In Defense of the Red Army

[Panther Al]

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.

Indeed, until 74 Easting, the T72 was the hottest seller the Russians had, post 74 Easting, they had hard times giving them away. Now, to be fair, the Russians have a point: The ones the Iraqi's had was really second class versions of them: The later T72's, with all the bells and whistles, are in fairness decent tanks. Equal to first line western tanks No, but more than adequate for most uses. Especially since they are cheap. When you get right to it, the T90 is the Russian response to that battle. The T90 is nothing more than an very upgraded T72 - some things I have read is that more than a few of the T90's floating about are rebuilt 72's.

If I was a country that needed a tank arm, one that had a fair chance of facing down modern western tanks, I wouldn't hesitate to pick up the T72 if I couldn't afford western tanks myself. Of course, part of the savings would go towards quantity, but most would go to training. I really do think, that a topflight T72/90, with a crew that has trained as hard and as well as a topflight western tank crew, can give a good accounting of themselves - within reason of course.

[Abbott Shaull]

Indeed, until 74 Easting, the T72 was the hottest seller the Russians had, post 74 Easting, they had hard times giving them away. Now, to be fair, the Russians have a point: The ones the Iraqi's had was really second class versions of them: The later T72's, with all the bells and whistles, are in fairness decent tanks. Equal to first line western tanks No, but more than adequate for most uses. Especially since they are cheap. When you get right to it, the T90 is the Russian response to that battle. The T90 is nothing more than an very upgraded T72 - some things I have read is that more than a few of the T90's floating about are rebuilt 72's.

If I was a country that needed a tank arm, one that had a fair chance of facing down modern western tanks, I wouldn't hesitate to pick up the T72 if I couldn't afford western tanks myself. Of course, part of the savings would go towards quantity, but most would go to training. I really do think, that a topflight T72/90, with a crew that has trained as hard and as well as a topflight western tank crew, can give a good accounting of themselves - within reason of course.

That is one of the things that Soviets and later Russian did understand. Up until the US fielded the M1 and the Germans, French, and UK generation of tanks came online. They had enjoyed for the most part having tanks that were Superior if not equal to the various NATO Counterparts.

With the introduction of the generation of tanks in the 80s by NATO had even the playing field for the units that would be doing the fighting in the early stages. At this time as the Soviets had watch in the late 1960s and 1970s were being tested and the fielded had placed their latest tanks into units based in Ukraine and Western military districts in the Soviet Union knowing these units would be third string. Most of these new tanks were in Tank Armies and Group of Tank Armies. One of the reasonings was to keep NATO from knowing of the best, and not really give them clear view. Kinda like the shock the Germans units had when they came up against unknown T-34 equipped unit in the early days of of Operations against the Soviet Union. While the Motorized Rifle units would get equipment handed down from soviet units to west.

One of the thing I do wonder is how friendly the Russia and China are now. I know for all practical purpose they seem to be real friendly. Then again in the 1960s they appeared friendly, but had some nasty fight along the Amur River.

[Panther Al]

Not very these days- most of the large increase in spending the russians are doing is earmarked for the far east. The official line is that japan is giving trouble over the disputed islands, yet all the military hardware that is or has been sent by by both nations are pionted at China - not each other.

[dragoon500ly]

[QUOTE=StainlessSteelCynic;27375]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.[\QUOTE]

LOL

And to think I was always getting my tail end chewed off for showing the Soviets as "Supermen" in the OPFOR classes!

The two things that have always impressed me about the Soviets is the quantity and simplicty of their equipment and the workmanlike approach that they follow as far as tactics go.

[Legbreaker]

The Soveits really knew how to boil it all down to the KISS principle...

[Tackleberry]

Quantity does have its own quality though.

Even with the Challengers, M1's and Leopards the North German plain would have been a very interesting punch up.

If you consider that in every exercise I took part in in the 80's Royal Air Force in Germany, we went "Chemical" straight away and "Nuclear" after 3 days.

IF the Russians had come over the border in either August (summer holidays) or at Xmas time, with everyone at skeleton manning. And without the time to reinforce I think the Red army would have made it to the Rhine, in the perfect Tank country of North Germany.

Once their supply lines got that extended it would have stopped them, but it would certainly have been close.

[Legbreaker]

IF the Russians had come over the border in either August (summer holidays) or at Xmas time, with everyone at skeleton manning. And without the time to reinforce I think the Red army would have made it to the Rhine, in the perfect Tank country of North Germany.

And with most of the personnel elsewhere, much of the prepositioned vehicles and supplies would have to be left behind as those few troops on the ground were forced back. Could have been absolutely crippling for NATO. Give the Soviets a few weeks for their logisitics to sort themselves out and they'd have been ready to push over the Rhine, through France and potentially take out Europe entirely.

NATO may have been able to fly in troops quickly enough during that pause, but with most of their equipment already behind enemy lines, more bodies on the ground wouldn't mean very much.

[Panther Al]

The only problem with the "Holiday Blitz" is that it takes a little while to go from sitting around in the motorpool to ready to kick ass and take names. This will get spotted, and while it might not be enough to warn that they are about to roll west, it is enough that leaves and such will be cancelled. So, there won't be a situation such as that.

However:

There is always a catch. In Red Storm Rising, Clancy used a surprise attack- with the surprise being on both NATO, and most of the Russian Troops as well. Going from Motorpool to combat ops with no getting ready for it is sure to be a shocking surprise, and one that would let the Russians fall on units that are not there because they are off skiing in the alps. Of course, you had better hope that you can back the play, as you won't have much in logistics built up.

[Targan]

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.

Once again Raellus you've put things exactly as I see them but in a better way than I could have. Agree with all of the above.

[Webstral]

The standing start model of Soviet offensive received a lot of attention back in the day, partially because it was the option that scared the West the most. What scares us the most isn"t necessarily the most likely. The Soviets were terrified of a third invasion of the Soviet Union by Germany, but NATO had no real plans for invading the USSR. By the same token, a standing start invasion by the Pact may have looked awfully scary, but the whole package didn"t fit with Soviet thinking.


Webstral

[HorseSoldier]

I seem to recall that once the walls came down there was a realization that the Soviets had no non-nuclear plans for an offensive into western Europe. Had the balloon gone up they planned to use tac nukes early and often to break up NATO ground and air forces. I would take this to suggest the Soviets had some serious questions about their abilities versus NATO -- at least insofar as if their forces could deliver a knock out blow fast enough to prevent a war turning into a matter of industrial output and attrition, which they don't seem to have thought they could win.

[Abbott Shaull]

I seem to recall that once the walls came down there was a realization that the Soviets had no non-nuclear plans for an offensive into western Europe. Had the balloon gone up they planned to use tac nukes early and often to break up NATO ground and air forces. I would take this to suggest the Soviets had some serious questions about their abilities versus NATO -- at least insofar as if their forces could deliver a knock out blow fast enough to prevent a war turning into a matter of industrial output and attrition, which they don't seem to have thought they could win.

The Soviets knew if they initiated the war, they would have to conclude very quickly. If you look at how if they were able to move things forward without giving us warning, it would still take week or more for their second and third echelon units make their way forward. The major hurdle is that their second echelon was made up of mostly Cat 2 and Cat 3 Pact forces that would take that long if not longer to mobilized.

These units would have to be mobilized and on the move before the third echelon units moved forward, or else an option would of been to move the third echelon forces up, before mobilizing the Pact forces and then mobilizing them and moving them forward to help consolidate any gains.

In the end the Soviets knew if they started a war first off, they would have use their forces in East Germany and Czech. These Groups of Forces were so large due to the fact that if Moscow started the war, these were most likely be the only troops to see most of the action. They also realized if they had done this, their second echelon would have to wait to be mobilized until their ready to move third echelon had moved through.

If the Second Echelon units had made it to the war as the 2nd Echelon, they would making it to the battle in little better state than Soviet Tank and Mechanized Corps of WWII era. Especially considering many of the tanks in this Echelon included T-55s and T-62s.

So in this case the use of Nuclear and Chemical would be needed in the eyes of the Soviet to eliminate such things as staging areas for reinforcements from the UK and US. As well as taking out command and control centers. Just some thoughts.

[Adm.Lee]

Funny this should come up this week. I am in a PBEM game of GDW's "Third World War," and I kicked off the standing-start offensive yesterday. In that game, nukes aren't allowed on the first turn (I suppose we could have house-ruled that), and the Pact allies' forces are frozen on "Turn 0."

So far, the surprise air attack was no Pearl Harbor or Clark Field, I lost more planes than I grounded.

[Tackleberry]

[QUOTE=avantman42;10797The 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.[/QUOTE]

It fired full auto until the magazine ran out, 1 shot hit not much.

The safety catch on the SLR could be "adapted" by removing the bent of metal that was put there to stop the selector switching to the full auto setting. Or at a push the FAL catch could fit, but why would anyone want to do it, unless firing blanks, is the question. The SLR barrel was not as heavy as the FN barrel, so it wouldn't take too many 20 round bursts, before accuracy would suffer. Plus the gas system would foul very quickly.

There is a reason for the GPMG being in service, almost the personal weapon of the Paras in the Falklands. In my opinion, the best General purpose 7.62x51mm machine gun.................................In the world.

[perardua]

There is a reason for the GPMG being in service, almost the personal weapon of the Paras in the Falklands. In my opinion, the best General purpose 7.62x51mm machine gun.................................In the world.

If there was a 'Like' button on this forum, I would be using it here. Spent most of my last Afghan tour behind a GPMG - it was the place to be.