In Defense of the Red Army

[Legbreaker]

I 100% agree. It would be interesting if we had a similar amount of input from 1970-80 era ex Soviet soliders as we do from western forces (mainly US). On the other hand, national pride might end up with numerous flame wars...

[Raellus]

I think another reason it's tempting to underestimate the Soviet military is that, for a time in the early '90s, their military org/tech/training etc. was "frozen in time" while the West was making strides forward in the wake of the wildly successful Desert Shield/Storm campaign. In fact, if anything, the Russian military in the early '90s was regressing as military funding dried up and new strategic realities started sinking in. It's easy to remember the beaten MRDs withdrawing across that last bridge between Afghanistan and the soon-to-ex-Soviet republics in '89, or the loyalist Russian tanks shelling the rebellious troops in the high-rise ministry, or the rusting hulks of ex-Soviet navy ships and submarines stuck in port. Those last images are pathetic and really don't do the Soviet military justice.

It's easy to forget that a v1.0 Soviet military would have been moving forward during the '90s, if not keeping pace with the West, then at least trying their damnedest to do so.

This is why I prefer to remember the Soviet Military as they seemed during my childhood (the '80s)- a huge, somewhat mysterious entity that posed a clear and present danger to the NATO countries.

[pmulcahy11b]

If nothing else, one should never underestimate their opponents.

[pmulcahy11b]

@Cynic:

Ooohhh, new stuff for the "Best Stuff That Never Was" pages! It'll take more research than on those pages, however. It's a good start, though.

[Raellus]

I can't remember if it has been previously pointed out in this thread, but the Soviet-made T-72s that were spanked by American M1 Abrams and British Challengers in both Iraq wars were bare-bones export models that had down-graded optics and manual-only turret traverses. Soviet T-72s, although inferior in nearly every aspect to contemporary NATO MBTs, would have been significantly more capable than the Republican Guards' T-72s. I really wonder how the battle of 73 Easting would have gone down if it had been Soviet Guards tankers that the American ACRs were going up against. I doubt that they would have won that fight, but they sure as hell would have made it a lot costlier in terms of men and material for the Americans.

Extensively upgraded T-55s, T-62s, T-72s, T-80s, and T-90s (and these surely would have been rolled out during the '90s had the Cold War continued) are fairly capable MBTs and they would have been thrown at the West in numbers that NATO simply couldn't match.

[Legbreaker]

Absolutely agree with that.
As has been stated time and time again, the Iraqi's simply cannot be compared to what would have been faced by Nato in Europe. In 1991 and again a decade later, Iraq was all alone, equipped with second grade vehicles and weapons, and their training standard can only be described as laughable. Add in that they'd only just finished fighting Iran and the vast bulk of their best units had been destroyed....

Obviously the Iraqi commanders made some fatal mistakes in 91, and the willingness of the troops to fight was, on the whole, rather lacking. If they'd been competantly led, properly trained and organised, it may well have been a different matter.

Granted the Pact forces at the time have proven to be fairly poorly prepared, however that state of affairs is not what the game is based upon. In the T2K universe, the Pact were a strong and credible force, ready, able and willing to do serious damage.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Raellus

This is why I prefer to remember the Soviet Military as they seemed during my childhood (the '80s)- a huge, somewhat mysterious entity that posed a clear and present danger to the NATO countries.

"clear and present danger"? Holy crap, man, by your estimation we should've just surrendered outright since not only were they numerically superior they were up to par in every other way as well.

I mean, if they really had the drop on us that bad, why didn't they just send the balloon up? Surely they had a vastly more cavalier attitude vis-a-vis "getting our hair mussed" in "toe-to-toe nuclear combat". I mean, they had everything the Walkers had leaked to them, they obviously had the numbers and they apparently had the tactics and troop quality to beat us at every turn. Why no statue of Lenin in Antwerp, then?

(Erm...that sounds ill-tempered but it's not meant to be, I promise.)

[Legbreaker]

Nobody is saying that man for man, tank to tank, aircraft to aircraft the Pact were an equal match. Their entire doctrine wasn't about being equal on that level, but swamping the west with masses of barely adequate men and machines. As it turns out, they didn't even manage the "barely" part, especially once the Communist countries started to crumble.

Remember though that T2K is a game. It's not supposed to reflect reality, but rather the perception of what was reality - in other words, the west thought the east had the ability to steamroll their forces, and reacted accordingly. The game is built from the ground up on these assumptions, guesses, fabrications and downright lies with a little reality thrown in for flavour.

The game is a product of the early 1980s and the general hysteria that went with it. There's no way that it could be made today looking back, knowing the true capabilities and economics of the period. Applying modern knowledge in my opinion radically alters the basic premise of the game, unbalancing the situation and essentially making it unplayable as a believable post apocalyptic setting.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Nobody is saying that man for man, tank to tank, aircraft to aircraft the Pact were an equal match. Their entire doctrine wasn't about being equal on that level, but swamping the west with masses of barely adequate men and machines. As it turns out, they didn't even manage the "barely" part, especially once the Communist countries started to crumble.

Remember though that T2K is a game. It's not supposed to reflect reality, but rather the perception of what was reality - in other words, the west thought the east had the ability to steamroll their forces, and reacted accordingly. The game is built from the ground up on these assumptions, guesses, fabrications and downright lies with a little reality thrown in for flavour.

The game is a product of the early 1980s and the general hysteria that went with it. There's no way that it could be made today looking back, knowing the true capabilities and economics of the period. Applying modern knowledge in my opinion radically alters the basic premise of the game, unbalancing the situation and essentially making it unplayable as a believable post apocalyptic setting.

I read you loud and clear, and everything I said to Rael applies equally here.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

"clear and present danger"? Holy crap, man, by your estimation we should've just surrendered outright since not only were they numerically superior they were up to par in every other way as well.

I mean, if they really had the drop on us that bad, why didn't they just send the balloon up? Surely they had a vastly more cavalier attitude vis-a-vis "getting our hair mussed" in "toe-to-toe nuclear combat". I mean, they had everything the Walkers had leaked to them, they obviously had the numbers and they apparently had the tactics and troop quality to beat us at every turn. Why no statue of Lenin in Antwerp, then?

(Erm...that sounds ill-tempered but it's not meant to be, I promise.)

Yeah, a little ill-tempered. I'll try to keep the snark to a minimum.

Clearly, you misunderstand my thesis. I've never argued that the Soviets/WTO were qualitatively superior in any way (save numbers) to NATO. My point is that some folks here and elsewhere seriously underestimate what they could have done in their prime, or had the Cold War continued through the 1990s. They were not the push-overs many claim them to have been. 20-20 hindsight in this matter is a myth. Just because they lost in Afghanistan (are we "winning" there now?) and the gear they sold to Iraq was crap doesn't mean NATO would have walked over them like some folks seem to imagine. I stick by that thesis.

My essay is an apologetic for the T2K v1.0 history, that's all. If the Soviet military as a whole sucked as bad as some folks out there (and here) believe, the T2K scenario simply wouldn't happen.

If you disagree- and apparently you do- and what I've posted in this thread doesn't sway you, then clearly nothing will. I just wonder how you justify a T2K scenario. I'm not comparing you to Hitler, but didn't the French in 1812 and the Germans in 1941 make the same mistake Soviet-bashers are now? Was it Santayana who wrote "those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it"? I just don't see the logic or fun in a T2K'er arguing strongly against the Soviet military.

[HorseSoldier]

I can't remember if it has been previously pointed out in this thread, but the Soviet-made T-72s that were spanked by American M1 Abrams and British Challengers in both Iraq wars were bare-bones export models that had down-graded optics and manual-only turret traverses. Soviet T-72s, although inferior in nearly every aspect to contemporary NATO MBTs, would have been significantly more capable than the Republican Guards' T-72s. I really wonder how the battle of 73 Easting would have gone down if it had been Soviet Guards tankers that the American ACRs were going up against. I doubt that they would have won that fight, but they sure as hell would have made it a lot costlier in terms of men and material for the Americans.

The Russians have been saying that since about the moment US forces made it through to 74 Easting . . . I'm not sure how much I buy the claims, to be honest (and I'm definitely not part of the US or NATO uber alles crowd) -- that information seems to have been loudly distributed by the Russians after their market share took a huge hit after 91, not from technical intelligence analysis, though I may be wrong on that.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

The Russians have been saying that since about the moment US forces made it through to 74 Easting . . . I'm not sure how much I buy the claims, to be honest (and I'm definitely not part of the US or NATO uber alles crowd) -- that information seems to have been loudly distributed by the Russians after their market share took a huge hit after 91, not from technical intelligence analysis, though I may be wrong on that.

The fact that Iraqi T-72s didn't have powered turret traverse has been conceded by the U.S. military, if not independently verified. I don't think anyone is contradicting that.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

The Russians have been saying that since about the moment US forces made it through to 74 Easting . . . I'm not sure how much I buy the claims, to be honest (and I'm definitely not part of the US or NATO uber alles crowd) -- that information seems to have been loudly distributed by the Russians after their market share took a huge hit after 91, not from technical intelligence analysis, though I may be wrong on that.

Indeed, until 74 Easting, the T72 was the hottest seller the Russians had, post 74 Easting, they had hard times giving them away. Now, to be fair, the Russians have a point: The ones the Iraqi's had was really second class versions of them: The later T72's, with all the bells and whistles, are in fairness decent tanks. Equal to first line western tanks? No, but more than adequate for most uses. Especially since they are cheap. When you get right to it, the T90 is the Russian response to that battle. The T90 is nothing more than an very upgraded T72 - some things I have read is that more than a few of the T90's floating about are rebuilt 72's.

If I was a country that needed a tank arm, one that had a fair chance of facing down modern western tanks, I wouldn't hesitate to pick up the T72 if I couldn't afford western tanks myself. Of course, part of the savings would go towards quantity, but most would go to training. I really do think, that a topflight T72/90, with a crew that has trained as hard and as well as a topflight western tank crew, can give a good accounting of themselves - within reason of course.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Indeed, until 74 Easting, the T72 was the hottest seller the Russians had, post 74 Easting, they had hard times giving them away. Now, to be fair, the Russians have a point: The ones the Iraqi's had was really second class versions of them: The later T72's, with all the bells and whistles, are in fairness decent tanks. Equal to first line western tanks? No, but more than adequate for most uses. Especially since they are cheap. When you get right to it, the T90 is the Russian response to that battle. The T90 is nothing more than an very upgraded T72 - some things I have read is that more than a few of the T90's floating about are rebuilt 72's.

If I was a country that needed a tank arm, one that had a fair chance of facing down modern western tanks, I wouldn't hesitate to pick up the T72 if I couldn't afford western tanks myself. Of course, part of the savings would go towards quantity, but most would go to training. I really do think, that a topflight T72/90, with a crew that has trained as hard and as well as a topflight western tank crew, can give a good accounting of themselves - within reason of course.

That is one of the things that Soviets and later Russian did understand. Up until the US fielded the M1 and the Germans, French, and UK generation of tanks came online. They had enjoyed for the most part having tanks that were Superior if not equal to the various NATO Counterparts.

With the introduction of the generation of tanks in the 80s by NATO had even the playing field for the units that would be doing the fighting in the early stages. At this time as the Soviets had watch in the late 1960s and 1970s were being tested and the fielded had placed their latest tanks into units based in Ukraine and Western military districts in the Soviet Union knowing these units would be third string. Most of these new tanks were in Tank Armies and Group of Tank Armies. One of the reasonings was to keep NATO from knowing of the best, and not really give them clear view. Kinda like the shock the Germans units had when they came up against unknown T-34 equipped unit in the early days of of Operations against the Soviet Union. While the Motorized Rifle units would get equipment handed down from soviet units to west.

One of the thing I do wonder is how friendly the Russia and China are now. I know for all practical purpose they seem to be real friendly. Then again in the 1960s they appeared friendly, but had some nasty fight along the Amur River.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Yeah, a little ill-tempered. I'll try to keep the snark to a minimum.

Clearly, you misunderstand my thesis.

I did, I see that and I apologize if I was perceived as having brought the snark first. I didn't intend to, trust me.

I've never argued that the Soviets/WTO were qualitatively superior in any way (save numbers) to NATO. My point is that some folks here and elsewhere seriously underestimate what they could have done in their prime, or had the Cold War continued through the 1990s. They were not the push-overs many claim them to have been. 20-20 hindsight in this matter is a myth. Just because they lost in Afghanistan (are we "winning" there now?) and the gear they sold to Iraq was crap doesn't mean NATO would have walked over them like some folks seem to imagine. I stick by that thesis.
[/quote]

Oh no, no, I don't think that was the case at all and you certainly make the point clearly.

My essay is an apologetic for the T2K v1.0 history, that's all. If the Soviet military as a whole sucked as bad as some folks out there (and here) believe, the T2K scenario simply wouldn't happen.

I see that now and I hope you don't think I was one questioning the plausibility of the scenario. I apologize for not reading further.

If you disagree- and apparently you do- and what I've posted in this thread doesn't sway you, then clearly nothing will.

No no, it was just misunderstanding on my part.

I just wonder how you justify a T2K scenario. I'm not comparing you to Hitler, but didn't the French in 1812 and the Germans in 1941 make the same mistake Soviet-bashers are now? Was it Santayana who wrote "those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it"? I just don't see the logic or fun in a T2K'er arguing strongly against the Soviet military.

Hey, I'm in agreement with you. Without a roundhouse kick to the ass for the remnants of NATO in the summer of 2000, the game becomes Red Dawn!

So, again, I misunderstood and again I wasn't upset at your assertions, and I hope we can put this behind - because I'm in agreement with you.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I've never argued that the Soviets/WTO were qualitatively superior in any way (save numbers) to NATO. My point is that some folks here and elsewhere seriously underestimate what they could have done in their prime, or had the Cold War continued through the 1990s. They were not the push-overs many claim them to have been. 20-20 hindsight in this matter is a myth. Just because they lost in Afghanistan (are we "winning" there now?) and the gear they sold to Iraq was crap doesn't mean NATO would have walked over them like some folks seem to imagine. I stick by that thesis.

My essay is an apologetic for the T2K v1.0 history, that's all. If the Soviet military as a whole sucked as bad as some folks out there (and here) believe, the T2K scenario simply wouldn't happen.

If you disagree- and apparently you do- and what I've posted in this thread doesn't sway you, then clearly nothing will. I just wonder how you justify a T2K scenario. I'm not comparing you to Hitler, but didn't the French in 1812 and the Germans in 1941 make the same mistake Soviet-bashers are now? Was it Santayana who wrote "those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it"? I just don't see the logic or fun in a T2K'er arguing strongly against the Soviet military.

Once again Raellus you've put things exactly as I see them but in a better way than I could have. Agree with all of the above.

[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.