In Defense of the Red Army

[StainlessSteelCynic]

@ Vespers War - That's some interesting information. While I was vaguely aware of some of it, I didn't know the extent it influenced US military policy. I wonder what their motivation was, were they genuinely afraid the Soviets were beating the West, were they just so hawkish that they wanted to be the "biggest kid on the block" or were they motivated by the potential financial gain through R&D or manufacture of weapons & gear to "defeat" the Red Menace? Or perhaps something else?

Mind you, the Soviets certainly did not help to dispel the notion. They were happy to make some outlandish claims regarding their technology. Again, it's a complex situation and not something that should be dismissed simply as nationalist propaganda as I've read some anecdotal reports that the Soviets were worried about Western tech and thus allegedly became desperate to convince their own people & allies that they actually were superior to the West. So it wasn't always propaganda to be directed at the Western world, sometimes it was meant for their own allies.

The best example of that I know of is from a former co-worker of mine who was Czechoslovakian by birth. His mother had been a nurse for the Germans in WW2 and so they faced a bit of discrimination from the post-war government at times (and the family's Germanic name didn't help!). This convinced him to escape the country and move to Australia (which he and his wife did by taking a "holiday" in Yugoslavia). One tale he told was of his cousin who had apparently worked with the Soviet Army during his period of conscript service.

His cousin had told him that the Russians had laser weapons, apparently many Czechoslovak soldiers "knew" about them. These laser weapons were allegedly able to scorch a football field sized area from kilometres away. My co-worker firmly believed it was true, even when I presented evidence that the whole story was probably a massive exaggeration.

It doesn't matter now that it turned out to be all false or at best, greatly exaggerated. What matters is that at the time, some people actually believed it and some people found they could easily present those pieces of information to claim that the Soviets were a massive threat.
I'm reminded of what Chalkline mentioned in another thread - given the levels of info manipulation at the time and what would have made it's way out to the public, GDW's estimate of Warsaw Pact forces is on the lower end of the over-estimatations of Communist capability!

[Raellus]

Western airframes, avionics, and pilot training were all generally superior to their Soviet counterparts throughout the entirety of the Cold War. That is a given.

However, here is yet more evidence that technical superiority does not necessarily translate to victory.

During a joint exercise between the USAF and the Indian Air Force, the latter, flying MiG-21s and SU-27 variants, roundly defeated a force of F-15C Eagles in air-to-air combat.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...ations-tighten

Yes, the parameters of the exercise did favor the IAF, but still, if technical superiority always translates to victory, the IAF would not have won.

In a v1.0 T2K situation, the Red Air Force would have had several months of aerial combat experience versus the Chinese Air Force before the war with NATO kicks off.

[ChalkLine]

Actually soviet metallurgy was considerably better than western equivalents and soviet guns, up until the 120mm Rhienmetall gun, tended to be better as well. A lot of the cannon stuff the west used came from soviet ideas and built on their prototypes, which is why espionage was such a big thing.
Western electronics, plastics and ceramics were a lot better than soviet efforts though. Western electronic miniaturisation was also better.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Western airframes, avionics, and pilot training were all generally superior to their Soviet counterparts throughout the entirety of the Cold War. That is a given.

However, here is yet more evidence that technical superiority does not necessarily translate to victory.

During a joint exercise between the USAF and the Indian Air Force, the latter, flying MiG-21s and SU-27 variants, roundly defeated a force of F-15C Eagles in air-to-air combat.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...ations-tighten

Yes, the parameters of the exercise did favor the IAF, but still, if technical superiority always translates to victory, the IAF would not have won.

In a v1.0 T2K situation, the Red Air Force would have had several months of aerial combat experience versus the Chinese Air Force before the war with NATO kicks off.

If this is from the Cope India air combat exercise at Gwalior in 2004 I think it was the USAF deliberately wanting to lose to bolster its case for buying the F/A-22 and F-35 at the time.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by RN7

If this is from the Cope India air combat exercise at Gwalior in 2004 I think it was the USAF deliberately wanting to lose to bolster its case for buying the F/A-22 and F-35 at the time.

I suppose that could have been the case, but this sounds like an excuse for losing.

[Raellus]

According to this write-up, it sounds like tactics and equipment played a very big roll in the exercise results.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...viper-bullshit

Also, if it was just the USAF putting on a show to convince Congress to buy more shiny new toys, then why allow the older, "obsolete" MiG-21 platforms to do the most damage?

-

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Raellus

According to this write-up, it sounds like tactics and equipment played a very big roll in the exercise results.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...viper-bullshit

Also, if it was just the USAF putting on a show to convince Congress to buy more shiny new toys, then why allow the older, "obsolete" MiG-21 platforms to do the most damage?

-

That was an interesting read and again it shows that how skilled/experienced you are and how well you use your equipment is often times much more important than how up to date something is.

[Raellus]

This is an interesting piece on F-117 Nighthawk combat ops over Serbia. Apparently, a second Nighthawk was hit by a Serbian SAM.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...-force-in-1999

I'm glad we never had to find out, but I really wonder how a full-spectrum air war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact would have played out.

I just recently re-read Red Storm Rising and, although I still enjoyed it, one thing that really bothered me about Clancy and Bond's vision- especially in light of this story- is how ineffective Soviet AAA/SAM defenses are against NATO strike and attack aircraft. There's no Red Army bridge, command post, fuel depot, or tank farm that NATO aircraft don't manage to destroy in the novel.

I could forgive the authors this vision if they'd written this after Desert Shield/Storm, because I think that experience convinced many that Soviet-made air defenses were no match for NATO aircraft. I still content that this lesson was wrong- the Gulf War was not a peer v. peer conflict. It was like an NFL team (the Coalition) playing against a Pop Warner [under 12] team whose players had a few pieces of adult-size pads (the Iraqis). Against a modern, full-scale, integrated, Soviet air defense (AAA & SAM) network, I think NATO aircraft would have sustained significant losses.

-