In Defense of the Red Army

[HorseSoldier]

I know that the Red Army of the late Cold War was not the same force as that fielded in '43-45, and that the WA, later NATO, armies also changed (mostly for the better), but it's hard to contend that young men raised during consumer goods shortages in the authoritarian U.S.S.R. were not tougher, in many ways, than those young men raised in the West on Pac-Man, MTV, and Big Macs (insert your prefered equivalent Western cultural equivalents here).

An interesting footnote I read in Murray Feschback's pretty bleak Ecocide in the USSR: Health And Nature Under Siege is that polution and environmental contamination was so severe in the USSR that by the 1980s a huge percentage of potential conscripts to the Red Army were being turned away because they were medically unfit. This was mostly related to asthma and other respiratory problems caused by air pollution in industrialized cities, but there were various other problems all related to environmental mess the Soviets made of Mother Russia. It's been a long time since I read the book, but I think the reject rate was quoted as something like 45% -- but regardless, it was bad enough that there are various reports and documents reporting that this was considered a critical threat to national security by senior military leadership by the mid-late 1980s.

Now, obviously, one of the first things the Soviet government would do on the outbreak of a general conventional war would be to reassess their recruiting standards and criteria. However, I have to suspect that a lot of those guys who would have otherwise been rejected for service wouldn't have held up well on the battlefield.

I would guess that, with recruiting standards loosened for the Sino-Soviet War once the war starts in Europe at any given point in time, the Soviets would have much higher rates of duty-limiting illness and deaths from disease. (At some point after the nukes this probably flattens out more towards parity as everyone who is at increased risk of death from disease on both sides doesn't make it through short rations and cold winters, etc.)

Feschback's book deals almost exclusively with the USSR but environmental conditions were pretty much as bad, or maybe worse, in the other Warsaw Pact nations, so this was likely also a problem for the East Germans, Poles, and others.

How this interacts with growing up in a comparatively austere environment is an interesting question. I agree that Russian recruits in the 1980s/90s may have been better prepared mentally for privation, but it's likely that this was offset on the NATO side by better nutrition, medicine, and healthier environments personnel grew up in to maybe produce something of a wash at a big picture statistical level.

[Webstral]

I would argue that we’re not prepared to fight a lengthy war successfully. If we meant business, we would have flooded Afghanistan with troops from the beginning. We don’t have enough trained manpower to do that, nor do we have the political will to have the reserves called up long enough to make up the difference. We have fought for years under the assumption that it was all going to get better any day now, relieving us of the effort of making an appropriate commitment. We’re fighting the Rhodesian War in Central Asia and no closer to winning than the Rhodesians were. This makes me sad, because I know guys like Law have put real effort into getting victory over there.

[pmulcahy11b]

At the risk of becoming political on this board...

Afghanistan began right, but then Bush pulled away most of the troops to fight a war in Iraq that was designed for Cheney and Bush to make tons of money through Halliburton, the defense industry, and Blackwater, while simultaneously shoring up Bush's poll ratings.

Yep, I said it. Iraq was an opportunity for them and a few others to make money. We had no other reason to be there.

Afghanistan -- we're supposed to be there to scatter Al-Qaida to the winds. For the most part, we've done that. We're never going to build a viable, reliable allied country there, because the Afghanis aren't ready for it, let alone a democracy. It's time to leave.

And the usual cast of characters are making boatloads of money from Afghanistan. While our troops die for a cause that is unachievable.

[HorseSoldier]

Afghanistan -- we're supposed to be there to scatter Al-Qaida to the winds. For the most part, we've done that. We're never going to build a viable, reliable allied country there, because the Afghanis aren't ready for it, let alone a democracy. It's time to leave.

That's the problem with Afghanistan, regardless of take on other aspects of it. We went in and smashed up the bad guys, but ended up with a 90% solution, and the remaining 10% of the win is elusive because it just isn't going to happen unless Afghanistan becomes a much more functional country than it is. And I agree -- that's not likely to happen.

Where I was over there, the average Afghan on the street wants things to be better but they also have a culture where you take care of yourself and yours first, others very second. (Which makes sense if you live in an environment where all resources have to be triaged because of scarcity and precariousness.) It's an adaptive strategy for life in Afghanistan as it is now, and as it was under the Taliban, but it isn't a great strategy for Afghanistan to develop into a more stable nation. Unfortunately, it's an ingrained cultural thing -- getting people to step away from it is probably on par with convincing people in cultures coming out of western European sort of cultural backgrounds that democracy is a bad idea. Could be done, but there is a huge amount of inertia to overcome.

[Webstral]

Calling a spade a spade is only political when you have a vested interest in having a spade called something else. Then it's vicious slander and muckraking.

[Raellus]

Here's an interesting article on the Soviet's nuclear-powered supercarrier that never was.

https://warisboring.com/ulyanovsk-wo...5af#.be8mvmv7u

I think that the rapid decline of the post-Soviet Russian Federation navy has clouded our perceptions of what the Red Fleet was capable of at the height of its powers. Similarly, I think that many westerners have overestimated the capabilities of NATO navies, especially the USN. That's been discussed here at length, earlier in the thread, but it bears repeating.

Much has also been made by critics of the inferiority the Red Air Force, in terms of technological capibilites and doctrine. The following article shows how a Soviet-made plane, using Soviet-made AAMs, and operating under Soviet doctrine (ground-based fighter direction) could be successful when flown by a competent pilot.

https://warisboring.com/who-shot-dow...df5#.j4nq0qmbv

Granted, I firmly believe that both NATO navies and air forces were superior in pretty much all but numbers (at least in air power) to their Soviet equivalents during most (if not all) of the Cold War, but I think the gap is not as wide as some have made it out to be.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Here's an interesting article on the Soviet's nuclear-powered supercarrier that never was.

https://warisboring.com/ulyanovsk-wo...5af#.be8mvmv7u

I think that the rapid decline of the post-Soviet Russian Federation navy has clouded our perceptions of what the Red Fleet was capable of at the height of its powers. Similarly, I think that many westerners have overestimated the capabilities of NATO navies, especially the USN. That's been discussed here at length, earlier in the thread, but it bears repeating.

I think the Soviets planned to build two Ulyanovsk Class nuclear powered aircraft carriers before the Cold War ended. How effective they would have been against NATO naval power is I think open to debate. From what we know about the current Russian Kuznetsov carrier it is riddled with engine and other reliability problems and is always accompanied by a deep sea tug because it breaks down so much. The Kuznetsov is also inferior in capabilities to all of the US Navy's fleet of aircraft carriers.

Would a slightly larger nuclear powered Soviet aircraft carrier be any more reliable or capable? I don't think so and I don't think their reliability would be enhanced by the fact that they would be powered by four KN-3 nuclear reactors which were designed for the Kirov Class missile battlecruisers, which would have been a maintenance nightmare and have taken up a lot of internal space. The larger US Navy Nimitz and Ford class carriers have two reactors. Also the Soviet had no experience in steam catapult operations at this time and their naval combat aircraft were not as good as US Navy aircraft.

Certainly the Soviet fleet was impressive and was more powerful than any European member of NATO. But I don't think they had anything to match a US Navy carrier battle group or an Iowa Class battleship. In wartime if we are talking about the Soviets in the Atlantic and its littoral regions then no Soviet carriers will be going toe to toe with US Navy carrier groups as they will lose. They will also avoid getting to close to NATO dominated coastlines as they will come into contact with NATO land based airpower which is (depending on the individual airforce) superior to Soviet naval aircraft. Also no Soviet warship is going to make it south of NATO's GIUK Gap in the North Atlantic, in fact most Soviet submarines probably wont breech it either.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Much has also been made by critics of the inferiority the Red Air Force, in terms of technological capibilites and doctrine. The following article shows how a Soviet-made plane, using Soviet-made AAMs, and operating under Soviet doctrine (ground-based fighter direction) could be successful when flown by a competent pilot.

https://warisboring.com/who-shot-dow...df5#.j4nq0qmbv

Granted, I firmly believe that both NATO navies and air forces were superior in pretty much all but numbers (at least in air power) to their Soviet equivalents during most (if not all) of the Cold War, but I think the gap is not as wide as some have made it out to be.

Certainly the Soviet Airforce was impressive although I think in air superiority its true strength lay in defending its own territory. I don't think the Soviets would have been too successful in establishing air superiority over NATO in Central Europe or anywhere to far outside of their home territory for a whole load of reasons; tactics, doctrine, pilot experience, command and control, technology etc. Remember that article was a one off incident were the Iraqis were defending their own airspace and got one US aircraft, not on the offensive over hostile territory. During the First Gulf War Iraq was considered to have the most advanced Soviet equipped air defence network outside of the Warsaw Pact, and US and Allied airforces overwhelmed it and shot the Iraqi Airforce out of the sky very quickly. Against NATO in Europe the Soviets would be on the offensive.

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I think that the rapid decline of the post-Soviet Russian Federation navy has clouded our perceptions of what the Red Fleet was capable of at the height of its powers. Similarly, I think that many westerners have overestimated the capabilities of NATO navies, especially the USN. That's been discussed here at length, earlier in the thread, but it bears repeating.

I think an overlooked aspect of Soviet vs NATO naval warfare is the ability of the surface fleet to get to sea (IE the open water) at the height of the Soviet Navy had fleets in the Baltic (Atlantic), Pacific, Black Sea(Med) and Arctic waters. All with the exception of the arctic have to pass through choke points where NATO could make hard for surface fleets to break out. This could also make it difficult for Soviet fleets to resupplied at sea and or returning to port for resupply.