In Defense of the Red Army

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Southernap

Talking to friends who were in the USN aviation community and some of the Marines that were neighbors of mine in the time period. There was tactical doctrine for the tankers and anti-tank teams to not only kill the tanks, but their priority list was roughly this:

1. Command tanks or vehicles
2. Mobile air defense systems
3. Everything else on the battlefield

since killing the mobile air defense systems would not only allow for the A-10s to survive, but also the AH-1 and AH-64s to survive as well. The attack helos had the same target lists when working in conjunction with the A-10s.

Can't get air support until you control the air so yeah, I completely understand their priority list and again, it shows that the US (and presumably NATO in general) had a good idea of Soviet capabilities and did not treat them as though they would be a pushover (nor impossible to beat for that matter).

[Raellus]

Another challenge NATO would face during the Twilight War, especially in Europe, is the dynamic of coalition warfare. I think it would be a lot easier for the Soviets to operate a unified command, directing its WTO "allies" by dictate. I don't think the U.S. would find its NATO allies quite as compliant.

We saw this in WWII. There was a lot of politicking among the Western Allies- the tension between SHAEF Eisenhower and Montgomery caused all kinds of issues for the Western Allies between D-Day and VE Day. The Soviets, on the other hand, treated their allies as would a slave-driver; as a result, there was far less drama and much better unity of command.

With NATO already fractured by the outset of WWIII (in the v1 timeline, at least), the tension among allies would already be high.

This, I think, would be an advantage for the Soviets.

-

[Legbreaker]

That can however also be a strength for the west - they've got the flexibility to come up with different ideas that wouldn't be allowed in the more authoritarian Pact.
The trick is balancing the two factors.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

That can however also be a strength for the west - they've got the flexibility to come up with different ideas that wouldn't be allowed in the more authoritarian Pact.
The trick is balancing the two factors.

That's a good point. A lot would depend on leadership. A team of good leaders could make coalition warfare into a significant strength. Of course, the opposite is also true.

-

[Legbreaker]

Given leaders in the west generally get promoted due to ability rather than political reasons (yes, there are definitely exceptions), I'm thinking the west is probably a little better off than they otherwise could be.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Given leaders in the west generally get promoted due to ability rather than political reasons (yes, there are definitely exceptions), I'm thinking the west is probably a little better off than they otherwise could be.

Good point, but the Soviets have also been known to produce their fair share of top-shelf field leaders. In WW2, the Soviets had a lot of good field generals (Zhukov, Konev, Rokossovski, Vasilevski)- as good, if not better, than many of the Western Allies' storied leaders.

The West has traditionally been more patient with generals. They tend to get more chances before being sacked. This can be a good thing, because it allows them time to learn form their mistakes and grow. On the other hand, it allows ineffective generals to remain in place for longer, and that's almost always a bad thing.

The Soviets took a different route. Their generals knew that a lack of results could lead to a one-way ticket to the gulag, or a bullet in the back of the head. This tends to motivate, but it also creates leaders who are reckless or extremely averse to risk-taking. Either product can lead to disaster on the battlefield. I reckon that more than a few potentially brilliant Soviet generals never got past their first mistake.

I guess leadership is one of the biggest "intangibles" when it comes to predicting the outcome of a war.

-

[RN7]

In regards to Soviet/Russian air defences I think their SAM's were good but there fighters were a mixed bag.

Soviet/Russian medium and long ranged SAM systems from the S-300 (SA-10) to the latest S-500 are excellent, and would give NATO aircraft a lot of trouble. I would say they were ahead of NATO until the late 90's early 2000's when the treat ballistic missile from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea forces the west to pump money into developing more capable SAM systems.

Soviet/Russian fighter aircraft were never really a match for the best Western aircraft. The Mig-29/Mig-31/Su-27 generation were as good or better than any European NATO aircraft and export variants of American fighters, but not a good as the F-16/F-15/F-18s that US forces used. Training standards and AWACs was also inferior to NATO. There were some elite squadrons with better trained pilots and the latest Soviet arms and sensors, but on the whole they would have been in trouble outside of the USSR/Russia and Warsaw Pact territory beyond their SAM network. The current crop of modern Russian 4th and 4.5th Generation Su-27 Fulcrum derivatives or Mig-35 and the Chinese fighters are also not as good as US 4.5 and 5th Generation fighters or the latest variant of the 4.5 Generation Eurofighter despite what Russia and China say. Their 5th Generation is still at the prototype stage despite nearly two decades of development, whereas the US already has a 6th generation prototype flying.