In Defense of the Red Army

[Raellus]

Western airframes, avionics, and pilot training were all generally superior to their Soviet counterparts throughout the entirety of the Cold War. That is a given.

However, here is yet more evidence that technical superiority does not necessarily translate to victory.

During a joint exercise between the USAF and the Indian Air Force, the latter, flying MiG-21s and SU-27 variants, roundly defeated a force of F-15C Eagles in air-to-air combat.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...ations-tighten

Yes, the parameters of the exercise did favor the IAF, but still, if technical superiority always translates to victory, the IAF would not have won.

In a v1.0 T2K situation, the Red Air Force would have had several months of aerial combat experience versus the Chinese Air Force before the war with NATO kicks off.

[ChalkLine]

Actually soviet metallurgy was considerably better than western equivalents and soviet guns, up until the 120mm Rhienmetall gun, tended to be better as well. A lot of the cannon stuff the west used came from soviet ideas and built on their prototypes, which is why espionage was such a big thing.
Western electronics, plastics and ceramics were a lot better than soviet efforts though. Western electronic miniaturisation was also better.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Western airframes, avionics, and pilot training were all generally superior to their Soviet counterparts throughout the entirety of the Cold War. That is a given.

However, here is yet more evidence that technical superiority does not necessarily translate to victory.

During a joint exercise between the USAF and the Indian Air Force, the latter, flying MiG-21s and SU-27 variants, roundly defeated a force of F-15C Eagles in air-to-air combat.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...ations-tighten

Yes, the parameters of the exercise did favor the IAF, but still, if technical superiority always translates to victory, the IAF would not have won.

In a v1.0 T2K situation, the Red Air Force would have had several months of aerial combat experience versus the Chinese Air Force before the war with NATO kicks off.

If this is from the Cope India air combat exercise at Gwalior in 2004 I think it was the USAF deliberately wanting to lose to bolster its case for buying the F/A-22 and F-35 at the time.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by RN7

If this is from the Cope India air combat exercise at Gwalior in 2004 I think it was the USAF deliberately wanting to lose to bolster its case for buying the F/A-22 and F-35 at the time.

I suppose that could have been the case, but this sounds like an excuse for losing.

[Raellus]

According to this write-up, it sounds like tactics and equipment played a very big roll in the exercise results.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...viper-bullshit

Also, if it was just the USAF putting on a show to convince Congress to buy more shiny new toys, then why allow the older, "obsolete" MiG-21 platforms to do the most damage?

-

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Raellus

According to this write-up, it sounds like tactics and equipment played a very big roll in the exercise results.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...viper-bullshit

Also, if it was just the USAF putting on a show to convince Congress to buy more shiny new toys, then why allow the older, "obsolete" MiG-21 platforms to do the most damage?

-

That was an interesting read and again it shows that how skilled/experienced you are and how well you use your equipment is often times much more important than how up to date something is.

[Raellus]

This is an interesting piece on F-117 Nighthawk combat ops over Serbia. Apparently, a second Nighthawk was hit by a Serbian SAM.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...-force-in-1999

I'm glad we never had to find out, but I really wonder how a full-spectrum air war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact would have played out.

I just recently re-read Red Storm Rising and, although I still enjoyed it, one thing that really bothered me about Clancy and Bond's vision- especially in light of this story- is how ineffective Soviet AAA/SAM defenses are against NATO strike and attack aircraft. There's no Red Army bridge, command post, fuel depot, or tank farm that NATO aircraft don't manage to destroy in the novel.

I could forgive the authors this vision if they'd written this after Desert Shield/Storm, because I think that experience convinced many that Soviet-made air defenses were no match for NATO aircraft. I still content that this lesson was wrong- the Gulf War was not a peer v. peer conflict. It was like an NFL team (the Coalition) playing against a Pop Warner [under 12] team whose players had a few pieces of adult-size pads (the Iraqis). Against a modern, full-scale, integrated, Soviet air defense (AAA & SAM) network, I think NATO aircraft would have sustained significant losses.

-

[StainlessSteelCynic]

For what it's worth, there were a few "voices in the wilderness" back in the early 2000s who disagreed with the popular view that air forces win wars that seemed to form after the Gulf War.
They argued that the air campaign against the Iraqis was pretty much a one-sided affair with Iraqi air defence being lacklustre and no real test of coalition doctrine/equipment/enemy suppression.
They argued that it was a false assumption to conclude that Western air forces would dominate the skies and win the war and that the assumption came about because the coalition forces never had much opposition for control of the skies.
Against any enemy that put up a proper fight in the air, the situation would be very different.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

For what it's worth, there were a few "voices in the wilderness" back in the early 2000s.....

As I've said before, and will probably keep saying for another 50 years, the Iraqi army was not a valid test to see how NATO would have done against the Soviets. The majority of Iraqi equipment simply wasn't up to the same standard as the Pact and lacked components such as the more advanced armour, targeting systems and so on (downgraded export versions). Their training was....lacking, and morale outside the Republican guard virtually non-existent.

[Southernap]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I'm glad we never had to find out, but I really wonder how a full-spectrum air war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact would have played out.

I just recently re-read Red Storm Rising and, although I still enjoyed it, one thing that really bothered me about Clancy and Bond's vision- especially in light of this story- is how ineffective Soviet AAA/SAM defenses are against NATO strike and attack aircraft. There's no Red Army bridge, command post, fuel depot, or tank farm that NATO aircraft don't manage to destroy in the novel.

I could forgive the authors this vision if they'd written this after Desert Shield/Storm, because I think that experience convinced many that Soviet-made air defenses were no match for NATO aircraft. I still content that this lesson was wrong- the Gulf War was not a peer v. peer conflict. It was like an NFL team (the Coalition) playing against a Pop Warner [under 12] team whose players had a few pieces of adult-size pads (the Iraqis). Against a modern, full-scale, integrated, Soviet air defense (AAA & SAM) network, I think NATO aircraft would have sustained significant losses.

-

So a couple of things about the Serbian Operations with the F-117. I have friends who were in the planning cells at the time that all went down in the air war over Kosovo. There was serious mistakes made by the USAF and NATO air commanders that others had warned the planners about. Such things as always flying on a specific time and always having specific types of electronic warfare occur at both the ingress and egress points. Then there was actionable intelligence developed by some NATO and USN assets which showed that the Serbians were detecting the F-117s by using an old Soviet method, which we knew about but assumed only the Soviets did. That was using phone line connections and a bi-static radar setup. The USAF did the fingers in ears and "I can't hear you lalalalallal" method. There were too many folks in senior leadership of the USAF that believed the vaporware on what LO tech offered and still only say the 1991 footage of the F-117 in operation as being the benchmark. They didn't want to hear from folks who had flown against it or trained against in at places like Yuma, Fallon, or Nellis. That it could be beaten with the right tactics and that if we don't do dumb things we open ourselves up to getting beaten. Which as they say is now the history.

If you do some reading of US air ops against some Soviet air defense systems and some of the US operations in the early 80s. There is strong evidence that one could penetrate the Soviet air defense corridor and lay weapons on theater and strategic targets. This is even before Mathias Rust did his stunt in 1987 with his C172.
There have been EP-3s, RC-135s, and other national security aircraft that were shown to have penetrated the edges of Soviet Air Defense systems and survived. Similarly, if you read some of the recent books by John Lehman and a few others in the Cold War era; they talk of the USN and RN conducting carrier operations in the Norwegian Sea, Bearing Sea, Sea of Japan all well with in range of Soviet Air defenses and being able to get with in a hair's breath of the 12 nautical mile limit before the Soviets knew who was there and what was going on. In some cases with a full on SIOP styled Alpha strike from the carrier decks.

One of the things about both Tom Clancy and Larry Bond is they knew when to listen and in the case of Tom Clancy, he was smart that he started to put various pieces of separate information and draw sometime accurate information. There is even video of talking to NSA staffers about how he collected information from folks and how he go to some of his logical conclusions.

Also, if you re-read RSR; he doesn't talk about the Soviet Air Strikes against NATO land forces. We read a few about the US Carriers, and Larry Bond has actually mentioned that was a huge gaming event that lead to trying to figure out how to write that specific chapter with an ending in mind. Otherwise, there is no talk about how the Soviet air power does to NATO or is even able to penetrate the NATO IADS belt.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Southernap

If you do some reading of US air ops against some Soviet air defense systems and some of the US operations in the early 80s. There is strong evidence that one could penetrate the Soviet air defense corridor and lay weapons on theater and strategic targets. This is even before Mathias Rust did his stunt in 1987 with his C172.
There have been EP-3s, RC-135s, and other national security aircraft that were shown to have penetrated the edges of Soviet Air Defense systems and survived. Similarly, if you read some of the recent books by John Lehman and a few others in the Cold War era; they talk of the USN and RN conducting carrier operations in the Norwegian Sea, Bearing Sea, Sea of Japan all well with in range of Soviet Air defenses and being able to get with in a hair's breath of the 12 nautical mile limit before the Soviets knew who was there and what was going on. In some cases with a full on SIOP styled Alpha strike from the carrier decks.

I humbly admit that you're more widely read on this particular topic than I am. I have a clarifying question: When you say NATO aircraft penetrated the edges of Soviet AD networks and survived, do you mean they did so completely undetected, or that the Soviets didn't launch SAMs at them?

If it's the former, that's an impressive feat by NATO. If it's the latter, thank God the Soviets showed restraint. By the same token, NATO showed similar restraint. Soviet aircraft routinely violated neutral and NATO airspace during the Cold War (and Russian aircraft continue to do so today). But there's a big difference between not knowing someone is there and deciding not to to shoot at them when you do.

Originally Posted by Southernap

Also, if you re-read RSR; he doesn't talk about the Soviet Air Strikes against NATO land forces. We read a few about the US Carriers, and Larry Bond has actually mentioned that was a huge gaming event that lead to trying to figure out how to write that specific chapter with an ending in mind. Otherwise, there is no talk about how the Soviet air power does to NATO or is even able to penetrate the NATO IADS belt.

Yes, Clancy and Bond kind of hand-waved the WTO air forces out of existence after describing how F-119 'Frisbees' destroyed most the Red Air Forces 'Mainstay' AWACs aircraft. This allowed NATO to establish air superiority over the FEB. This, IMHO, was a case of wishful thinking. In RSR, NATO AD has no trouble swatting Frogfoots and Hinds out of the sky, but NATO aircraft are able to hit anything they want to.

A sim is one thing; the real world is quite another.

-

[Olefin]

Soviet Air Doctrine was not flexible enough and was a big thing that the Germans during WWII and the US and NATO would have been able to take advantage of during WWIII if it had occurred. Yes they had good pilots and good planes - but what they didnt have was an ability to be flexible - that was one thing we learned the hard way over Vietnam.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Part of that was due to the Soviet reliance on Ground Controlled Intercept (GCI)
Once the intruding aircraft was detected, a CGI controller would direct Soviet aircraft against the intruder and direct the air battle. The Soviet pilots were not given much control over their tasks and thus had little flexibility.
There was a very long command chain that controlled their actions and made their decisions for them.

I recall hearing a related comment by some South African PMC who had a number of Russian pilots in their company to fly Mi-8/Mi-17 helicopters. This was sometime in the late 2000s. The comment was essentially that the Russian pilots lacked initiative and had to be told what to do most of the time. Basically the Russian pilots needed to be supervised because if something out of the ordinary came up, they had not been trained to react to it but to wait for someone higher up the command chain to make a decision for them.

[Raellus]

True, but that was starting to change in the late 1980s. When the Cold War ended, the Soviets were attempting to follow the NATO model, fielding increasing numbers of Mainstay AWACs so that their fighters/interceptors would not be so reliant on GCI. Also, their new fighters (Fulcrums and Flankers) were equipped with passive IR detection equipment so that they wouldn't be so reliant on radar (making them harder to detect by ELINT means). This was pretty innovative for the time, and has just recently started to be implemented on Western combat aircraft.

I am not claiming that the WTO would have won an air war with NATO. The latter had a decided edge in electronics and training. I just don't think it would be the cakewalk that some- Like Clancy and Bond, for example- think it would have been. NATO air superiority after the first 48 hours? That's a resounding NO from me.

-

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Oh definitely and I do not disagree with you. If anything, I think the Soviet layered AA network would have made life very difficult for NATO air forces. The whole rationale behind the A-10 design was that the air environment would be tough to survive so at the very least, that's a tacit acknowledgement from the USAF that the Soviets would not be so easily overcome.

[Olefin]

also I have read RSR - and it wasnt a cake walk - the F-19's took horrendous losses as did the other attack aircraft - and the Soviets had their moments too when they succeeded against all odds as well - the way I read it by the time it was all done and said the US and NATO were close to 40 percent losses in a short war - and the A-10's paid a big price for their successes

By comparison the Gulf War was the cakewalk for sure

[Raellus]

Cool. I just finished rereading it a couple of weeks ago, so it's pretty fresh in my mind.

Originally Posted by Olefin

also I have read RSR - and it wasnt a cake walk - the F-19's took horrendous losses as did the other attack aircraft -

Yes, but that's after something like 6 weeks of constant combat ops, and multiple HQs, fuel depots, bridges, tank farms, etc. successfully destroyed. By a single squadron.

Originally Posted by Olefin

and the Soviets had their moments too when they succeeded against all odds as well -

Yes, but only in the naval air war. Over the European FEB, nope. I can't recall a single instance of a successful significant* Soviet air attack over land in the book.

*Like destroying more than a couple of tanks.

-

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Cool. I just finished rereading it a couple of weeks ago, so it's pretty fresh in my mind.



Yes, but that's after something like 6 weeks of constant combat ops, and multiple HQs, fuel depots, bridges, tank farms, etc. successfully destroyed. By a single squadron.



Yes, but only in the naval air war. Over the European FEB, nope. I can't recall a single instance of a successful significant* Soviet air attack over land in the book.

*Like destroying more than a couple of tanks.

-

They took out an AWACS and gained control of the air over the battlefield during a critical moment during one of the Soviet ground attacks that lead to their getting the river crossing that almost won them the war.

The initial Soviet Naval Aviation attack that nailed the NATO fleet and took out the Foch and almost took out the Nimitz.

The ambush of the B52's over Iceland that cost the US several bombers.

The final air battle over Iceland when they pushed their planes to the limit and managed to take out a bunch of NATO fighters despite being outmatched and out numbered.

The ground attack aircraft that almost managed to win them a battle earlier until their own ground to air missiles started taking out the attack planes.

Was actually just re-reading it in the last few days

I actually think the depiction of the Red Army in the book was very good and showed the book was not a one sided book

[Southernap]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I humbly admit that you're more widely read on this particular topic than I am. I have a clarifying question: When you say NATO aircraft penetrated the edges of Soviet AD networks and survived, do you mean they did so completely undetected, or that the Soviets didn't launch SAMs at them?

If it's the former, that's an impressive feat by NATO. If it's the latter, thank God the Soviets showed restraint. By the same token, NATO showed similar restraint. Soviet aircraft routinely violated neutral and NATO airspace during the Cold War (and Russian aircraft continue to do so today). But there's a big difference between not knowing someone is there and deciding not to to shoot at them when you do.

-

As I have read its both. FleetEx 83-1, a Task Force of 3 US carriers operated in the Bearing Sea and on over to near the Sea of Okhostk where they flew against NORAD and the JASDF pretending to be Soviet strike groups. Other times they flew strike packages up to the 12NM limit before turning away. In some cases, again according to write ups in various books and historical magazines. The Soviets didn't see the strike packages until they were at the limit or when someone broke radar silence. In some cases the strike aircraft were able to fly across Soviet military installations in the Kurils without being shot at by any of the air defense equipment and the systems only going into a fire control track well after the aircraft disappears over the radar horizon.

Along with that during parts of 1983 and even 1981 to 1982, again based on some readings of technical journals and historical reports at places like the US Naval War College or the US Air War College online reading libraries, the aggressive use of the EP-3 and RC-135s to fly and try to penetrate Soviet or even Soviet Client states like Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Eastern Germany (over the Baltics), etc. Before either a radio command or fighters escorts approached to turn the aircraft away. All in attempts to get both up to date ELINT OrBATs and to get doctrinal assessments of how the air defense systems worked.

Similarly during Northern Wedding 1982, the USS America was able to shake her Soviet tails in a storm just off Scotland. Using some other neat tricks via the NSA and some recording emissions on a couple of destroyers. Get up near Spitsbergen doing flight ops without being seen by Soviet Naval intelligence assets. Then flew coordinated strikes in both conventional mission planning and what SIOP called for against NATO target ranges near Tormso and Bardufoss. As well as have their ASW aircraft start to track Soviet submarines, including their boomers as they entered the ice pack areas in international waters.
Again the Soviets didn't see the aircraft until radio transmissions occurred with either datalinks back to NATO or the carrier, if not verbal radio transmissions. At which the Soviets lost their minds and flushed a bunch of stuff. Then later filed diplomatic protests.

Read up about some of the exercises in Nellis and in Yuma (a USMC airbase in AZ with a huge target range). In both places there was a ton of practice not only doing Red Flags and the Marine Weapons and Tactics Instructor Courses. They practiced as if they had to penetrate the Soviet IADS in Europe or in one of the other spheres (like Norway or the Med). With tactics like NOE flying, coordinated strikes against command nodes for the air defenses systems, and the heavy use of EW assets (both in collecting and ECM/ECCM).

From what I have read the assumption in what was released unclassified in the early 80s exercises. That NATO Tactical Air Forces over Europe in a general war would be able to hack it for about 14 days before losses, supply issues, and battle fatigue would have driven them from the field. That is why the whole AirLand battle doctrine was created. Get in with the first 96 hours the good licks in the Soviets air defense systems (again command HQs, static radars and SAM sites, air bases). Then switch to supporting the ground forces while reserves from the US arrived. It was even gamed out that the US Navy once it had good control of the Western Mediterranean and Baltic approaches would have carrier aircraft fly strikes into Europe with whole air wings supporting ground offensives by the US Army or even the use of a Marine Amphibious Brigade landing on the Danish Coast or into Italy driving into PACT territory.

So I am not saying it would be easy, or a cake walk at all. I am just saying that post Vietnam, the US air forces learned a bunch and worked hard on what it would take to crack that hard nut of Soviet air defenses over central Europe. Yet, there was growing evidence by the 1980s and even more so by the late 1980s that the Soviets were not the insurmountable threat that some played them to be, nor would they have been push overs. Rather it was going to be ugly and it was going to be who broke first attrition wise.
____________________________________

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Oh definitely and I do not disagree with you. If anything, I think the Soviet layered AA network would have made life very difficult for NATO air forces. The whole rationale behind the A-10 design was that the air environment would be tough to survive so at the very least, that's a tacit acknowledgement from the USAF that the Soviets would not be so easily overcome.

Talking to friends who were in the USN aviation community and some of the Marines that were neighbors of mine in the time period. There was tactical doctrine for the tankers and anti-tank teams to not only kill the tanks, but their priority list was roughly this:

1. Command tanks or vehicles
2. Mobile air defense systems
3. Everything else on the battlefield

since killing the mobile air defense systems would not only allow for the A-10s to survive, but also the AH-1 and AH-64s to survive as well. The attack helos had the same target lists when working in conjunction with the A-10s.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Southernap

Talking to friends who were in the USN aviation community and some of the Marines that were neighbors of mine in the time period. There was tactical doctrine for the tankers and anti-tank teams to not only kill the tanks, but their priority list was roughly this:

1. Command tanks or vehicles
2. Mobile air defense systems
3. Everything else on the battlefield

since killing the mobile air defense systems would not only allow for the A-10s to survive, but also the AH-1 and AH-64s to survive as well. The attack helos had the same target lists when working in conjunction with the A-10s.

Can't get air support until you control the air so yeah, I completely understand their priority list and again, it shows that the US (and presumably NATO in general) had a good idea of Soviet capabilities and did not treat them as though they would be a pushover (nor impossible to beat for that matter).

[Raellus]

Another challenge NATO would face during the Twilight War, especially in Europe, is the dynamic of coalition warfare. I think it would be a lot easier for the Soviets to operate a unified command, directing its WTO "allies" by dictate. I don't think the U.S. would find its NATO allies quite as compliant.

We saw this in WWII. There was a lot of politicking among the Western Allies- the tension between SHAEF Eisenhower and Montgomery caused all kinds of issues for the Western Allies between D-Day and VE Day. The Soviets, on the other hand, treated their allies as would a slave-driver; as a result, there was far less drama and much better unity of command.

With NATO already fractured by the outset of WWIII (in the v1 timeline, at least), the tension among allies would already be high.

This, I think, would be an advantage for the Soviets.

-

[Legbreaker]

That can however also be a strength for the west - they've got the flexibility to come up with different ideas that wouldn't be allowed in the more authoritarian Pact.
The trick is balancing the two factors.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

That can however also be a strength for the west - they've got the flexibility to come up with different ideas that wouldn't be allowed in the more authoritarian Pact.
The trick is balancing the two factors.

That's a good point. A lot would depend on leadership. A team of good leaders could make coalition warfare into a significant strength. Of course, the opposite is also true.

-

[Legbreaker]

Given leaders in the west generally get promoted due to ability rather than political reasons (yes, there are definitely exceptions), I'm thinking the west is probably a little better off than they otherwise could be.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Given leaders in the west generally get promoted due to ability rather than political reasons (yes, there are definitely exceptions), I'm thinking the west is probably a little better off than they otherwise could be.

Good point, but the Soviets have also been known to produce their fair share of top-shelf field leaders. In WW2, the Soviets had a lot of good field generals (Zhukov, Konev, Rokossovski, Vasilevski)- as good, if not better, than many of the Western Allies' storied leaders.

The West has traditionally been more patient with generals. They tend to get more chances before being sacked. This can be a good thing, because it allows them time to learn form their mistakes and grow. On the other hand, it allows ineffective generals to remain in place for longer, and that's almost always a bad thing.

The Soviets took a different route. Their generals knew that a lack of results could lead to a one-way ticket to the gulag, or a bullet in the back of the head. This tends to motivate, but it also creates leaders who are reckless or extremely averse to risk-taking. Either product can lead to disaster on the battlefield. I reckon that more than a few potentially brilliant Soviet generals never got past their first mistake.

I guess leadership is one of the biggest "intangibles" when it comes to predicting the outcome of a war.

-

[RN7]

In regards to Soviet/Russian air defences I think their SAM's were good but there fighters were a mixed bag.

Soviet/Russian medium and long ranged SAM systems from the S-300 (SA-10) to the latest S-500 are excellent, and would give NATO aircraft a lot of trouble. I would say they were ahead of NATO until the late 90's early 2000's when the treat ballistic missile from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea forces the west to pump money into developing more capable SAM systems.

Soviet/Russian fighter aircraft were never really a match for the best Western aircraft. The Mig-29/Mig-31/Su-27 generation were as good or better than any European NATO aircraft and export variants of American fighters, but not a good as the F-16/F-15/F-18s that US forces used. Training standards and AWACs was also inferior to NATO. There were some elite squadrons with better trained pilots and the latest Soviet arms and sensors, but on the whole they would have been in trouble outside of the USSR/Russia and Warsaw Pact territory beyond their SAM network. The current crop of modern Russian 4th and 4.5th Generation Su-27 Fulcrum derivatives or Mig-35 and the Chinese fighters are also not as good as US 4.5 and 5th Generation fighters or the latest variant of the 4.5 Generation Eurofighter despite what Russia and China say. Their 5th Generation is still at the prototype stage despite nearly two decades of development, whereas the US already has a 6th generation prototype flying.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Raellus, this may interest you. It's an answer by David Rendahl to the question: - Was the Soviet Union ever superior to the United States in any way during the Cold War (1945-1991)?
David's credentials include British army & British police intelligence and also as a researcher & analyst at Jane's Information Group.

Direct link to David's answer
https://qr.ae/pNJNJN

This is the link for the original page. Many of the other posts on the page are not necessarily relevant or are too biased or too ignorant to be particularly useful.
https://www.quora.com/Was-the-Soviet...-War-1945-1991

[Raellus]

Thanks for sharing that piece, SSC. The author's comparative analysis of weapon ground-based systems is interesting (and I'm not just saying that because much of it supports the thesis of the thread OP), but his strategic analysis is quite illuminating, and particularly germane to the v4 World At War controversy/debate. A particularly eye-opening quote follows:

"Launching a conventional war with limited aims in Northern Europe (Seven Days to the Rhine) with an openly declared promise not to be the first to use nuclear weapons, would produce such a shock to our system it would have been economically catastrophic.

Recovery from that would have put Russia and the USA on more equal financial terms as much of the Dollar economy is based on confidence and communication, while the Russian economy was captive. It may not be a plan to take over the world, but quite possibly enough coercion to get the world to pay them off - give them Germany, Denmark, Holland and back off from China to stop them slapping us about.

It was unlikely, but many historical pivots only needed a gentle push off the cliff. In August 1991 I sat in a tank shed in Hohne listing to the BBC news tell us about the Soviet coup in Moscow . Gorbachev was rumoured to have been killed, the Tamanskya Guards Division were rolling around the Kremlin, shady generals were in charge and unhappy with the imminent end of Soviet power. There were still millions of WarPac soldiers and tons of equipment within a day’s drive from our position.

It was genuinely the scariest couple of days of my career."

-

[RN7]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Raellus, this may interest you. It's an answer by David Rendahl to the question: - Was the Soviet Union ever superior to the United States in any way during the Cold War (1945-1991)?
David's credentials include British army & British police intelligence and also as a researcher & analyst at Jane's Information Group.

Direct link to David's answer
https://qr.ae/pNJNJN

This is the link for the original page. Many of the other posts on the page are not necessarily relevant or are too biased or too ignorant to be particularly useful.
https://www.quora.com/Was-the-Soviet...-War-1945-1991

That's a good read and very informative about the capabilities and doctrine of NATO and Soviet forces throughout the Cold War.

I've always thought that NATO would have been better equipped to deal with the Soviets in Europe if the Germans or British had led the land forces instead of the Americans. They were more focused on the Soviet threat in Europe and seemed to be able to develop land systems more quickly that were needed to counter the Soviets. This of course would have been impossible as America was the leader of the West and by far the biggest defence spender in NATO.

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by RN7

I've always thought that NATO would have been better equipped to deal with the Soviets in Europe if the Germans or British had led the land forces instead of the Americans. They were more focused on the Soviet threat in Europe and seemed to be able to develop land systems more quickly that were needed to counter the Soviets. This of course would have been impossible as America was the leader of the West and by far the biggest defense spender in NATO.

what a thought interesting Idea, yes the us have money but the germans own the land lol