In Defense of the Red Army

[JHart]

I game across this article http://www.alternatewars.com/WW3/the..._never_was.htm today and offers some insight into Soviet thinking.

[Raellus]

Good article. Thanks for the link, JHart.

I think that we all agree that the Red Army of the later Cold War years had several severe limitations but I still don't think that any of them would have been crippling. The author's assertion that late '80s Soviet doctrine advocating the use of battlefield nukes was a direct result of the Soviet high command's realization/admition of its technological inferiority vis-a-vis NATO is speculative, as the author himself admits. He may be right, but we must remember the temporal divergence that occurs around 1990 in the timeline. More on that a little later.

NATO had a clear qualitative edge by the late '80s, of that there can be little doubt. However, Soviet military science and technology were catching up, rather than falling further behind. As I pointed out in a couple of previous posts, the Soviets were in the process of rolling out several major land, sea, and air weapon systems that were comparable qualitatively, if not superior (e.g. the SU-27) to their NATO counterparts. In reality, the deployment of many of these systems was radically slowed (if not stopped altogether) by the faltering Russian economy.

This is where the divergence in the timelines comes in. In reality, the Soviet Union dissolved in '91, its economy in a tailspin, its political and social structure falling apart. Consequently, the Russian Federation (formerly the core of the Soviet military) suffered greatly as funding was all but cut off. The sorry state of the Russian military in the early to mid nineties only reinforces the idea that its predecessor was likewise a paper tiger. I've already debunked this logical fallicy earlier in this thread. What I'd like to focus on now is the way that history would have differed had the Soviet Union remained united, solvent, and fearful of NATO.

I would postulate that the Soviet Union of the v1.0 timeline would have recognized the limitations of its conventional forces in the early nineties- largely as a result of the Red Army's relatively poor performance in the Afghanistan war- and set about correcting them via a comprehensive reform program. The reversion to the strategic battle plan relying on tac-nuclear weapons described in the article was, in this scenario, merely a stopgap measure while the USSR initiated their military reform program. This program would focus on improving the training of its soldiers, especially its NCOs and junior officers. It would also address NATOs technical superiority by not only accelerating the roll out of more modern systems, but by upgrading existing systems (retrofitting combat aircraft with air-to-air refuelling equipment, older model tanks with thermal imaging systems, etc.). Instead of holding them in reserve, much older systems (e.g. T-54/55/63; Mig-21/23/35, etc.) would be sold off to the USSR's various client states (not WTO countries) to help offset modernization costs and create a leaner, meaner military.

Since the Soviets WTO allies were never fully trusted by them and given only a secondary role in Soviet strategic and operational military doctrine, they would be directed to support the Red Army's modernization program by increasing the production of military trucks, thereby ameliorating the Red Army's logistical weaknesses. Where possible, the other WTO armies would undertake their own modernization programs but their roles would be remain secondary.

The Red Army of T2K c. '95 would still win as far as the "correlation of forces" goes but it would also have made great leaps towards in catching up to NATO in terms of troop and hardware quality. In would still lag behing overall, but the gap would not nearly be as great as it was in '88 (IRL).

[TiggerCCW UK]

A friend has just found and loaned me his copy of Red Army. I'm looking forward to reading it. I always felt the red army was given a raw deal by authors so it'll be interesting to read from another perspective.

[Benjamin]

@Raellus: That is all well and good, but remember this will not happen in a vacuum. If the Soviets begin a comprehensive effort to upgrade their weapon systems in the late 80s/early 90s, than surely NATO will respond likewise. The V.1 timeline could up seeing far earlier deployments of a number of weapon systems...F-22, A-12, RAH-66, Crusader artillery and an improved Abrams Block III.

I'm not saying that the Soviet Union is doomed, but the West had major advantages that could not be made up within the command economy of the Soviet Union. Computer technology, driven more so by market demands than the military, made advancements in electronics systems continue at a break-neck pace in the West. Many of these systems, GPS, Cell-phones, internet, encryption and others, are fully dual use. The technology is applicable to both civilian and military needs. And while it is possible for the Soviets to gain access to these technologies through the gray market, creating an integrated system for military use would be extremely difficult and even harder to maintain once the ball dropped.

The Soviet Union needs full fledged market reforms along the lines of China, but I don't see that happening. I see the Soviet invasion of China as the last gasp of a failed system. West Germany realized this and gambled. Unfortunately, the fears of a united and militaristic Germany held the Warsaw Pact together while simultaneously destroying NATO. The US and its allies did not win handily because of two factors...Italy and Greece's betrayals and nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union was long past its prime but refused to go quietly into this dark night.

Benjamin

[Raellus]

@Raellus: That is all well and good, but remember this will not happen in a vacuum. If the Soviets begin a comprehensive effort to upgrade their weapon systems in the late 80s/early 90s, than surely NATO will respond likewise. The V.1 timeline could up seeing far earlier deployments of a number of weapon systems...F-22, A-12, RAH-66, Crusader artillery and an improved Abrams Block III.

Yes, I've never argued that this would not happen. I think you overstate the impact those systems would have, though. All of them are so expensive, they were either cancelled outright (Crusader, RAH-66) or only fielded in very limited numbers (Raptor). Even the relatively robust and powerful, market-driven economy of the U.S. would be severely strained by the continued development, purchase, and deployment of these systems in significant numbers. They would likely exist in the Twilight World, but in relatively small numbers.

As for technology in general, it can be a significant force multiplier to be sure, but I tend to discount the "Wonder Weapon" mentality somewhat. A lot of hi-tech systems don't operate as advertised operationally, or break down relatively easily under harsh battlefield conditions. It's probably not a fair comparison since there are other causal factors at play as well, but Hitler's high-tech weapons were unable to stem the Allied tide in WWII. His faith that relatively small production runs of technically superior tanks (Panther, Tigers, etc.) would offset the Soviet's numerical advantage in armor (and almost everything else for that matter) proved to have been seriously misplaced. He made the same mistake believing the jet-powered ME-262 would be able to tip the balance in the air against the numerically superior western Allies' air forces. I think Western armies are still a little too in love with their technology. Vietnam and Afghanistan prove that technological superiority alone does not win wars.

The cornerstone of my proposed Soviet military reforms of T2K '89-'95 is the improvement in the training of NCOs and junior officers. Upgrading existing weapon systems is also part of these reforms, but plays only a secondary role in improving the capabilities of the Red Army.

The Soviet Union needs full fledged market reforms along the lines of China, but I don't see that happening. I see the Soviet invasion of China as the last gasp of a failed system. West Germany realized this and gambled. Unfortunately, the fears of a united and militaristic Germany held the Warsaw Pact together while simultaneously destroying NATO. The US and its allies did not win handily because of two factors...Italy and Greece's betrayals and nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union was long past its prime but refused to go quietly into this dark night.

I agree with you, to a point. I've conceded that reforms, especially technological ones, would further strain the already stressed Soviet economy. I'm also of the opinion that this strain motivated, in part, the Soviet invasion of China. I just don't see the Soviet military- its political and economic systems, maybe- of T2K '95-2000 as "long past its prime."

Hitler said something along the lines of "kick in the door and the whole rotten house will fall down" about the Soviet Union. He could not have been more wrong. I am simply asserting that it is the height of folly to grossly underestimate any enemy, especially one with the combat history of the Soviet Union.

[Webstral]

Ironically, the Pact probably plays a role in Poland quite similar to the role China plays in Manchuria and northwest of Beijing. In the same fashion that the Chinese probably counter Soviet superiority in firepower, mobility, and technology with extensive fixed defenses involving minefields, water obstacles, reinforced concrete fighting positions, and even underground galleries, the Soviets probably use the January-April break in fighting along the Oder to prepare very dense defenses making the most of AT guns, ATGM carriers, and T-55s firing from keyhole positions on the flanks of the most obvious (or most practical) avenues of advance. The front-line divisions of the Group of Soviet Forces Germany probably would be held back for the purpose of counterattack. Under these circumstances, the Soviet pattern of using standardized battle drills would be more effective in defense than the same patterns would be in defensive war of maneuver. AT guns and ATGM that might not be able to defeat the front slopes of the M1 series would have much better results when firing from prepared positions on the flank.

Webstral

[Raellus]

I agree, Web. In the v1.0 scenario, the Soviet's would have the relative luxury of being able to trade space (i.e. the GDR and Poland) for time. Fixed defenses manned by lower readiness divisions would slow and grind down the NATO forces enough to ready the Red Army's better quality manuever formations for an eventual counteroffensive. Losses to NATO's high-tech weaponry would be extremely difficult to replace in a timely manner. This scenario is pretty much what happened during WWII at Kursk, with devastating results for the German military.

[chico20854]

I agree, Web. In the v1.0 scenario, the Soviet's would have the relative luxury of being able to trade space (i.e. the GDR and Poland) for time. Fixed defenses manned by lower readiness divisions would slow and grind down the NATO forces enough to ready the Red Army's better quality manuever formations for an eventual counteroffensive.

You speak the truth, brother! (The only issue is how many of those lower readiness units do they have... Soviet Vehicle Guide outlines a strangely extended mobilization period! But the Polish Army has one reserve and one mobilization-only army, plus numerous internal paramilitary troops, which are more than capable of digging in to defend their homeland!)

Losses to NATO's high-tech weaponry would be extremely difficult to replace in a timely manner. This scenario is pretty much what happened during WWII at Kursk, with devastating results for the German military.

The main source of replacement high-tech weaponry for US forces is the equipment left stateside by deploying POMCUS troops, mostly III Corps. The issue is getting it moved across the North Atlantic in winter during and after the Battle of the Norwegian Sea, with Soviet subs and raiders on the loose (or, more accurately, widespread fear of Soviet subs & raiders) and demand for shipping to deploy forces to the Persian Gulf, Korea and National Guard units to Europe (including such questionables as sending the 40th ID from California to Europe, likely via the Panama Canal).

By the time the losses from Advent Crown start mounting, US industrial production is able to make up most of the losses. (The US enjoys the benefit of a pre-war buildup of industrial capability - production is ramped up for export sales to China much in the way that US production in 1940 and 1941 was increased to meet demand from France and Britain). US tank numbers at the front don't start dropping until the start of the tactical nuclear exchange. (Send me a PM if you want the spreadsheet where we ran the AFV loss model.)

[Webstral]

US tank numbers at the front don't start dropping until the start of the tactical nuclear exchange. (Send me a PM if you want the spreadsheet where we ran the AFV loss model.)

Without agreeing or disagreeing on losses v replacements for M1s, I'm quite curious whether you have run numbers for tank crews. Also, did you devise formulae for APC and IFV losses. I believe this is where NATO is going to suffer the greatest losses, although some smart fellows may decide that the only way to get through Pact defenses is with dismounted attacks. Then the question becomes one of infantry replacements. I'd hate to be a rifleman slogging it out through Poland's defensive belts. Talk about earning you CIB!

Webstral

[Benjamin]

I'm not one to overly praise the Red Army, but I'm not dissing it much either. In the three month long drive across Poland, NATO will be in for a very rough time. BUT man-for-man and vehicle-for-vehicle NATO will have the advantage and prove to be the superior fighting force. If not, than why did the Soviet Union have to resort to tactical nuclear warfare on July 9, 1997

Sure Poland would be a meat grinder, but modern wars such as the Falklands, Iraq (1991), Israel versus Arabs and others have shown that technological superiority (and crew training/experience) is paramount. NATO advances over 600 kilometers in about 90 days (4/2/1997 - 7/9/1997). This is an advance of about 7 km/day. Not exactly blitzkrieg, but not too bad given that the WP has had 4 months to prepare for the NATO offensive.

If anything the V.1 timeline severely under estimates the economic and political strain being felt in the Soviet Union. And while the Soviet military may have been very tough, history has shown us that the USSR itself was rater fragile. In the end the Red Army is unable to protect the Motherland and the Russian leadership is forced to use nukes. This action is the surest sign of defeat.

Benjamin

[Raellus]

I'd like to see your AFV loss model, Chico. I really admire how scientific you guys are being in your assessments.

I'm a huge fan of the M1A1 and Challenger tanks but I'm not sure that they would fare as well against the Red Army as they have against the Iraqi Army. They steamrolled the Iraqis in '91 and '03 but the Iraqis- even their "elite" (LOL) Republican Guards divisions- were never as capable as the front-line units of the Red Army. Against masses of top-of-the-line Soviet tanks (not the cheap export versions), ground and air launched ATGMs, unguided AT weapons, AT mines, artillery, etc., I think NATO tank losses would mount fairly quickly.

I didn't used to think this way. Based on the M1's combat record in the First Gulf War, I had concluded that it was pretty much invulnerable (if used properly) to anything the Soviet Bloc could throw at it. It was the Israeli's experience in Lebanon a few years ago that convinced me that the modern battlefield is becoming increasingly dangerous for even the most modern MBTs. Hezbollah guerillas firing Soviet-made ATGMs (AT-13 & AT-14) manufactured during the early and mid-90s* were able to knock out and/or destroy the Israeli's Merkava Mk. IVs, arguably the world's most advanced and heavily armored operational MBT in the world today.

*These would, therefore, be available to Soviet troops in the Twilight War.

Benjamin, you have a fair point. It's hard to argue with the canonical rate of NATO's advance or the Soviet's first use of battlefield nukes. I do believe that the surprise of the West German's attack coupled with the strains of fighting a full scale war against the PRC go farther in explaining both the Soviet's loss of ground (which may have been somewhat deliberate) and their decision to make the battlefied nuclear than any inherent inferiority in the Soviet armed forced, though.

I respectfully disagree with you regarding the overall superiority of the Israeli and British weapons during the campaigns you mentioned. For just one example, during the '73 Yom Kippur war, Soviet-made Syrian tanks had infrared spotlights while the Israelis' western made Centurions, M-48s, M-60s, and Super Shermans did not, putting the Israelis at a distinct disadvantage during night engagements. The Egyptian's integrated AAD network of Soviet SA-2 and SA-3 SAMs and ZU-23-2 SPAAGs took a significant toll against the vaunted IAFs American Phantoms and Skyhawks. In the Falklands, the RN couldn't counter the Argentinians' Exocet missiles and many British troops swapped their semi-auto FN SLRs for the Argentinian's full-auto FN FALs. IMPO, it was the superior training and experience of the Israelis and Brits that allowed them to triumph, not their technological superiority.

I guess, from a purely gaming standpoint, there seems little point in playing against the remnants of a sucky enemy. On that basis alone, I feel the need to defend the equipment and fighting men of the Red Army.

[avantman42]

In the Falklands, the RN couldn't counter the Argentinians' Exocet missiles and many British troops swapped their semi-auto FN SLRs for the Argentinian's full-auto FN FALs. IMPO, it was the superior training and experience of the Israelis and Brits that allowed them to triumph, not their technological superiority.

I'd have to agree that, in the Falklands at least (I don't know much about the Arab-Israeli wars) the deciding factor was morale and training, not equipment. The only difference between the British SLR and the Argentinian FAL, as you've mentioned, is that the SLR didn't do full-auto. At least, not officially: I've heard from several ex-soldiers that inserting a match in the correct place made it fire full-auto. I seem to recall that many of the British attacks were night attacks because the British thought they had more night-vision equipment, when in fact the Argentinians had more.

As for the Exocets, the Royal Navy was lucky that Argentina hadn't taken delivery of it's full order, and France refused to deliver the remainder, so the Argentinian navy only had relatively few, and had to use iron bombs when the missiles ran out.

[fightingflamingo]

I worked on the vehicle losses for the DC Group, in consultation with my compatriots... We did not use the current Iraq War, or the 1990 Persian Gulf War... the loss model was developed from statistical experience during world war II (although admittedly we had to make some judgement calls), additionally, we figured in recovery rates (from the Arab Israel Wars in 1967 and 1973), new vehicle delivery (based on the industrial mobilization chico mentioned above, and doctrinal industrial mobilization schedules), as well as field & depot battlefield vehicle recovery rates... in the previous mobilization for war document we touch on how crews would be replaced as that document details the number of recruits turned out on an annual basis (again based upon coldwar era mobilization doctrine), and specifies the armor training sites.

It may not be perfect, and grad school has interfered with my completing the other vehicle types and losses listed on the first page, but it's a start...

[Targan]

The only difference between the British SLR and the Argentinian FAL, as you've mentioned, is that the SLR didn't do full-auto. At least, not officially: I've heard from several ex-soldiers that inserting a match in the correct place made it fire full-auto.

I was shown how to do that when I was in the ARES and that was what we were armed with. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Legbreaker knows that trick too.

[Legbreaker]

There's a couple of different methods actually, all officially frowned upon (and attracting a charge).
The problem with the methods I know is that unless judicious application of a file is involved (or a replacement part installed), the weapon is only capable of automatic fire and looses the abilty to be placed on "safe" (at least quickly).
The better option, if possible, is to lay your hands on the automatic support version (DAMN RARE!) known as the AR (Automatic Rifle), the L2A1 I think. Equipped with heavier barrel and bipod it uses larger 30 round magazines (instead of the standard 20) which unfortunately empty far, far too quickly.

Give me something belt fed anyday. Yes, they're almost always heavier, but you don't need to reload as often and recoil is much less of a factor.

Regarding the FAL and SLR, there are a few differences, but mainly in the fact that one is build to metric and the other imperial (millimetres and inches). They are still basically the same weapon although don't try swapping parts, or even magazines from one to the other and expect it to work properly!