In Defense of the Red Army

[Legbreaker]

REAL ROUNDS!?
I did a 2 week exercise once where we only had 11 blank rounds issued per person for the entire duration! Even the M60 only had a belt of a few dozen!
Try putting in ambushes and assaults with just that - and no bayonet!

And the food situation wasn't much better either! Somebody in the kitchens screwed up the meat order. There was only 20 pounds of meat between 400+ starving soldiers to last a week!

And then, if it couldn't get any worse, they sent us salad for lunch in the middle of winter while it was bucketing down with rain so hard there was water three inches deep on top of the hills!

You want more? Try the porridge they sent us one morning as an attempt to apologise for the meat snafu (we were supposed to be on rations during that phase of the exercise) - absolutely riddled with weevils! On a positive note, I suppose we did get our allotment of protein that day....

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Try the porridge they sent us one morning as an attempt to apologise for the meat snafu - absolutely riddled with weevils!

Weevils? You were lucky!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I think it's appropriate to this thread to bring up an old joke:

Right at the end of the second world war, three generals, a British General, an American General and a Soviet General are meeting in Berlin and discussing the hows and whys of their successes in the field, and the adage that "an army marches on its stomach" comes up. Soviet general proclaims that the Red Army did so well because its men were well fed - a thousand calories a day! The British general chuckles a bit and says sorry old man, we gave our lads fifteen hundred calories a day. The Soviet is flabbergasted but before he can speak, the American general chimes in and lets it be known that the US Combat soldier received three thousand calories per day, even under battle conditions. At this point the Soviet general cries foul and says "Impossible! No man can eat three sacks of potatoes in a single day!"

[Raellus]

As I see it, the West's main advantage over the ComBloc was technology. This advantage became more pronounced over time. I sometimes wonder how well NATO would have been able to deal with a conventional Soviet attack before the advent of the Western armored triumvarent- Leopard II, M1, & Challenger I.

In my view, that Western faith in, and reliance on, technology can also be considered a weakness. Superior technology allowed us to route Saddam's army not once but twice, and that only reinforced this belief that Western technology would have been the decisive war winner we hoped it would be during the Cold War. We tend to ingore historical examples that contradict that deeply-held belief. For example, it's easy to ignore the fact that the WWII-era German's belief that a complex, expensive, and technically superior Panther or Tiger was worth five or ten crude, relatively inexpensive T-34s still resulted in their eventual defeat (it should be noted that the T-34 was muchbetter than some Germans gave it credit for- some historians rate it the best overall tank of the war, in spite of some fairly glaring technical shortcomings).

We also seem to ignore or discount the fact that Western technological superiority failed to win the wars in Korea and Vietnam and, more recently, the war in Afghanistan. Yes, those are different types of wars, but GWI and II were not really comparable to a WWIII in Europe scenario either. It's not fair to say that the lessons of Korea and 'Nam don't apply to WWIII whereas the "lessons" of GWI somehow do.

Therefore, I think it's fair to say that the west clearly had a technological advantage over the ComBloc, but that this advantage was not a decisive one.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Raellus

As I see it, the West's main advantage over the ComBloc was technology. This advantage became more pronounced over time. I sometimes wonder how well NATO would have been able to deal with a conventional Soviet attack before the advent of the Western armored triumvarent- Leopard II, M1, & Challenger I.

In my view, that Western faith in, and reliance on, technology can also be considered a weakness. Superior technology allowed us to route Saddam's army not once but twice, and that only reinforced this belief that Western technology would have been the decisive war winner we hoped it would be during the Cold War. We tend to ingore historical examples that contradict that deeply-held belief. For example, it's easy to ignore the fact that the WWII-era German's belief that a complex, expensive, and technically superior Panther or Tiger was worth five or ten crude, relatively inexpensive T-34s still resulted in their eventual defeat (it should be noted that the T-34 was muchbetter than some Germans gave it credit for- some historians rate it the best overall tank of the war, despite some fairly glaring technical shortcomings).

We also seem to ignore or discount the fact that Western technological superiority failed to win the wars in Korea and Vietnam and, more recently, the war in Afghanistan. Yes, those are different types of wars, but GWI and II were not really comparable to a WWIII in Europe scenario either. It's not fair to say that the lessons of Korea and 'Nam don't apply to WWIII whereas the "lessons" of GWI somehow do.

Therefore, I think it's fair to say that the west clearly had a technological advantage over the ComBloc, but that this advantage was not a decisive one.

WW2 is a good point.

Every allied nation was behind Germany in terms of tech and yet Germany still lost.

Compare the M4 Sherman to the later model Panzer IV's let alone the Panther and Tiger. The German Panzerfaust and Panzerschrek where superior to both the Bazooka and the joke (sorry, by joke I mean the british PIAT). The Germans had the jet aircraft which where superior in every way to the allied fighters.

The problem Germany had was numbers and fuel. In a WW3 scenario the Russians have a massive numerical advantage and this could prove as telling as it was in WW2.

If it takes ten T72's to kill an Abrams and the Russians have those tanks to spare, the Abrams will die. It;s how the American shermans killed Tigers.

[B.T.]

Once again, a very educated ans very inspiring thread, Thank you all for sharing your thoughts.
I would like, to add some of my own:

Originally Posted by Webstral

The degree to which US Army infantry is reliant upon close and consistent fire support is dismaying. It’s a major weakness. Once again, I feel the irresistible urge to advance my personal campaign for supplementing the traditional light/mechanized distinction in the US Army with a dragoon/grenadier distinction. Like typical mechanized infantry, the dragoons would be expected to move operationally and tactically in organic transport and to fight dismounted with close support from organic fighting vehicles as well as artillery and CAS. Dragoons could come in a variety of configurations while meeting the above conditions.

Grenadiers, on the other hand, would move tactically and operationally in vehicles belonging to a higher echelon. They would fight dismounted without close support from fighting vehicles. Support from corps-level artillery and CAS would be worked into the doctrine, but grenadiers would be expected to execute their missions without heavy fire support. I would add, though, that they should have some vehicles that could carry packs, ammunition, and other consumables over short distances so that the light fighters themselves could move and fight carrying the minimum additional mass. Every pound counts.

Dragoons probably would fight during the day, and they would never get very far from their fighting vehicles. Grenadiers probably would operate at night. Dragoons would go into the crucible of combat with the principle role of defending the tanks against the enemy’s infantry and dismounted anti-tank fires. Grenadiers would avoid combat as much as possible, preferring offensive or defensive ambushes. Dragoons could operate in any terrain, being all combined arms and junk. Grenadiers would operate in restricted terrain where the enemy’s dragoons would be forced to fight dismounted and with limited assistance from fighting vehicles. Dragoons could be produced relatively quickly. Grenadiers would take some training. Grenadiers would be junior Rangers, in effect, with a healthy dose of WW2 Japanese light fighter thrown in for good measure. Infiltration, camouflage, deception, superior leadership, superior training, superior marksmanship, superior conditioning, superior unit cohesion, superior leadership (‘cuz it needs to be mentioned twice), superior perks in the rear, and superior leadership (‘cuz it really does need to be mentioned three times) would distinguish grenadiers from dragoons. I’d have never been an NCO in a grenadier unit, though I might have done okay as a private.

I agree. As I see it, this was the reason behind the German (=West Germany in the Cold War) decision, to field the Panzergrenadier-units (mech. Inf with the Marder IFV) and the Jäger-units (Kind of "light Infantry", equipped with trucks or the M113.) Every PzGren-Btl in the Bundeswehr of the 80ies had one integrated Jäger company. Those would have been asked to support the Panzergrenadiers in FIBUA situations and in fighting in wooded areas. The Jägers were better trained. Every single soldier in my unit was trained with rifle, MP, Pistol, handgrenades, MGs, and the le. Panzerfaust. Everyone had seen the Milan and was instructed, to use it (although not everyone visited the 6 week training course).
We were trained in lying minefields and in improving booby traps with grenades.
The Panzergrenadiers, on the other hand, were not trained with the Uzi. At a time, when the Marder still had the firing ports for the Uzi!

Originally Posted by Raellus

We also seem to ignore or discount the fact that Western technological superiority failed to win the wars in Korea and Vietnam and, more recently, the war in Afghanistan. Yes, those are different types of wars, but GWI and II were not really comparable to a WWIII in Europe scenario either. It's not fair to say that the lessons of Korea and 'Nam don't apply to WWIII whereas the "lessons" of GWI somehow do.

Therefore, I think it's fair to say that the west clearly had a technological advantage over the ComBloc, but that this advantage was not a decisive one.

Very true. Technical superiority does not win wars. The more advanced technical weapons would help in warfare, but what counts, are the single soldiers. You know: "(More) Boots on the ground!"

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

Every allied nation was behind Germany in terms of tech and yet Germany still lost.

Compare the M4 Sherman to the later model Panzer IV's let alone the Panther and Tiger. The German Panzerfaust and Panzerschrek where superior to both the Bazooka and the joke (sorry, by joke I mean the british PIAT). The Germans had the jet aircraft which where superior in every way to the allied fighters.

The problem Germany had was numbers and fuel. In a WW3 scenario the Russians have a massive numerical advantage and this could prove as telling as it was in WW2.

One should not forget, that the German society was in a constant state of paranoia. Even in the developement of weapons, several agencies tried, to convince all others, that their approach would be the best. And that led to a situaton, where different groups worked on the development of certain items, but a central "power" was lacking. Look at the development of a modern infantry rifle, as an example: Fallschirmjägergewehr and Sturmgewehr both were interesting designs, both were really influential. But in the end, a lot of labour and intellectual manpower were wasted. Because everyone tried his thing, ignoring the work of others. (As an aside: This seems to be repeated in the current US: SOCOM, Marines and Army all search for a specific new rifle. But every force uses a different approach. Or look at the developement of helmets: Marines and Army both replaced the PASGT helmet, but both forces developed their own design!)
The majority of the German units in WWII were still equipped with an old rifle (Kar 98), even in the end of the war. And most soldiers did not ride in fancy halftracks, they moved on foot.

[Raellus]

I'm currently reading Ivan's War) (Life and Death in the Red Army, 1939-1945) by Catherine Merridale. It's an excellent book and it has me thinking, once again, about the Red Army of the Twilight War/WWIII (v1.0).

It's truly an amazing story how the Soviet Union weathered Barbarrosa in the summer of '41 and not only just survived, but eventually stormed back to take a leading and underappreciated (at least, in the West) role in defeating Nazi Germany. Even before the German invasion in the summer of '41, the Red Army was already decimated and enervated by purges of its officer corps, a crisis of confidence precipitated by the failure of its Finnish adventure, widespread resentment in the ranks caused by Stalin's collectivization program, major military supply deficiencies, and doctrinal confusion (no viable plans for fighting any kind of defensive war since planning for defense was perceived to be "defeatist"). Yet, despite all of these self-imposed disadvantages, and truly staggering losses (nearly 5 million killed or captured by February of '42), the Soviets were able to rally and, eventually, strike back with overwhelming force.

The Soviet military of v1.0 would have been in a much better starting position than the Red Army of 1941. Yes, a few of its top units would have already been bled white fighting in China, and yes, many among its ranks would likely have been questioning the sanctity and efficacy of the Soviet system, and yes, it would be contending with shortages of certain items like military trucking. But, overall, it would be on a much firmer footing than its WWII predecessor, when the Bundeswehr launched its coup-de-main into the DDR. Another German attack on "Soviet" territory would be a huge "we told you so" moment and a massive propaganda victory for the Soviet government. Furthermore, the Red Army of 1997 would surely have learned from its experiences on the China front. Mobilization of the military and industry would have already been underway, if not quite complete, by the time of the German action. Yes, the Soviet military would be on the back foot in Europe, but it would be in a much better position to fight back than the Red Army of WWII. Considering how well the Red Army bounced back a year into the Great Patriotic War, I imagine that they would give NATO a rather hard time of it almost from the get-go (at least relatively speaking).

Anyway, I know that I'm badly beating a thoroughly dead horse now. It's just a topic that I'm rather passionate about. I really, strongly believe that in order for T2K to work on pretty much any level, you really need a good, strong Soviet military. Otherwise, there's not much there. Combine that belief with a fascination about the Red Army of WWII and I have become quite the late Cold War Soviet Military apologist.