In Defense of the Red Army

[Webstral]

The “standing start� model of Soviet offensive received a lot of attention back in the day, partially because it was the option that scared the West the most. What scares us the most isn’t necessarily the most likely. The Soviets were terrified of a third invasion of the Soviet Union by Germany, but NATO had no real plans for invading the USSR. By the same token, a standing start invasion by the Pact may have looked awfully scary, but the whole package didn’t fit with Soviet thinking.


Webstral

[HorseSoldier]

I seem to recall that once the walls came down there was a realization that the Soviets had no non-nuclear plans for an offensive into western Europe. Had the balloon gone up they planned to use tac nukes early and often to break up NATO ground and air forces. I would take this to suggest the Soviets had some serious questions about their abilities versus NATO -- at least insofar as if their forces could deliver a knock out blow fast enough to prevent a war turning into a matter of industrial output and attrition, which they don't seem to have thought they could win.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

I seem to recall that once the walls came down there was a realization that the Soviets had no non-nuclear plans for an offensive into western Europe. Had the balloon gone up they planned to use tac nukes early and often to break up NATO ground and air forces. I would take this to suggest the Soviets had some serious questions about their abilities versus NATO -- at least insofar as if their forces could deliver a knock out blow fast enough to prevent a war turning into a matter of industrial output and attrition, which they don't seem to have thought they could win.

The Soviets knew if they initiated the war, they would have to conclude very quickly. If you look at how if they were able to move things forward without giving us warning, it would still take week or more for their second and third echelon units make their way forward. The major hurdle is that their second echelon was made up of mostly Cat 2 and Cat 3 Pact forces that would take that long if not longer to mobilized.

These units would have to be mobilized and on the move before the third echelon units moved forward, or else an option would of been to move the third echelon forces up, before mobilizing the Pact forces and then mobilizing them and moving them forward to help consolidate any gains.

In the end the Soviets knew if they started a war first off, they would have use their forces in East Germany and Czech. These Groups of Forces were so large due to the fact that if Moscow started the war, these were most likely be the only troops to see most of the action. They also realized if they had done this, their second echelon would have to wait to be mobilized until their ready to move third echelon had moved through.

If the Second Echelon units had made it to the war as the 2nd Echelon, they would making it to the battle in little better state than Soviet Tank and Mechanized Corps of WWII era. Especially considering many of the tanks in this Echelon included T-55s and T-62s.

So in this case the use of Nuclear and Chemical would be needed in the eyes of the Soviet to eliminate such things as staging areas for reinforcements from the UK and US. As well as taking out command and control centers. Just some thoughts.

[Adm.Lee]

Funny this should come up this week. I am in a PBEM game of GDW's "Third World War," and I kicked off the standing-start offensive yesterday. In that game, nukes aren't allowed on the first turn (I suppose we could have house-ruled that), and the Pact allies' forces are frozen on "Turn 0."

So far, the surprise air attack was no Pearl Harbor or Clark Field, I lost more planes than I grounded.