About those hedgehogs. i am not actually an expert in military strategy or tactics..but it isnt that different from 1939. In my opinion those hedgehogs are just pockets waiting to be surrounded.. for 2-3 days they might do fine but after that they would be bypassed and surrounded. the problem is that in a day or two they would be largly out of fuel and immobile. So its bliztkrieg once again.. u have a highly mobile enemy against static polish defenses. it would be systematical. U just roabloack nearest polish  hedgehogs and concentrate max of yours force against one hedgehog( with russian manpower and heavy weapon supperiority they could do this in several places at the same time).  Blast it- move to he next one. While its possible that those hedgehogs could support each other with some sort of mixed artillery  and i dont know what. But without some sort of logistc lines they would soon be out shells( after several days they would be firing only in critical self defence needs not in support of other hedgehogs), spare parts ( leopard its not like T-34...u cant fix it with the hammer), fuel ( i dont think u can airdrop it?). Soviet ww2 could survive on very little supplies, modern divisions cant. It would look like gerogia with russian troops picking up abandoned tanks and guns on the road sides (broken, out of fuel). I am not sure i cant suggest anything better..probably just some form of elastic defenes with max SAM and aviation support for a quick local counter attacks..after that probably counter attacks with just SAM's ..after that with nothing.. Hedehogs would form naturally  in the final phase after no fuel or retreat paths were left.

Yes, all very good points, Nocturne. i think you are right; the hedgehog strategy would have to be combined with conventional warfare as well. However, the hedgehog system i propose is not as fragile as you may think. Remember that the defence line would be based on the North South waterways. As a result, the Russians could not surround the hedgehogs till they crossed the river. Once they crossed and tried to surround the hedgehog, it would retreat along the waterway, North or South. so that it could continue to cross back and forth across the river with great mobility. Other hedgehogs would also be supporting, as you noted. The logistics problem is difficult. It could be insurmountable.  General Slim overcame this in WW2 as i pointed out, through airlifts, but the Allies had air superiority, something i doubt the Poles would enjoy. Would building a static defence line like the Maginot Line be better? I'm not so sure....

 

All things considered, i would advocate basing Poland's defences on natural waterways rather than on lines on a map.

Such an attitude in the context of a direct war will spell the end of NATO at the very least. The price is too high to pay. America at least will not leave her Eastern European allies. For this reason I don't believe a Russian invasion of Poland or Lithuania without NATO involvement is a realistic scenario. Ukraine and Georgia, maybe. You can't have "long term diplomatic stability" with someone who treats you as weak and lower than dirt for not honoring your explicit obligations.

 

 

It is good that you understand the caveat that this only applies to a direct war. However the Russian leadership is not stupid enough to just assemble tanks on the border of any of her neighboring nations and declare war outright. Even if that nation were not a NATO member, the political, economic, and likely even eventual military repercussions would be too great. This is not even a terribly new dynamic, for example Bismarck understood that Prussia could not conquer the neighboring German states through direct campaigns of conquest. Russia's campaign in Georgia demonstrates that the kinds of tactics employed by Bismarck to fight a "defensive" campaign of regional conquest are still relevant today. NATO membership will not protect any nation if Russia can provoke that nation to attack. Similarly, if Russia can create a perception that the war is justified, or at least only ambiguously non-justified they may be able to give American and western European nations the excuse they need to look the other way.

 

For that matter, there may well be political elements within the nations of NATO that would love to see NATO cease to exist, or at least be weakened. Some of them might already be fifth columnists sympathetic to Russia such as closeted western communist sympathizers from the cold war era. Sadly a lot of young adults today from the eastern bloc nations appear to have been young enough when the wall fell that they had only experienced the idealism of communist propaganda and seemingly had not yet felt the frustration of life as an adult under communist rule. Others might well find that their cause is temporarily aligned with Russia's. They might feel that NATO is just a tool for the US to manipulate Europe, for example.

I am sure russians have a lot of mobile bridging equipment from the good old days. And apart from Vistula and maybe several other rivers ( i am not sure i dont have the widths  of polish rivers in front of my eyes ..or bank steepness) there wouldnt be much problem. Tactic is simple throw the 10 bridges launch recons oveer them if they are getting fire retreat. Make advance on 1-2 bridges with the least of resistance. i think they would find some gap on the first day they try to bridge some river ( it depends on what size hedg. are u suggesting and how are u suggesting to defend or not to defend the gaps in between).I know thats easier said than done..but i see those hedgehogs as mobile force having ability to engage or disengage at their choosing (fast). The problem that without constant flow of supplies they would have that mobility gaps would start to develope and so on. Plus u cant drop the possibility that the russians would reach other rivers faster that retreating polish..maybe even via airdrop. or overrun the ammo dump locations when bulk of hedgehog will start moving to engage some russian breaktrought in other direction. I am not sure how many man polish army could commit at the start of the war at these hedgehogs. 100k? 150k? along how many kilometres front line? 800km? 1000km? in what depth? 20km? 30km?. Without beeing mobile as hell they wont even be in time to attack soviet bridging effort. And if they cant keep constant line of supplies they wont be mobile.

I am not trying to say that your hedgehox theory is bad but just considering the chances it can work. Maybe polish army should steadily retreat towords the north-western corner of poland fighting just the holding actions..laying ambushes. in the north west they would have Baltic sea from one side and germany from another. The army might be saved that way from encirclement and destruction, shorten the front line, get  supplied via Baltic sea and maybe give time for political decisions( for example maybe Germans decide to move in into polish theritory...they wouldnt directly attack russian but they wold just stand with the big sign 'We are germans' and russians probably wouldnt be mad enough to attack)

and about russians not attacking plainly.. yeah i agree certain political and economical conditions have to be met in these days to wage any war.

just one funny fact about russian inderect schemes:

Russian pilot who crashed Su-27 in Lithuania in 2005 had the lastname : Troyanov...:D

In the early phase of the war, how much damage could a single Patriot battery the Poles are receiving do to the Russians (assuming the US lets the Poles use the battery). If there were actually two or three batteries (or more imitated copies), would that change the dynamics of an attack? I feel if there were 4-5 batteries along with a large number of GROM manpads and antiaircraft guns (for any lower flying bombers/strike fighters) it would cause the Russians to rely much more heavily on artillery and ground forces than air even after the Polish air forces are nullified especially since the Russians have not developed a stealth fighter yet.

 

I think the most important part of the hedgehog strategy would have to be a buttload of portable antitank and antiair missiles (manpads) that would attack any area of assembled armor and do something to prevent close air support and stop any mobile bridges. I think if the Russians are forced to combine waterway bridging with coordinated air support, artillery and tank/infantry tactics, then the logistics of resupplying the forces would become larger problems especially if a guerilla-like insurgency develops with IED and rocket attacks on the convoys. That's probably around the time that they will start relying on infantry more (with greater corresponding casualties). Either way I don't see the hedgehog waterway strategy working for much longer than a month and the total defense (before a total occupation/ corresponding insurgency) lasting longer than 3-6 months (when you need something closer to a year or two to really get the civilians back home protesting to get their troops back).

 

What about defenses in Ukraine? The scenario wouldn't make too much sense with Russia just invading Poland (and doesn't leave too much room for strategy with the current state of the Polish armed forces although the situation could be a little more balanced ten years from now), but I think there is a slightly greater chance there would be a problem in Ukraine that might escalate into a regional conflict. If Lithuania is involved I feel that the Belarussians would probably be tied up with them for some time. (Actually now that I think about it, that would also make for an interesting scenario. If Russia is fighting the Ukrainians/Poles,  what could the Lithuanians do to hold out against the Belarussians)

about that hedgehog thingy again.

 

Not to sound cynical, but i think the only role of the Ukraine in this conflict would be to act as a parking lot for Russian tanks and a place for Russian troops to get some R&R.

 

The Ukraine is a vast plain with a huge Russian population.... threats would probably be enough to entice the Ukraine to allow free passage of Russian troops. Resistance would be futile and shortlived. Just my opinion.

 

I agree with your asymetrical warfare ideas for the Poles. I think the fighitng would go asymetrial very fast. The Poles have a long history of partisan warfare and i'm sure would go at it with fervor.

 

Throwing the Lithuanians into the mix wouldn't change much. Russia would still be unstoppable. And we're not even considering nukes in this scenario....

Estonia and Latvia ...oh they are in danger they have large russian minorrities and they are stirring the water

'The view that Estonia's annexation into USSR was legitimate is reinforced by the official statements of the Russian Federation,[34] including that the USSR presence in the Baltics was legal according to international law and that the Baltics could not be occupied because there was no declaration of war.' just wiki

Before somebody says that i shouldn't use wiki as source.. i can only say that the fact that russian school books about those times are beeing rewritten is not a secret to anybody. There are numerous sources claiming that. wiki is just easiest source to find  to qoute. 

Plus numerous declarations by russian politician Zhirinovsky.

Georgia... a sincere russian peacekeeper was shot by a geaorgian.. that calls for an action. You watched the news..it doesnt need much to start again it is just the question if russians still have the reason to start or they achieved everything they wanted.

Ukraina.. Sevastopol? Russians want it back? ukrainians are willing to give it back? 300k+ russian residents. plus the russian navy.

Limited attack..alot of sabre rattling some shooting..and placing friendly(loyal) political party in place.