball, Bastion and aviation. And mobile escort forces to organize mainland delivery convoys of reinforcements.

    Let me remind you that during the Second World War, our enemy, Germany, having no ships on the Black Sea larger than schnellbots and BDB, but only aviation (not even sea) delivered many painful blows to a mighty Black Sea Fleet. Unfortunately am
  • rusboris 24 November 2019 17: 31 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Arguing hypothetically, the reason for the war between Russia and some NATO countries will be that the Baltic states or Poland receive from the states the task of creating unacceptable problems for Russia. In response, they will receive material and moral damage from the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. NATO, represented by Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States, is distancing itself from the “young Europeans” hit by the counter-preemptive strike and is loudly demanding a ceasefire from the parties to the conflict. At the same time, a complete sea blockade of Russia is being introduced. Where they cannot provide the blockade with force, sabotage and sabotage will be used. Such an event is inevitable and very unpleasant. Those who have shown aggression against Russian citizens, brigades of the armed forces of Poland, the Baltic states or Romania will fall under a massive strike of the airborne forces, short and medium-range missiles, multiple launch rocket systems, ships of the Baltic and Black Sea fleets. Sea blockade will have to endure. No Baltic Fleet forces will be enough to overcome it. Even the Baltic Fleet of the USSR was not enough. Therefore, one must confine oneself to the shock sufficiency formula of the naval group and select talented naval commanders, rather than courtiers. It is not worthwhile to rely on the new Admiral Makarov to command the Baltic Fleet at hour X.
    Therefore, the Baltic Fleet must be coastal. A counter-preemptive fire strike to the entire depth of the territory of the aggressor’s country and to all infrastructure related to the war, including the road network, must be from land and air.
    The military doctrine of the Russian Federation allows the use of nuclear weapons in two cases: in response to a nuclear attack and in response to the destruction of statehood. The Russian military and economic potential is not adapted to wage war on NATO for a long time. For example, more than two months. Then comes the threat of loss of statehood. Therefore, if the hostilities cannot be stopped under good conditions for a month, nuclear strikes must be carried out with low-power tactical munitions with air blasting. For humanitarian reasons, it is advisable to strike at naval bases or squads of ships at sea. For example, in the quiet, pretty port city of Gdynia. It is good if billboards of such content are posted in advance in the Kaliningrad region. "The Polish government decided to blockade and shell the Russian territory. We are asking the residents of Gdynia to urgently evacuate, in view of a possible nuclear strike at a naval base. We are sorry for the inconvenience."
    1. Avior 24 November 2019 19: 09 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      . The Russian military and economic potential is not adapted to wage war on NATO for a long time. For example, more than two months. Then comes the threat of loss of statehood.

      It is not clear what you base this conclusion on.
  • konst 24 November 2019 17: 46 New
    • 2
    • 6
    -4
    The whole essence of the position of Russia since 93 in its constitution. Understand it with truly knowledgeable lawyers. And when you understand, you will be horrified. And this is in the framework of the discussion of the topic. I wish you success!
  • Eskobar 24 November 2019 17: 51 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Su 34 with cranes under the wings would be ideally useful in this direction, just the displacement of the ships of the kamikaze countries allows them to be drowned with this product
  • faterdom 24 November 2019 18: 33 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    In case of accidental hit by a Polish shell in the Kaliningrad region, Kim Jong-un should return a hit in Okinawa and Tokyo.
    1. Avior 24 November 2019 19: 08 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Eun why is it?
  • Bear040 24 November 2019 19: 23 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    The fact that the Baltic and not only the fleet needs to be strengthened and completely updated by minesweepers is clear to any thinking person ... I see the strengthening of the Baltic fleet in corvettes 20385 and frigates 22350 as the flagships of the fleet units .... As for the reaction of the Russian Federation to the attack from third countries with I don’t agree with the author ... A limited blow to the enemy by the Russian Federation will not help to avoid anti-Russian sanctions and hype in the press, where the Russian Federation will be blamed for all sins ... A large-scale blow to the country - the aggressor from the Russian side will lead to those who want to fight with the Russian Federation among puppets of Washington it will become less, if only because the kings sitting in countries like Estonia are afraid to lose their independence and throne ...
  • faterdom 24 November 2019 19: 29 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Avior
    Eun why is it?

    Well, then it makes much more sense to this than the Poles to bombard the territory of Russia. And so - there seems to be no relationship, but in reality, in such situations, the Poles would have changed their minds unambiguously, although it seems to be what they care about Okinawa. As old Macron says, “the brain is dead,” so I don’t see the connection here myself. But I'm sure it will work!
  • bandabas 24 November 2019 19: 35 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Pearl "couch expert." If yes, if only.
  • ss-n-22 24 November 2019 20: 04 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    since 1992 - from the date of delivery of the EM 956 "Persistent" project in the Baltic Sea, they did not shoot winged ammunition. I’m not talking about launching an RM from any Monsoon, so that a 128-man brigade would fire at a non-maneuvering missile, traveling at subsonic speed parallel to the order of the ships at an altitude of 300 meters. I'm talking about shooting 3M82 on the shield. With the loss of the Liepaja range, there were no such firing. Since 1992 Further - at 11540 SU "Uranus" stands and has a full-time position of the KBKR since 1990. And at 1135, "Ardent" instead of the nasal RBU. It is another matter that the Unfrightened will not return to duty. Like Persistent.
  • Vladimir1155 24 November 2019 20: 10 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Alexander Timokhin is right that it is necessary to develop mine-sweeping forces, Finland and Poland have relied on them. Timokhin objectively argues that the Baltic Fleet has no chance, but instead of the obvious conclusion that all corvettes, frigates and submarines need to be transferred to the oceans, where they are needed, where they are able to fight and where they have the most important task of securing nuclear submarines .... .. instead, Timokhin is spreading in empty dreams of Millions of Battleships plowing the vast expanses of a tiny water area ... Strategically, it is necessary to develop submarines, with minesweepers, land-based and land-based means. A BF and CFL reduced to a pair of Buyanov M with minesweepers.
    1. Lopatov 24 November 2019 23: 14 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Quote: vladimir1155
      A BF and CFL reduced to a pair of Buyanov M with minesweepers.

      Then, in the case of the slightest mess, Kaliningrad must be surrendered. Do not “leave”, but “surrender”, because the evacuation of troops is impossible.
      From such pies.
      1. Vladimir1155 24 November 2019 23: 28 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: Spade
        Quote: vladimir1155
        A BF and CFL reduced to a pair of Buyanov M with minesweepers.

        Then, in the case of the slightest mess, Kaliningrad must be surrendered. Do not “leave”, but “surrender”, because the evacuation of troops is impossible.
        From such pies.

        Well, firstly, the troops are not for evacuation, but are intended for defense and offensive, and secondly, how many do not strengthen the fleet .... anyway
        Quote: Spade
        the evacuation of troops is impossible.
        . Thirdly, in the event of a conflict with NATO, the most effective is the de-occupation of the Baltic states and the creation of rail links. fourthly, you can always throw something along the rivers with the Black Sea Fleet and the Northern Fleet.
        1. Vadmir 25 November 2019 04: 47 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          fourthly, you can always throw something along the rivers with the Black Sea Fleet and the Northern Fleet.
          Can you imagine how long it will take? Yes, and you can throw only Buyan M in which neither air defense, nor even PLO.
          1. Vladimir1155 25 November 2019 14: 38 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Vadmir
            you can throw only Buyan M in which neither air defense, nor even PLO.

            well, Karakurt, too, and minesweepers follow GDP, and air defense and anti-aircraft missile defense in such a shallow sea can be entrusted to aviation, it’s easier to throw it over, so it needs to be built, and not unnecessary slow-moving surface ships, they generally need to be stopped, except for minesweepers
    2. LeonidL 27 November 2019 05: 49 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Mine-and-mine forces are necessary for mine-and-mine operations to ensure access to the operational space of warships ... if above-water, then in the event of a global conflict (I just don't see otherwise) they will be instantly destroyed, if the submarine is in the Baltic for modern boats small and this also threatens with rapid destruction. Then it’s easier to launch “Gauges” and stuff just from the berths or from the water area of ​​the Markozova Puddle.
  • FomaKinyaev 24 November 2019 23: 21 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Perhaps the question is out of place, but if you dream ... was it appropriate to use the ekranoplanes that were not created in the USSR at this theater? I understand that there is no operational experience, from which follows the tactics of their application, but still if you think about the strike and landing groups based on such machines?
    1. bk0010 24 November 2019 23: 53 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: FomaKinyaev
      Perhaps the question is out of place, but if you dream ... was it appropriate to use the ekranoplanes that were not created in the USSR at this theater?
      It is hardly appropriate: expensive, and often storms in the Baltic.
      1. FomaKinyaev 25 November 2019 14: 03 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        5-6 points is often?
    2. Izotovp 25 November 2019 05: 29 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      An analysis of the Baltic Sea regarding the use of ekranoplanes has already been carried out and the conclusion is unequivocal: not suitable.
      1. FomaKinyaev 25 November 2019 13: 59 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Share a link to the material?
        1. Izotovp 25 November 2019 16: 01 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          So, from memory, no. There was too much material. Excuse me.
  • Whisper 25 November 2019 02: 11 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I thank Alexander for the interesting material! How complicated everything is in this world!
  • Izotovp 25 November 2019 05: 28 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    It turns out that it is necessary to withdraw from conservation and saturate the region with Tu-22 aircraft. For them, just a theater.
    It is strange that the question of hydroaviation is not raised at all.
    In the Baltic, the place is also unmanned boats. In the version of hunters for submarines, minesweepers and mine-layers.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Rzzz 25 November 2019 15: 09 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    A ship 42 meters long cannot be "inconspicuous in the radar range." It shines for 40 miles on the navigation radar, and on the observation or sighting radar - generally on the whole sea. At full speed, the hydroacoustics of half the sea will hear him.
    1. Avior 25 November 2019 16: 08 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      There may be a bit of a problem with this.
      Earth, it is not flat.
      1. Rzzz 25 November 2019 20: 36 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Not flat yes. But antennas are specially put higher. Plus more refraction. An ordinary steamboat 100 meters long is drawn on a typical navigation radar for 25-30 miles with an antenna height of 15 m from the water and a transmitter of 10 kW.
        1. Avior 25 November 2019 23: 19 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          radio horizon (km) = 4,11 * √ radar antenna height (m)
          hi
          1. Rzzz 25 November 2019 23: 50 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Well, everything turns out according to this formula. Plus refraction add, it is significant in the X-band
            1. Avior 26 November 2019 00: 11 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              the formula takes this into account.
              in the optical range, instead of a coefficient of 4,1, you need to take 3,6.
              and keep in mind that the target also has a height
              target visibility range (km) = 4,11 * (√ radar antenna height (m) + √ target height (m))
  • The comment was deleted.
  • LeonidL 27 November 2019 04: 13 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    The ban is over. Alas, a lot of the ridiculous of works on the naval theme of Mr. Timokhin unfortunately remained without proper comments. But here is a new, fresh one. So: “The Gulf of Finland can be very quickly blocked by the laying of minefields, which will cut off Northwest Russia from sea lanes. This will become an economic disaster for the country as a whole.” It was already in the Second World War and ended tragically for the submarine, today the situation is even worse, but ... does Mr. Timokhin deign to think that the installation of minefields will be unnoticed by the forces and means of the Defense Ministry and Navy? And if the buddha is noticed, then this will instantly cause a chain reaction of instant reaction, and not with the ships and planes of the Baltic Fleet, but with solid nuclear weapons. This is not a joke and there will be no other “threatening”, “proactive” mlm other pre-war period, not at that time. Now the countdown is in seconds. Any mine setting will work as a trigger without a reverse stroke. So what kind of "economic disaster for the country as a whole" can we talk about? Moreover, laying mines would first of all hit the flimsy economies of the Limitrophs, and not the Russian economy, which is little dependent on the Baltic Sea and has huge land reserves. Will supplies stop? so during the war they are already more than doubtful if they really set mines. That is, absurdity, as always, is visible from the first lines.
  • LeonidL 27 November 2019 04: 24 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Op-pa - the new pearl! "The lines connecting the Kaliningrad region with the rest of Russia are thus critical sea lanes that must remain free under absolutely any circumstances." Again, a game of naval battles on the fields of a computer. If it came to war, then how much easier it is to break through the Suvalkov’s corridor by land, rather than invent ridiculous theories for naval battles. Further comment - in vain fingers erase. The conclusion is self-evident - Mr. Timokhin is really looking forward to the fact that the Russian Federation would tear the military budget to the ships of past wars, the tattered budget would, naturally, allocate funds for social programs, for innovative projects, for the construction of really new and necessary weapons, weapons aimed at puff, and to deter the likelihood of even doing it, start bang-bang for inadequate personalities around the world. This is the essence of the military policy of the Russian Federation, its doctrine. In general, Timokhin should do more self-education, not on foreign examples, but on domestic ones, including the Second World War. However, there is a very serious suspicion that, like Rezun, Navalny and other things, Mr. Timokhin has goals that are very far from the declared and pulling roots from the Soros bar. By the way, those who recklessly get involved in discussions and demonstrate their military knowledge flaunting in front of audiences should be more careful. “Chatterbox he is a find ...” And here is the result - the first comment has already been carefully deleted!
  • Sunstorm 27 November 2019 18: 23 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Once again, they convince us to build the Baltic Fleet and the Black Sea .... And the first and second are blocked for two times ... Moreover, both will have to fight against superior naval, air and ground forces. But wait, we have a huge coastline in the North ... and the permafrost is melting ... there is still Quiet .... But no, let’s build again not what is needed and not where it is needed ... The eternal habit of “preparing for the last war”. A waste of time and resources. And Stalin would probably call such a waste "Wrecking."
    1. LeonidL 28 November 2019 05: 54 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      So I keep saying this, for which I was banned. Mr. Timokhin’s scientific and theoretical contribution to the treasury of Russian naval science is very doubtful. However, I think that this gentleman has nothing to do with science or the Navy.
  • V.I.F. 29 November 2019 15: 07 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    During the Second World War, the very small and consisting largely of mobilized civilian courts German-Finnish forces were able to effectively neutralize the disproportionately larger Baltic Fleet of the RKKF in the very first days of the war. The reason for this was the possession of the initiative and the pace of operations ahead of the enemy.

    I don’t understand why you ignore the German aviation? Ground parts? After all, it was these forces that led to the loss of the base, which was considered the main base of the Baltic Fleet at that time, and then during the Tallinn transition led to the loss by the Baltic Fleet of dozens of pennants. Well, they set up "mobilized civilian vessels" minefields in front of the Gulf of Finland, but if the base in Tallinn were preserved, this would not be critical. Well, they did not survive on land - the fleet went to St. Petersburg, where it was "sealed" by minefields in the bay, but if aviation superiority were ensured, the fences could quite easily be dismantled at the main fairways, under the cover of their aircraft. Thus, the main problem was not in owning the initiative (although this is important - I do not argue), but in ridiculous pre-war decisions on the construction of the fleet, namely, in insufficient aviation (than to build a "disproportionately large force" in the Baltic Fleet pennants - it was better to give him disproportionately more aviation) and in choosing a base for poorly held Tallinn. Everything else is a consequence of these miscalculations.
    1. rusboris 17 December 2019 11: 04 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Sea blockade will have to endure. No Baltic Fleet forces will be enough to overcome it. Even the Baltic Fleet of the USSR was not enough. Therefore, one must confine oneself to the shock sufficiency formula of the naval group and select talented naval commanders, rather than courtiers. It is not worthwhile to rely on the new Admiral Makarov to command the Baltic Fleet at hour X. Therefore, the Baltic Fleet must be coastal. A counter-preemptive fire strike to the entire depth of the territory of the aggressor’s country and to all infrastructure related to the war, including the road network, must be from land and air.
  • Aleksandr1971 25 December 2019 05: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Grandmas of Russia went to private yachts. https://topwar.ru/148420-20-jaht-rossijskih-milliarderov-prevoshodjat-po-stoimosti-voenno-morskoj-flot.html