I can find the individual strength levels for each NATO member. For example, Germany has 156 active tanks, 176 fighters, and 23 self-propelled artillery pieces, etc. (made up numbers for illustrative purposes). And to a substantially lesser extent, some very basic information about each state’s National Guard. But, where would I find a breakout for the combined NATO and Guard strength levels?

For example, NATO has 573 MBT, 883 fighter planes, and 38 frigates. Those are made up numbers but that is what I am looking for.

I’m curious, because In looking at each individual NATO country, I was surprised how small their militaries were, even for some of the larger countries. However, taking them as one country, they might look better but I didn’t want to make a spread sheet for every member.

Next, I wanted to omit the active components in the US and look at National Guard levels for the same reason and all I could find is each unit assigned to each states’ NGB.

At the end of the day, I was really wondering how the European members of NATO stacked up against Russia and then the US National Guard vs. Russia too. And yes, I know, that France is a loose cannon and Germany is playing hard to get right now. I’m just looking at theoretical strength levels nothing more - no geopolitical considerations.

Thoughts, suggestions, etc.

Thanks.

.

I think the "Coalitions Builder" tool on Global Firepower's website will help you pull together what you want. You can add in all of the NATO countries, or just those NATO countries that you think will fight for Ukraine if it comes to that. You can also add China and North Korea to Russia's side if you think they will join the fray.

www.GlobalFirePower.com

Their "Nations Index" and "Compare Powers" tools are rather helpful too.

Their Flash Point comparisons are insightful, but lack in terms of which countries would participate in a hot war. This is why the "Coalitions Builder" tool is what you want ~ you can create each side and the tool adds their military strength to the comparison.

As you consider just the numbers of each side, there are no indicators about the quality of the equipment, quality of the training, or willingness to fight.

.

Thanks you. This is helpful. And I agree on quality. For example, Poland is in the process of buying between 230-250 M1A2 tanks. For now T-72s and an upgraded model IIRC


I'm still looking for National Guard info.

quote:

Originally posted by BB61:
Thanks you...I'm still looking for National Guard info.

You're welcome, and I expect "Reserve Military Manpower" is the term used for National Guard. Maybe? I'm not entirely sure since that number for the US is 442,000 and I thought our National Guard was larger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...Guard_(United_States)

443k troop level.



https://prhome.defense.gov/Por...X0CAP_FoBxwmIg%3D%3D

Weapons systems



https://www.nationalguard.mil/...ture%20Statement.pdf

Air National Guard troop/weapons systems

Of the various graphical depictions floating around, these two might fit your purpose. They're both a couple years old, and Russian troop strength is currently stated as 900,000 active (plus two million reserves) vs. NATO's 3.3 million (active only), but the other individual numbers remain correct within a five-percent range or so.

Thanks again. SIGMonkey, well played!

Trouble is, you cannot really count Turkey as a NATO country any more. They will not show up.
Nor will Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc. The countries in the Eastern part of NATO have skin in the game, but you never know when they will decide to change sides -- Both Bulgaria and Romania switched sides in WWII when they saw which way the wind was blowing in 1944.

quote:

Originally posted by BansheeOne:
Of the various graphical depictions floating around, these two might fit your purpose. They're both a couple years old, and Russian troop strength is currently stated as 900,000 active (plus two million reserves) vs. NATO's 3.3 million (active only), but the other individual numbers remain correct within a five-percent range or so.

Jane's Military and Defense

Nice pic Sigmonkey.

You folks think politics cause a lot of family squabbles - you should see what happens with the RISK board finds its way to our dining room table.

quote:

Originally posted by RoverSig:
Trouble is, you cannot really count Turkey as a NATO country any more. They will not show up.
Nor will Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc. The countries in the Eastern part of NATO have skin in the game, but you never know when they will decide to change sides -- Both Bulgaria and Romania switched sides in WWII when they saw which way the wind was blowing in 1944.

Turkey need only show up at the Turkish border. Russia can't just concentrate all of its forces at one point, either; they're really good at major snap exercises, but it still has taken them months to surround Ukraine (which NATO isn't going to fight over anyway, since it's not a member) with 120,000 troops pulled in from all the way to Siberia.

That's about what NATO already has in Poland and the Baltic States, the line it really has to worry about. But the partners involved in Enhanced Forward Presence there can handle it. These are tripwire forces in each of those four frontline countries, lead by the US, UK, Germany and Canada respectively, with most everyone else contributing at some time or other.

They're designed specifically for allies to have some skin in the game; even though it's rather little skin to conform to the letter of the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act limiting deployments to Eastern Europe. And yes, that includes Spain and Portugal. Not indeed Turkey or Greece though, who spend most of their time watching each other.

My attention has just been directed to this somewhat older, but still pertinent article.

quote:

HOW DOES THE NEXT GREAT POWER CONFLICT PLAY OUT? LESSONS FROM A WARGAME

JAMES LACEY
APRIL 22, 2019
COMMENTARY

The United States can win World War III, but it’s going to be ugly and it better end quick, or everyone starts looking for the nuclear trigger.

That is the verdict of a Marine Corps War College wargame I organized that allowed students to fight a multiple great state conflict last week. To set the stage, the students were given an eight-year road-to-war, during which time Russia seized the Baltics and all of Ukraine. Consequently, the scenario starts with a surging Russia threatening Poland. Similar to 1939, Poland became the catalyst that finally focused NATO’s attention on the looming Russian threat, leading to a massing of both NATO and Russian forces on the new Eastern Front. China begins the scenario in the midst of a debt-related financial crisis and plans to use America’s distraction with Russia to grab Taiwan and focus popular discontent outward. And Kim Jong-un, ever the opportunist, decides that the time has arrived to unify the Korean peninsula under his rule. For purposes of the wargame, each of these events occurred simultaneously.

[...]

The fight in Poland was beyond brutal. By student estimates, the NATO forces lost over 60,000 men and women on the first day of the fight — shades of the Somme. The Poles, determined to hold as much of their national territory as possible, refused to fall back on the main NATO defense line and were severely handled. As the map below shows, U.S. Army divisions were initially set well back from the line as a counter-attacking force.

Despite the NATO commander’s best intent, it proved impossible to hold the American force together for one massive counter-strike. Due to unrelenting Russian pressure along the front, the American leadership was forced to disperse all its divisions to prop up wavering allies. Interestingly, this led to the third Battle of the Masurian Lakes or Tannenberg — the first being in 1410 and the second in 1914.

To stop the Russians, the NATO Commander was forced to employ 10th Mountain Division to prop up the battered Poles (white units on the map), while the 1st Cavalry and 1st Armored Divisions counter-attacked further south. The result was a bloodbath that left every Allied and Russia unit engaged gasping, with most suffering about 50 percent losses within a 72-hour period.

[...]

The high rate of loss in modern conventional combat challenged student paradigms ingrained by nearly two decades of counter-insurgency operations. In just the first week of the war, U.S. forces and their allies suffered over 150,000 losses (World War I levels of attrition) from the fighting in Poland, Korea, and Taiwan. For students, who have spent their entire military lives viewing the loss of a squad or a platoon as a military catastrophe, this led to a lot of discussion about what it would take to lead and inspire a force that is burning through multiple brigades a day, as well as a lengthy discussion on how long such combat intensity could be sustained.

[...]

https://warontherocks.com/2019...sons-from-a-wargame/

quote:

Originally posted by BansheeOne:
https://warontherocks.com/2019...sons-from-a-wargame/

That article was a fantastic read. Thank you for sharing!

The USA does not have the political will to engage in a war with 50%-60% losses. No way, no how.

Russia on the other hand? They have a long history of sacrificing their people for a cause.

I wonder if the Marines missed their tanks.

Interesting article. I wonder just how much they juiced the OPFOR stats.

Well they mentioned there was an eight-year runup (so probably from 2019 to 2027) in which Russia had already taken all of Ukraine and the Baltic States (apparently without NATO putting up a fight over the latter despite the aforementioned tripwire forces there*). Both sides also invested in new technologies like lasers and quantum computing. So it can be assumed the Russian forces improved both in quantity and quality over today.

* A possible scenario would of course be that Russia launched hard-to-counter hybrid warfare involving the substantial Russian minority in two of the three states, and/or the dreaded cold-start attack - their 76th Air Assault Division is based just 20 miles from the Estonian border in Pskov, and the Suwalki Gap between their heavily militarized exclave of Kaliningrad and friendly Belarus is only 40 across - and NATO was averse to risking escalation to nuclear war over three small hard-to-retake countries.

quote:

Originally posted by sleepla8er:


As you consider just the numbers of each side, there are no indicators about the quality of the equipment, quality of the training, or willingness to fight.

.

there is 'X Factor' involved

it's not the gear -- it's the combination of leadership, logistics, training, and equipment readiness.

extremely difficult just to count tanks, APCs, artillery pieces, etc and try to come up with an answer.

----------------------------------------

Idly tracking troop movements to bolster NATO's eastern flank against any spillovers from the Ukrainian crisis:

- The US is in the process of moving 4,700 (so probably a brigade combat team) from 82nd Airborne Division to Poland, and 300 command and control staff to Germany. 1,000 (a Stryker squadron) of 2nd Cavalry Regiment out of Vilseck, Germany are moving to Romania. Another 8,500 troops from XVIII Airborne Corps remain on alert to deploy.

- The UK is sending 850 to reinforce the NATO eFP battlegroup it leads in Estonia, essentially doubling its contribution. 350 Royal Marines from 45 Commando are headed to Poland, where a British light cavalry squadron of 150 is part of the US-led eFP battlegroup there and 100 Royal Engineers were deployed during last year's border crisis with Belarus.

- Germany is deploying 350 early who were planned to temporarily reinforce the eFP battlegroup it leads in Lithuania for regular exercises in May, providing critical capabilities the forces usually lack - mostly artillery, plus reconnaissance, NBC defense and some others. The Netherlands already decided in November to increase their contribution there from 270 to 350 this year.

- Haven't heard anything about Latvia, where Canada heads the local eFP battlegroup with contributions from Italy, Spain, Poland and others.

- NATO is about to officially agree on extension of the eFP scheme to the south-eastern partner countries. France, which so far has mostly contributed to the Estonian battlegroup, has already offered to run its own in Romania, to which it has historically close links.

- Incidentally, this year's Very High Readiness Joint Task Force of the NATO Response Force (about 5,000 ground troops, currently on five-day notice reduced from seven) is also led by France, so if they get activated in response to a Russian incursion into Ukraine, look for them to move to Romania, too.

- Other elements of the NATO Response Force to watch are last year's VJTF headed by Turkey, still on 30-day standby; and next year's headed by Germany, already on 45-day notice.

- Various small batches of aircraft zipping around: four US B-52s forward-deployed to Fairford, UK; six F-22s to Moron, Spain; eight F-15s to Lask, Poland; another eight to Fetesti, Romania; another six to Ämari, Estonia along with four Danish F-16s to Siauliai, Lithuania to back up NATO's regular Baltic Air Policing, regularly run by four each Belgian and Polish F-16s at the moment; three German Eurofighters joining four of their Italian counterparts for NATO Air Policing South at Mihail Kogalniceanu, Romania; and four Spanish Eurofighters going to Bulgaria.

- In the Mediterranean, three carrier groups centered around USS Harry S. Truman, French Charles de Gaulle and Italian Conte di Cavour recently conducted joint drills in NATO exercise "Neptune Strike"; Truman was the first US carrier to come under NATO command since the end of the Cold War for the occasion.

Overall, moderate reactions for the situation so far, more reflecting political reassurance for NATO's eastern members than actual worry that any of them would in fact be attacked in addition to, or instead of, Ukraine. Still, with 30,000 Russian troops conducting exercises in Belarus, next to actual NATO territory, you certainly wouldn't want any less.

(Edited to fix some numbers.)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BansheeOne,

I feel that the world puts up with the USA for a number of reasons. One being that we control the dollar. Two being, our military resources and capabilities. And three, being that the president changes every 4 or 8 years. They might not like the current president or his actions (or inactions) but we are sure to have a new leader in 4 or 8 years. All they have to do it wait. And hope for the best.

I think that we might not like Russia actions currently, and instead of WW3, it might be best to wait for the next Russian leader. Putin is 69 and will be gone in ten years or so. The next Russian leader might have more sense. Maybe. Maybe not. Just bulk up the NATO states, and wait it out. I highly doubt that Putin invades a NATO country. Not even Poland.

This sure does remind me of the German annexation of the Sudetenland in 1938. With the same exact justifications for doing so...

Another X factor to consider.

The DOD is not accurately reporting how mandatory vaccinations have increased soldier's medical issues across the board. The NG is affected where mandates were aggressively enforced. Categories such as reported myocarditis and many others have jumped by hundreds of percents. Not tens, hundreds.

Active duty is also underreporting the same.

Not a good time to be engaging in a conflict that appears in international news to only be a hot topic in our Administration.

It's being considered more a new topic to throw off attention from others than an actual risk by many other nations. A broader reading of military analysis would do all of us well.