Thread: U.S. VS. Soviet Union

Originally Posted by S-2

Zraver,

Are you certain that Soviet tactical and operational reconnaissance was collected by the security detachments of first echelon regiments and that this was done so by "blunder"?

Positive, even if the doctrine said other wise the lack of specialized platforms other than a few AFV's to light to do the r/cr fight, clunky communications and control, short enlistments, language issues only add up to recon by blunder. They didn't even have an effective scout helo feilded.

Why did we do so? Have you read after-action reports from brigades deployed to NTC, particularly from 1983-88? OPFOR recon/counter-recon missions routinely embarassed our manuever brigade collection and security resources.

NTC's Op-for is a poor substitute for real Soviet Doctrine. With professional highly experienced crews, good radios, home turf equaling defenders advantage even on the attack, intimate familiarity with the day to day way a line unit works, and a doctrine specially designed and up dated to humble brigade groups. They only loosely use the Soviet System it is heavily modified to achieve its mission. Even then the NTC op for uses a lot of what in the Soviet Army would be special forces teams for recon, and a lot of misdirection and masking through maneuver and display rather than actually fighting the r/cr fight vs heavier platforms like the Bradley. Even then if you look at the end of rotation performance of the visiting unit vs the early fights you see a drastic improvement. There are only so many tricks the lighter op-for force can do. When a visiting unit does win it is usually becuase they win the r/cr fight.

We never did, at least not on a brigade level. My last rotation the scouts were out all night fighting and the Brigade moved to flank and got flanked in turn when we walked in to a trap. The lead elements locked horns with a holding force and then the cs units like the jump tocs and maintenance/recovery assets got corn holed and everything went to hell in a hand basket. We had the brigades MP's trying to fend off MRC's with dragons while the support elements looked for wadis' to hide in. It's was a classic example of shock effect. I don't think a Soviet Unit could have done it.

Perhaps you're correct but I'd suggest that even a casual inspection of Soviet offensive doctrine would highlight the importance of operational and tactical reconnaissance and that it would make clear distinction between that mission and that performed by the security detachments of first echelon regiments.

Their doctrine was first rate, but they could not support it. The first things that are going to die would be the scout elements. leading the spear vs NATO heavy units with BRDM's and ACV's is not a way to see long life. This means 10 minutes after the war starts the security element would be the lead element.

Originally Posted by zraver

Their doctrine was first rate, but they could not support it. The first things that are going to die would be the scout elements. leading the spear vs NATO heavy units with BRDM's and ACV's is not a way to see long life. This means 10 minutes after the war starts the security element would be the lead element.

Would the fact that they planned nothing more than a pre-emptive strike adjust your views? They were never planning to march to the Atlantic. Only a spoiling attack before the nuclear exchange.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Would the fact that they planned nothing more than a pre-emptive strike adjust your views? They were never planning to march to the Atlantic. Only a spoiling attack before the nuclear exchange.

Assuming the USSR would not risk nuclear war with America but took the gamble that she could cross the Rhine before Reforger units arrived. if nukes pop then its over anyway. The Soviet problem of course is the fact that the front line is not the main line. They have to paste the front lines and the ACR's (vs the US) to even reach the US divisional formations. As good as that artillery might be its not going to get all of the ACR's combat assets- bye bye scouts and depending on how much of the ACR survived possibly a good chunk of the entire first echelon as well. What elements do survive now have to face divisional and brigade screens. By the time the main fight is joined I seriously doubt the recon assets would be alive.

Z,

I assume you have not seen this yet

From Military Planning for European Theater Conflict in the Cold War

The Operational Plans

The conference began with a detailed overview of the NATO plans in the early 1980s. Th e plans assumed that the Warsaw Pact had numerical conventional superiority and anticipated a gradual improvement of its armament. Th e plans, it was repeatedly emphasised, were fi rst and foremost intended to deter the Warsaw Pact from attacking. Should deterrence fail, they were to serve as a guide for the defence of the territory of the NATO member countries. Th e plans were therefore of purely defensive nature. Counterattacks were only intended to recapture lost territory. All NATO representatives confi rmed this; the German representative pointed out the catastrophic consequences of any alternative for the civilian population of his country. A very important new element in the planning, in the event of the Warsaw Pact opening the attack, was attacking enemy troops assembling on the territory of the member states of the Warsaw Pact – the AirLand Battle /Follow-on Forces Attack, or FOFA, concept.

The representatives of the former Soviet Union then made it clear
that the Warsaw Pact had never had plans to be the fi rst to attack either. It would not even have been able to do so, as too many Soviet troops were stationed along the border with China, and the fi ghting in Afghanistan required the deployment of a great many troops as well. It was mainly for that reason, it was said, that the Soviet Union also halted plans for military intervention in Poland.25

The Soviet Union considered the United States to be the main opponent in the European theatre of war. If NATO had attacked, the Pact would have therefore launched nuclear missiles at America almost immediately. It would have attacked on the notion, based on past experiences, that attack was the best form of defence. Like NATO, it had stationed its troops as far forward as possible in order to be able to carry out such an attack. However, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the military leadership assumed that there would be no hostilities in Europe because they would almost certainly lead to a world war. These revelations surprised the NATO participants, who in those days had assumed that the Soviet Union was prepared to limit a possible war to Europe, to prevent American retaliation.

The Soviet Union's leadership were nasty to say the least, but I doubt they'd have started a war- remember they'd lived through the Great Patriotic War.

Colonel,

in the event of the Warsaw Pact opening the attack, was attacking enemy troops assembling on the territory of the member states of the Warsaw Pact – the AirLand Battle /Follow-on Forces Attack, or FOFA, concept.

I think this is what we are discussing. I don't think anyone doubts that had NATO been the aggressor then things would quickly have go to hell globally. The Soviet Union paid to much during the last war.

Originally Posted by Silent Hunter

The Soviet Union's leadership were nasty to say the least, but I doubt they'd have started a war- remember they'd lived through the Great Patriotic War.

I don't think Soviet poltical leadership from 1980-1985 was particularly dangerous. The general sacretariats, Brezhenev, Andropov and Cherneko, were to a man extremely old and extremely ill of health.

Originally Posted by Triple C

I don't think Soviet poltical leadership from 1980-1985 was particularly dangerous. The general sacretariats, Brezhenev, Andropov and Cherneko, were to a man extremely old and extremely ill of health.

I'm talking about the whole system- prison camps and all.

These revelations surprised the NATO participants, who in those days had assumed that the Soviet Union was prepared to limit a possible war to Europe, to prevent American retaliation.

Isn't that pretty much impossible with the intimate involvement of US forces in Europe?

Originally Posted by zraver

I think this is what we are discussing. I don't think anyone doubts that had NATO been the aggressor then things would quickly have go to hell globally. The Soviet Union paid to much during the last war.

Z,

I'm not trying to derail your points but merely pointing out that they themselves were never prepared both numerically and psychologically to do as you suggest. I don't think they even consider going to the Rhine after this publication. So, the question is what were they prepared to do and could they have done it according to their doctrine?

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

Isn't that pretty much impossible with the intimate involvement of US forces in Europe?

We thought that they thought it was possible to fight a limited war.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Z,

I'm not trying to derail your points but merely pointing out that they themselves were never prepared both numerically and psychologically to do as you suggest. I don't think they even consider going to the Rhine after this publication. So, the question is what were they prepared to do and could they have done it according to their doctrine?

We thought that they thought it was possible to fight a limited war.

Perception is 9/10ths of a war...

Originally Posted by Silent Hunter

The Soviet Union's leadership were nasty to say the least, but I doubt they'd have started a war- remember they'd lived through the Great Patriotic War.

Precisely my point. It was never the intention of Soviet Russia to expand westwards. This was NATO propaganda (to justify jobs for the boys). The creation of the iron curtain was to keep OUT.

Originally Posted by Elbmek

Precisely my point. It was never the intention of Soviet Russia to expand westwards. This was NATO propaganda (to justify jobs for the boys). The creation of the iron curtain was to keep OUT.

That is highly suspect. Soviet aid and support for leftist groups, actions in Asia, Africa and the Middle East point towards an expansionist agenda. Also a go nuclear from the start policy such as the US had until the Soviets got the bomb precludes the need for a large army geared for offensive mechanized warfare. The Doctors plot sure likes a manufactured cassus belli as well.

Mr Radzinski says Yes. He asserts that Stalin was injected with poison by the guard Khrustalev, under the orders of his master, KGB chief Lavrenty Beria. And what was the reason Stalin was killed?

"All the people who surrounded Stalin understood that Stalin wanted war - the future World War III - and he decided to prepare the country for this war," Mr Radzinski says.

"He said: we have the opportunity to create a communist Europe but we have to hurry. But Beria, Khrushchev, Malenkov and every normal person understood it was terrible to begin a war against America because the country [Russia] had no economy.

"It wasn't a poor but a super-poor country which was destroyed by the German invasion, a country which had no resources but only nuclear weapons.

Stalin by- Edvard Radzinski.


Also the large number of Soviet subs points towards an interdiction policy in the event of war. If they really planned on going nuclear from day 1 why such concern for cutting off Reforger units? Same as the focus inside the Red Army itself on offensive operations. They did not spend nearly as much time on field craft and defensive operations as they did on offensive training. Training your infantry to dismount and run towards the enemy firing from the hip for suppressive fire while you close is not defensive. Same goes for SCUD and FROG rockets, they are useless for hitting moving columns but ideal for hitting bases, choke points, and defensive works if your not sure about your air force doing the job.

The evidence say the Red Army was geared to go west. The only ingredient missing in the 50's and 70's when the Red Army had the most and best cards was the political will to do so.

Originally Posted by zraver

If they really planned on going nuclear from day 1 why such concern for cutting off Reforger units?

That one is easy to explain. The navy and AF looking for a job to do. Just because we have a no nuclear restriction policy does not excuse you from being the best tanker you could be in the event of war.

The Canadians have given up tac nukes in the 60s but we were still expected to perform that role.