In Defense of the Red Army

[TiggerCCW UK]

A friend has just found and loaned me his copy of Red Army. I'm looking forward to reading it. I always felt the red army was given a raw deal by authors so it'll be interesting to read from another perspective.

[Benjamin]

@Raellus: That is all well and good, but remember this will not happen in a vacuum. If the Soviets begin a comprehensive effort to upgrade their weapon systems in the late 80s/early 90s, than surely NATO will respond likewise. The V.1 timeline could up seeing far earlier deployments of a number of weapon systems...F-22, A-12, RAH-66, Crusader artillery and an improved Abrams Block III.

I'm not saying that the Soviet Union is doomed, but the West had major advantages that could not be made up within the command economy of the Soviet Union. Computer technology, driven more so by market demands than the military, made advancements in electronics systems continue at a break-neck pace in the West. Many of these systems, GPS, Cell-phones, internet, encryption and others, are fully dual use. The technology is applicable to both civilian and military needs. And while it is possible for the Soviets to gain access to these technologies through the gray market, creating an integrated system for military use would be extremely difficult and even harder to maintain once the ball dropped.

The Soviet Union needs full fledged market reforms along the lines of China, but I don't see that happening. I see the Soviet invasion of China as the last gasp of a failed system. West Germany realized this and gambled. Unfortunately, the fears of a united and militaristic Germany held the Warsaw Pact together while simultaneously destroying NATO. The US and its allies did not win handily because of two factors...Italy and Greece's betrayals and nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union was long past its prime but refused to go quietly into this dark night.

Benjamin

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

@Raellus: That is all well and good, but remember this will not happen in a vacuum. If the Soviets begin a comprehensive effort to upgrade their weapon systems in the late 80s/early 90s, than surely NATO will respond likewise. The V.1 timeline could up seeing far earlier deployments of a number of weapon systems...F-22, A-12, RAH-66, Crusader artillery and an improved Abrams Block III.

Yes, I've never argued that this would not happen. I think you overstate the impact those systems would have, though. All of them are so expensive, they were either cancelled outright (Crusader, RAH-66) or only fielded in very limited numbers (Raptor). Even the relatively robust and powerful, market-driven economy of the U.S. would be severely strained by the continued development, purchase, and deployment of these systems in significant numbers. They would likely exist in the Twilight World, but in relatively small numbers.

As for technology in general, it can be a significant force multiplier to be sure, but I tend to discount the "Wonder Weapon" mentality somewhat. A lot of hi-tech systems don't operate as advertised operationally, or break down relatively easily under harsh battlefield conditions. It's probably not a fair comparison since there are other causal factors at play as well, but Hitler's high-tech weapons were unable to stem the Allied tide in WWII. His faith that relatively small production runs of technically superior tanks (Panther, Tigers, etc.) would offset the Soviet's numerical advantage in armor (and almost everything else for that matter) proved to have been seriously misplaced. He made the same mistake believing the jet-powered ME-262 would be able to tip the balance in the air against the numerically superior western Allies' air forces. I think Western armies are still a little too in love with their technology. Vietnam and Afghanistan prove that technological superiority alone does not win wars.

The cornerstone of my proposed Soviet military reforms of T2K '89-'95 is the improvement in the training of NCOs and junior officers. Upgrading existing weapon systems is also part of these reforms, but plays only a secondary role in improving the capabilities of the Red Army.

Originally Posted by Benjamin

The Soviet Union needs full fledged market reforms along the lines of China, but I don't see that happening. I see the Soviet invasion of China as the last gasp of a failed system. West Germany realized this and gambled. Unfortunately, the fears of a united and militaristic Germany held the Warsaw Pact together while simultaneously destroying NATO. The US and its allies did not win handily because of two factors...Italy and Greece's betrayals and nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union was long past its prime but refused to go quietly into this dark night.

I agree with you, to a point. I've conceded that reforms, especially technological ones, would further strain the already stressed Soviet economy. I'm also of the opinion that this strain motivated, in part, the Soviet invasion of China. I just don't see the Soviet military- its political and economic systems, maybe- of T2K '95-2000 as "long past its prime."

Hitler said something along the lines of "kick in the door and the whole rotten house will fall down" about the Soviet Union. He could not have been more wrong. I am simply asserting that it is the height of folly to grossly underestimate any enemy, especially one with the combat history of the Soviet Union.

[Webstral]

Ironically, the Pact probably plays a role in Poland quite similar to the role China plays in Manchuria and northwest of Beijing. In the same fashion that the Chinese probably counter Soviet superiority in firepower, mobility, and technology with extensive fixed defenses involving minefields, water obstacles, reinforced concrete fighting positions, and even underground galleries, the Soviets probably use the January-April break in fighting along the Oder to prepare very dense defenses making the most of AT guns, ATGM carriers, and T-55s firing from keyhole positions on the flanks of the most obvious (or most practical) avenues of advance. The front-line divisions of the Group of Soviet Forces Germany probably would be held back for the purpose of counterattack. Under these circumstances, the Soviet pattern of using standardized battle drills would be more effective in defense than the same patterns would be in defensive war of maneuver. AT guns and ATGM that might not be able to defeat the front slopes of the M1 series would have much better results when firing from prepared positions on the flank.

Webstral

[Raellus]

I agree, Web. In the v1.0 scenario, the Soviet's would have the relative luxury of being able to trade space (i.e. the GDR and Poland) for time. Fixed defenses manned by lower readiness divisions would slow and grind down the NATO forces enough to ready the Red Army's better quality manuever formations for an eventual counteroffensive. Losses to NATO's high-tech weaponry would be extremely difficult to replace in a timely manner. This scenario is pretty much what happened during WWII at Kursk, with devastating results for the German military.

[chico20854]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I agree, Web. In the v1.0 scenario, the Soviet's would have the relative luxury of being able to trade space (i.e. the GDR and Poland) for time. Fixed defenses manned by lower readiness divisions would slow and grind down the NATO forces enough to ready the Red Army's better quality manuever formations for an eventual counteroffensive.

You speak the truth, brother! (The only issue is how many of those lower readiness units do they have... Soviet Vehicle Guide outlines a strangely extended mobilization period! But the Polish Army has one reserve and one mobilization-only army, plus numerous internal paramilitary troops, which are more than capable of digging in to defend their homeland!)

Originally Posted by Raellus

Losses to NATO's high-tech weaponry would be extremely difficult to replace in a timely manner. This scenario is pretty much what happened during WWII at Kursk, with devastating results for the German military.

The main source of replacement high-tech weaponry for US forces is the equipment left stateside by deploying POMCUS troops, mostly III Corps. The issue is getting it moved across the North Atlantic in winter during and after the Battle of the Norwegian Sea, with Soviet subs and raiders on the loose (or, more accurately, widespread fear of Soviet subs & raiders) and demand for shipping to deploy forces to the Persian Gulf, Korea and National Guard units to Europe (including such questionables as sending the 40th ID from California to Europe, likely via the Panama Canal).

By the time the losses from Advent Crown start mounting, US industrial production is able to make up most of the losses. (The US enjoys the benefit of a pre-war buildup of industrial capability - production is ramped up for export sales to China much in the way that US production in 1940 and 1941 was increased to meet demand from France and Britain). US tank numbers at the front don't start dropping until the start of the tactical nuclear exchange. (Send me a PM if you want the spreadsheet where we ran the AFV loss model.)

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by chico20854

US tank numbers at the front don't start dropping until the start of the tactical nuclear exchange. (Send me a PM if you want the spreadsheet where we ran the AFV loss model.)

Without agreeing or disagreeing on losses v replacements for M1s, I'm quite curious whether you have run numbers for tank crews. Also, did you devise formulae for APC and IFV losses. I believe this is where NATO is going to suffer the greatest losses, although some smart fellows may decide that the only way to get through Pact defenses is with dismounted attacks. Then the question becomes one of infantry replacements. I'd hate to be a rifleman slogging it out through Poland's defensive belts. Talk about earning you CIB!

Webstral