In Defense of the Red Army

[Benjamin]

I'm not one to overly praise the Red Army, but I'm not dissing it much either. In the three month long drive across Poland, NATO will be in for a very rough time. BUT man-for-man and vehicle-for-vehicle NATO will have the advantage and prove to be the superior fighting force. If not, than why did the Soviet Union have to resort to tactical nuclear warfare on July 9, 1997?

Sure Poland would be a meat grinder, but modern wars such as the Falklands, Iraq (1991), Israel versus Arabs and others have shown that technological superiority (and crew training/experience) is paramount. NATO advances over 600 kilometers in about 90 days (4/2/1997 - 7/9/1997). This is an advance of about 7 km/day. Not exactly blitzkrieg, but not too bad given that the WP has had 4 months to prepare for the NATO offensive.

If anything the V.1 timeline severely under estimates the economic and political strain being felt in the Soviet Union. And while the Soviet military may have been very tough, history has shown us that the USSR itself was rater fragile. In the end the Red Army is unable to protect the Motherland and the Russian leadership is forced to use nukes. This action is the surest sign of defeat.

Benjamin