In Defense of the Red Army

[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