In Defense of the Red Army

[Cdnwolf]

Although flawed... Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising still offers a lot of insight into fighting a war in Central Europe and the beginning of the book gives details on how long it would take to get oil and gas production back on line following a major disaster...

It also looks at the effect on the FEBA and modern aircraft...

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Some call it thread necromancy, I call it "revisiting the topic"

After reading through dragoon500ly's post about Soviet equipment and then going back here to reread his thoughts, I am in full agreement with Raellus. Many people too easily dismiss the Soviet Union and the Red Army.

With the benefit of the internet it's easy to find better information about Soviet equipment and better still, with online translation programmes, we can now view a number of Russian sites that give details previously unavailable in the West. One such site has three items of interest, two in particular that could have given NATO something of a surprise.
The following are Google Translate links so be prepared for some weird English.

The ZSU-37-2 This was a contemporary to the ZSU-23-4 with a longer engagement range and meant to support tank regiments. Discontinued from development for unspecified reasons (but probably because the ZSU-23-4 performed better on high-speed targets at lower altitudes)

http://translate.google.com/translatehl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://dogswar.ru/oryjeinaia-ekzotika/bronetehnika/2142-zenitnaia-samohodnai.html&rurl=translate.google.com

The T-74 A proposal for a small-turret tank mounting an external gun. Development ceased due to technical complexity driving up the price of development and production.

http://translate.google.com/translatehl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://dogswar.ru/oryjeinaia-ekzotika/bronetehnika/618-proekt-tanka-t-74-lizdelie-45.html&rurl=translate.google.com

The VAG-73 caseless ammunition pistol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerasimenko_VAG-73

http://translate.google.com/translatehl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdogswar.ru%2F

There's also the series of 9x39mm silent weapons developed in the late 1980s (VSS Vintorez, AS Val), various weapons for combat divers (ASM-DT, ADS), the very well developed work on variable geometry afterburner nozzles (along with the supersonic VTOL Yak-41M AKA Yak-141), other rifles to replace the AK/AKM series (such as the TKB-0146 bullpup or the AO-38 rifle, the first to use the 'Balanced Automatic Recoil System, other link here or the Soviet equivalent to Project SALVO such as the TKB-059, the Kamov V-100 project for a high-speed attack helicopter, the Mil Mi-30 tilt-rotor project, the 80.002 combination assault rifle & grenade launcher and so on.

I hope that what's illustrated here is that the Soviets were not simply sitting back and constantly improving old designs to try and hold out against the West, but that they too indulged in a varied R&D programme to explore other ideas in an effort to compete and maybe beat, the West.
I'm not saying that the Soviets would have easily beaten NATO or even that they could have beaten NATO at all but I am saying that measuring the Soviet Union by the standards of the Gorbachev era leads to an easy dismissal of their abilities.

[Legbreaker]

I 100% agree. It would be interesting if we had a similar amount of input from 1970-80 era ex Soviet soliders as we do from western forces (mainly US). On the other hand, national pride might end up with numerous flame wars...

[Raellus]

I think another reason it's tempting to underestimate the Soviet military is that, for a time in the early '90s, their military org/tech/training etc. was "frozen in time" while the West was making strides forward in the wake of the wildly successful Desert Shield/Storm campaign. In fact, if anything, the Russian military in the early '90s was regressing as military funding dried up and new strategic realities started sinking in. It's easy to remember the beaten MRDs withdrawing across that last bridge between Afghanistan and the soon-to-ex-Soviet republics in '89, or the loyalist Russian tanks shelling the rebellious troops in the high-rise ministry, or the rusting hulks of ex-Soviet navy ships and submarines stuck in port. Those last images are pathetic and really don't do the Soviet military justice.

It's easy to forget that a v1.0 Soviet military would have been moving forward during the '90s, if not keeping pace with the West, then at least trying their damnedest to do so.

This is why I prefer to remember the Soviet Military as they seemed during my childhood (the '80s)- a huge, somewhat mysterious entity that posed a clear and present danger to the NATO countries.

[pmulcahy11b]

If nothing else, one should never underestimate their opponents.

[pmulcahy11b]

@Cynic:

Ooohhh, new stuff for the "Best Stuff That Never Was" pages! It'll take more research than on those pages, however. It's a good start, though.

[Raellus]

I can't remember if it has been previously pointed out in this thread, but the Soviet-made T-72s that were spanked by American M1 Abrams and British Challengers in both Iraq wars were bare-bones export models that had down-graded optics and manual-only turret traverses. Soviet T-72s, although inferior in nearly every aspect to contemporary NATO MBTs, would have been significantly more capable than the Republican Guards' T-72s. I really wonder how the battle of 73 Easting would have gone down if it had been Soviet Guards tankers that the American ACRs were going up against. I doubt that they would have won that fight, but they sure as hell would have made it a lot costlier in terms of men and material for the Americans.

Extensively upgraded T-55s, T-62s, T-72s, T-80s, and T-90s (and these surely would have been rolled out during the '90s had the Cold War continued) are fairly capable MBTs and they would have been thrown at the West in numbers that NATO simply couldn't match.

[Legbreaker]

Absolutely agree with that.
As has been stated time and time again, the Iraqi's simply cannot be compared to what would have been faced by Nato in Europe. In 1991 and again a decade later, Iraq was all alone, equipped with second grade vehicles and weapons, and their training standard can only be described as laughable. Add in that they'd only just finished fighting Iran and the vast bulk of their best units had been destroyed....

Obviously the Iraqi commanders made some fatal mistakes in 91, and the willingness of the troops to fight was, on the whole, rather lacking. If they'd been competantly led, properly trained and organised, it may well have been a different matter.

Granted the Pact forces at the time have proven to be fairly poorly prepared, however that state of affairs is not what the game is based upon. In the T2K universe, the Pact were a strong and credible force, ready, able and willing to do serious damage.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

This is why I prefer to remember the Soviet Military as they seemed during my childhood (the '80s)- a huge, somewhat mysterious entity that posed a clear and present danger to the NATO countries.

"clear and present danger" Holy crap, man, by your estimation we should've just surrendered outright since not only were they numerically superior they were up to par in every other way as well.

I mean, if they really had the drop on us that bad, why didn't they just send the balloon up Surely they had a vastly more cavalier attitude vis-a-vis "getting our hair mussed" in "toe-to-toe nuclear combat". I mean, they had everything the Walkers had leaked to them, they obviously had the numbers and they apparently had the tactics and troop quality to beat us at every turn. Why no statue of Lenin in Antwerp, then

(Erm...that sounds ill-tempered but it's not meant to be, I promise.)

[Legbreaker]

Nobody is saying that man for man, tank to tank, aircraft to aircraft the Pact were an equal match. Their entire doctrine wasn't about being equal on that level, but swamping the west with masses of barely adequate men and machines. As it turns out, they didn't even manage the "barely" part, especially once the Communist countries started to crumble.

Remember though that T2K is a game. It's not supposed to reflect reality, but rather the perception of what was reality - in other words, the west thought the east had the ability to steamroll their forces, and reacted accordingly. The game is built from the ground up on these assumptions, guesses, fabrications and downright lies with a little reality thrown in for flavour.

The game is a product of the early 1980s and the general hysteria that went with it. There's no way that it could be made today looking back, knowing the true capabilities and economics of the period. Applying modern knowledge in my opinion radically alters the basic premise of the game, unbalancing the situation and essentially making it unplayable as a believable post apocalyptic setting.

[Raellus]

"clear and present danger" Holy crap, man, by your estimation we should've just surrendered outright since not only were they numerically superior they were up to par in every other way as well.

I mean, if they really had the drop on us that bad, why didn't they just send the balloon up Surely they had a vastly more cavalier attitude vis-a-vis "getting our hair mussed" in "toe-to-toe nuclear combat". I mean, they had everything the Walkers had leaked to them, they obviously had the numbers and they apparently had the tactics and troop quality to beat us at every turn. Why no statue of Lenin in Antwerp, then

(Erm...that sounds ill-tempered but it's not meant to be, I promise.)

Yeah, a little ill-tempered. I'll try to keep the snark to a minimum.

Clearly, you misunderstand my thesis. I've never argued that the Soviets/WTO were qualitatively superior in any way (save numbers) to NATO. My point is that some folks here and elsewhere seriously underestimate what they could have done in their prime, or had the Cold War continued through the 1990s. They were not the push-overs many claim them to have been. 20-20 hindsight in this matter is a myth. Just because they lost in Afghanistan (are we "winning" there now) and the gear they sold to Iraq was crap doesn't mean NATO would have walked over them like some folks seem to imagine. I stick by that thesis.

My essay is an apologetic for the T2K v1.0 history, that's all. If the Soviet military as a whole sucked as bad as some folks out there (and here) believe, the T2K scenario simply wouldn't happen.

If you disagree- and apparently you do- and what I've posted in this thread doesn't sway you, then clearly nothing will. I just wonder how you justify a T2K scenario. I'm not comparing you to Hitler, but didn't the French in 1812 and the Germans in 1941 make the same mistake Soviet-bashers are now Was it Santayana who wrote "those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it" I just don't see the logic or fun in a T2K'er arguing strongly against the Soviet military.

[HorseSoldier]

I can't remember if it has been previously pointed out in this thread, but the Soviet-made T-72s that were spanked by American M1 Abrams and British Challengers in both Iraq wars were bare-bones export models that had down-graded optics and manual-only turret traverses. Soviet T-72s, although inferior in nearly every aspect to contemporary NATO MBTs, would have been significantly more capable than the Republican Guards' T-72s. I really wonder how the battle of 73 Easting would have gone down if it had been Soviet Guards tankers that the American ACRs were going up against. I doubt that they would have won that fight, but they sure as hell would have made it a lot costlier in terms of men and material for the Americans.

The Russians have been saying that since about the moment US forces made it through to 74 Easting . . . I'm not sure how much I buy the claims, to be honest (and I'm definitely not part of the US or NATO uber alles crowd) -- that information seems to have been loudly distributed by the Russians after their market share took a huge hit after 91, not from technical intelligence analysis, though I may be wrong on that.

[Raellus]

The Russians have been saying that since about the moment US forces made it through to 74 Easting . . . I'm not sure how much I buy the claims, to be honest (and I'm definitely not part of the US or NATO uber alles crowd) -- that information seems to have been loudly distributed by the Russians after their market share took a huge hit after 91, not from technical intelligence analysis, though I may be wrong on that.

The fact that Iraqi T-72s didn't have powered turret traverse has been conceded by the U.S. military, if not independently verified. I don't think anyone is contradicting that.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Yeah, a little ill-tempered. I'll try to keep the snark to a minimum.

Clearly, you misunderstand my thesis.

I did, I see that and I apologize if I was perceived as having brought the snark first. I didn't intend to, trust me.

I've never argued that the Soviets/WTO were qualitatively superior in any way (save numbers) to NATO. My point is that some folks here and elsewhere seriously underestimate what they could have done in their prime, or had the Cold War continued through the 1990s. They were not the push-overs many claim them to have been. 20-20 hindsight in this matter is a myth. Just because they lost in Afghanistan (are we "winning" there now) and the gear they sold to Iraq was crap doesn't mean NATO would have walked over them like some folks seem to imagine. I stick by that thesis.
[/quote]

Oh no, no, I don't think that was the case at all and you certainly make the point clearly.

My essay is an apologetic for the T2K v1.0 history, that's all. If the Soviet military as a whole sucked as bad as some folks out there (and here) believe, the T2K scenario simply wouldn't happen.

I see that now and I hope you don't think I was one questioning the plausibility of the scenario. I apologize for not reading further.

If you disagree- and apparently you do- and what I've posted in this thread doesn't sway you, then clearly nothing will.

No no, it was just misunderstanding on my part.

I just wonder how you justify a T2K scenario. I'm not comparing you to Hitler, but didn't the French in 1812 and the Germans in 1941 make the same mistake Soviet-bashers are now Was it Santayana who wrote "those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it" I just don't see the logic or fun in a T2K'er arguing strongly against the Soviet military.

Hey, I'm in agreement with you. Without a roundhouse kick to the ass for the remnants of NATO in the summer of 2000, the game becomes Red Dawn!

So, again, I misunderstood and again I wasn't upset at your assertions, and I hope we can put this behind - because I'm in agreement with you.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Nobody is saying that man for man, tank to tank, aircraft to aircraft the Pact were an equal match. Their entire doctrine wasn't about being equal on that level, but swamping the west with masses of barely adequate men and machines. As it turns out, they didn't even manage the "barely" part, especially once the Communist countries started to crumble.

Remember though that T2K is a game. It's not supposed to reflect reality, but rather the perception of what was reality - in other words, the west thought the east had the ability to steamroll their forces, and reacted accordingly. The game is built from the ground up on these assumptions, guesses, fabrications and downright lies with a little reality thrown in for flavour.

The game is a product of the early 1980s and the general hysteria that went with it. There's no way that it could be made today looking back, knowing the true capabilities and economics of the period. Applying modern knowledge in my opinion radically alters the basic premise of the game, unbalancing the situation and essentially making it unplayable as a believable post apocalyptic setting.

I read you loud and clear, and everything I said to Rael applies equally here.