1970s UK 'defenceless against Soviets'

[marktigger]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7795497.stm

According to declassified documents Britain was left almost defenceless during the 1970's by successive governments defence cuts. A fact most of us in the military of the 1980's and 90's could relate to. And Yet when the wall came down our forces were massivly cut back to get a "peace" dividend which Labour though wasn't enough and cut even more. I would sugest the Armed forces the UK had in the 1980's and 90's in terms of Numbers of men nad women was about the minimum this country should have and the forces should have been restructured not cut to create a balanced army navy and airforce that would be a dam sight more flexible than the current set up.

[RAFREGT.]

i'm sure i've read in the past how much the Soviet strength was over estimated also....but looks like we got away with it then!

[GazB]

And the US was defenceless against the Soviets too, and the Soviets were defenceless against the US. That was how MAD worked. Both sides had a rather rough parity in most areas that were important to each side even if the other side had an advantage in an area the other side weren't interested in. The Soviets had a lot of tanks, but the Americans didn't care because they knew the Soviets had no way of getting a large portion of those tanks to the US. The US had and has a powerful Navy but the Soviets didn't have sea based supply lines for such a navy to cut so it didn't care. In nuclear missiles both had enough to wipe the other and everyone else off the map. The British also had a few of these as well.

[G-AWZT]

The US military especially the Army was anemic during the years from 73-80. If we had gotten into a conflict in 1973 we would've been in trouble. Race relations, rampant drug use, aftermath of Vietnam, low public support etc in the Army was at it's highest.

[rgjbloke]

Everybody had their problems both in NATO and the Warsaw Pact. For example although the Russian army was extremely large, it was a conscript army and we were told that one third of the russian army were relatively new recruits with almost no training, one third was partly trained and the other third were fully trained but coming to the end of their conscription service. The rest of the Warsaw Pact were presumably in a similar state. I think you have to look at this report in the context that, and I think the report alludes to this, any ground hostilities would mainly in the initial phase be fought on the continent in Germany ect. Nato forces were supposed to hold and try and contain any Warsaw Pact incursion while the politicians talked and hopefully agreed some kind of ceasefire presumably by threatening each other with mutually assured destruction if they didn't stop hostilities. Whilst the war was being fought initially on the continent, forces in Britain including the reserves would be mobilised for the defence of Britain itself. Certainly infantry training and tactics included both defensive and offensive operations and we were certainly never short of the weapons thought to be needed for this kind of warfare or the ammunition needed for them. I can only speak for the bit I was in though. I can't speak for the rest of the Army or the Navy and the Airforce.

[blueredblue]

as long as the russkies didnt attack on a wednesday afternoon( sports afternoon) or a friday after 12 middday and before 12 midday on a monday

[Indiana Jones]

Everybody had their problems both in NATO and the Warsaw Pact. For example although the Russian army was extremely large, it was a conscript army and we were told that one third of the russian army were relatively new recruits with almost no training, one third was partly trained and the other third were fully trained but coming to the end of their conscription service. The rest of the Warsaw Pact were presumably in a similar state. I think you have to look at this report in the context that, and I think the report alludes to this, any ground hostilities would mainly in the initial phase be fought on the continent in Germany ect. Nato forces were supposed to hold and try and contain any Warsaw Pact incursion while the politicians talked and hopefully agreed some kind of ceasefire presumably by threatening each other with mutually assured destruction if they didn't stop hostilities. Whilst the war was being fought initially on the continent, forces in Britain including the reserves would be mobilised for the defence of Britain itself. Certainly infantry training and tactics included both defensive and offensive operations and we were certainly never short of the weapons thought to be needed for this kind of warfare or the ammunition needed for them. I can only speak for the bit I was in though. I can't speak for the rest of the Army or the Navy and the Airforce.
Mind you, any potential conflict between NATO and the WarPac states would have been shaped by a massive initial nuclear release that would not have spared the United Kingdom.

[GazB]

For example although the Russian army was extremely large, it was a conscript army and we were told that one third of the russian army were relatively new recruits with almost no training, one third was partly trained and the other third were fully trained but coming to the end of their conscription service.

WWIII would have been a meat grinder, a mobile war like WWII that burned up cannon fodder like nobodies business. Small professional armies would not remain intact for long and replacements would soon become the majority. The difference is that in the East most civilians will have had military training, while in the west some suddenly conscripted guy in his mid 30s that has never even fired a rifle will suddenly be put in a uniform and told to fight.

[G-AWZT]

WWIII would have been a meat grinder, a mobile war like WWII that burned up cannon fodder like nobodies business. Small professional armies would not remain intact for long and replacements would soon become the majority. The difference is that in the East most civilians will have had military training, while in the west some suddenly conscripted guy in his mid 30s that has never even fired a rifle will suddenly be put in a uniform and told to fight.



Yeop. I recall signing my selective service card while I was a senior in high school in '85. Had the worst happened we would've been sent as green as they come.

[baboon6]

WWIII would have been a meat grinder, a mobile war like WWII that burned up cannon fodder like nobodies business. Small professional armies would not remain intact for long and replacements would soon become the majority. The difference is that in the East most civilians will have had military training, while in the west some suddenly conscripted guy in his mid 30s that has never even fired a rifle will suddenly be put in a uniform and told to fight.

You mean the English-speaking west. All countries in western Europe at that time had conscription and extensive reserve forces.

[Abbadon the Despoiler]

And the US was defenceless against the Soviets too, and the Soviets were defenceless against the US. That was how MAD worked. Both sides had a rather rough parity in most areas that were important to each side even if the other side had an advantage in an area the other side weren't interested in. The Soviets had a lot of tanks, but the Americans didn't care because they knew the Soviets had no way of getting a large portion of those tanks to the US. The US had and has a powerful Navy but the Soviets didn't have sea based supply lines for such a navy to cut so it didn't care. In nuclear missiles both had enough to wipe the other and everyone else off the map. The British also had a few of these as well.


Mind you, any potential conflict between NATO and the WarPac states would have been shaped by a massive initial nuclear release that would not have spared the United Kingdom.

just for extension:


here're some stats of military Warsaw plan (1961) - taken from book "CSLA on the Rhine"


Seaside front (Poland) - 15 divisions (11 polish, 4 soviet)
from that 11 mechanised infantry and 4 tank divisions with 3180 tanks in total. They would have "liberate" Baltic oceanfront.

2nd West front (SSSR) - 18 divisions (13 soviet, 5 east german)
from that 11 mechanised infantry and 7 tank divisions with 4080 tanks in total. Berlin-Paris axis.

1st West Front (SSSR) - 23 divisions (12 soviet, 6 polish, 5 east german)
from that 13 mechanised infantry and 10 tank divisions with 5340 tanks in total. Frankfurth-Luxemburg-Paris axis.

Czechoslovak front (CSSR) - 15 divisions (14 czechoslovak, 1 soviet eventually)
From that 9 mechanised infantry and 6 tank divisions with 3420 tanks in total. Its targets were PRAGUE-NÜRNBERG-STUTTGART-STRASBOURG-EPINAL-DIJON-LYON

All those four "first to fight" forces had 71 all military divisions in total.

SSSR - 31 divisions
Poland - 17 divisions
GDR - 10 divisions
ČSSR - 14 divisions
16020 tanks

In their way was 28 "first to fight" NATO divisions

Belgium - 2 divisions
France - 4 divisions
Dutch - 2 divisions
Great Britain - 3 divisions
USA - 5 divisions
FRG - 12 divisions
2800 tanks

To help advancing communist "liberators" there were also nuclear weapons as part of the "preventative mass nuclear strike".

Plans for usage of nuclear weapons in on behalf of Czechoslovak front:
131 nuclear strikes in total (!) with 96 rockets and 35 atomic bombs.

41 in first nuclear strike
29 during fulfilment of closer missions
49 during fulfilment of another missions
12 reserve

http://techconex.com/images/wwiii/large/western.jpg
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=132994

[Rudolph]

You mean the English-speaking west. All countries in western Europe at that time had conscription and extensive reserve forces.

Switzerland would be a great example.

[blueredblue]

slighty off topic, but can any one reccomend any books on this subject, ie " what if the russians did attack"

[Mordoror]

funny as everytime the use on first strike of nuclear weapon by Soviet side is put on the front of the discussion

this is one but not the only way to do the soviet military have tought about

others include mix nuke and chemical
chemical only
or crude and brutal conventionnal assault without any WMD

on the other side nobody is talking about use of nukes against a conventional only assault that was planified by NATO (especially on the Fulda Gap and Soviet beachheads on the Weser and Rhine)
but here also they were only plans and other did not always included them

It is strange to see all that chest beating about nukes when the political cost of those weapon is so high for whoever use them (soviet or NATO the same)

now a question
in the order of battle above i don't see mentionning the southern front (no romanian or hungarian or bulgarian divisions ??)

and back to the topic, the UK was mainly seen as provider for a powerful navy and airforce for the Norther/Nordic front
i don't think that in the 1970's the RAF or Roayl Navy was so useless in support of Norway/Danemark as it was intended for

concerning the land troops the main deployed army was already on the german soil and no much could have been expected from UK expect give some strategic land reserves that could have a harsh time to reach the front
It was simply not their duty
For ground battle the bulk of the duty was on German/Netherland/Belgium and of course US side
for ground ops UK would have been secondary partner so not so useless given the doctrine against the sovs

[Abbadon the Despoiler]

funny as everytime the use on first strike of nuclear weapon by Soviet side is put on the front of the discussion
this is one but not the only way to do the soviet military have tought about

others include mix nuke and chemical
chemical only
or crude and brutal conventionnal assault without any WMD

on the other side nobody is talking about use of nukes against a conventional only assault that was planified by NATO (especially on the Fulda Gap and Soviet beachheads on the Weser and Rhine)
but here also they were only plans and other did not always included them

It is strange to see all that chest beating about nukes when the political cost of those weapon is so high for whoever use them (soviet or NATO the same)

funny, right. p-)
"it should be noted that although western leaders verbally stressed the radical difference between nuclear and conventional weapons, military planners in both the east and west did their job in preparing for the same scenario – a massive conflict with the use of all means at their disposal."
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/1771/sovietnuclearplanlp6.jpg
http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/594/chessboard20sinosoviet2ig0.jpg

czechoslovak's people army didn't even trained no defensive operations till 1967. we were ****ing spearhead of socialism in the europe.



now a question
in the order of battle above i don't see mentionning the southern front (no romanian or hungarian or bulgarian divisions ??)
it's because it's from old thread about warsaw pact military plan, 1961 which is based on the book "CSLA on the Rhine"..
here (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=132994)

[Mordoror]

czechoslovak's people army didn't even trained no defensive operations till 1967. we were ****ing spearhead of socialism in the europe.

really ??

that's interesting and in contradiction with several things i have read so far

* most (i didn't say all but most) of Su plan of attack of NATO begin by a former NATO attack on any Warsaw Pact country or socialist block ally
they are much more intended to be counter-attacks

in fact overview from the both side of the iron curtain are misleading
both were expecting an attack from the other side whereas both were in fact defensive alliance by nature and structure

* secondary the Warsaw pact units others than soviet were not class A (on the SU military scale classification) being Poles or Czech due to their equipment and/or training and military organization/doctrine
As you said main MBT in Czech (but was the same in Democratic germaniy or Poland) was T54/55 and old T34/85
main frontline aircraft were Su7/Mig19 (by 1960-1970 i mean)
No T62/64
No Mig21
low offensive capabilities (ratio of artillery and MRLS was lower than in red army units)

they were secondary line units (second echelon) for exploitation maybe but not fitted properly for a first shock wave
anyway as you said above :
military planners in both the east and west did their job in preparing for the same scenario – a massive conflict with the use of all means at their disposal."

maybe the truth is lying somewhere in the middle of all that

[Abbadon the Despoiler]

low offensive capabilities (ratio of artillery and MRLS was lower than in red army units)
they were secondary line units (second echelon) for exploitation maybe but not fitted properly for a first shock wave


I don't know about artillery numbers but warsaw pact more than 7x more firs line tanks. 71 attack and support divisions on 28 of NATOs.

CSLA was very capable army because it was on the border of Eastern block. whole czechoslovak army was considered first to fight combat force to fight the imperialists.
the core of the army were tank units. czechoslovakia had the biggest tank core in the world when comparing the number of soldiers and the number of tanks. during the years 1951-1956 we produced nearly 3000 T34/85 and SU100 tanks, 1000 of them during one single year (1953). Arab countries for example recieved nearly 1000 tanks from Czechoslovakia. During 1970 and 1989 we produced nearly 18 000 BMPs, 1600 T72s and 3600 T55s.

to 1.9. 1963 ČSLA had 3860 tanks, 4500 artillery, 720 combat planes and some 235000 soldiers during peace times; still Kreml has pushed czechoslovak military industry to it's limits - soviet requirements far exceeded economic possibilities of czechoslovakia.

http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/collections/index.cfm
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=132994
http://www.historieavojenstvi.cz/2006/csla_na_ryne.pdf

http://i42.tinypic.com/24ordds.jpg

it's mentioned in the 'old thread'

The idea that offense is the best defense quickly found its way into Czechoslovak plans for building and training its armed forces. From the exercise season of 1954/1955 the „use of offensive operations … with the use of nuclear and chemical weapons“ became one of the main training topics and the ČSLA prepared itself almost exclusively for offensive operations. Defence was now supposed to be organized in such a way that the change to counter-offensive operations, making use of moment of surprise, could be swiftly undertaken in all circumstances.Taking the use of nuclear arms into consideration, a military mapping of southeastern Germany stretching to the German-French border was undertaken, from 1955 onwards, on a scale 1:100 000, which was considered adequate for this kind of operation.
...
The US move from massive retaliation to flexible response during the early 1960s brought changes to the strategy of the Warsaw Pact. Somewhat later, the new thinking also entered the exercise plans of the ČSLA. According to the training directives of 1964, the ČSLA was supposed to carry out training for the early stages of war not only with the use of nuclear weapons but, for the first time since mid-1950s, also without them.
...
We have no intentions to be the first to resort to the use of nuclear weapons. Although we do not believe in the truthfulness and the reality of these Western theories, we cannot discount that the imperialists could try to start a war without the immediate use of nuclear arms on our battle fields. That is why we must also be prepared for this possibility.
In line with this crude thinking, the Czechoslovak, and most probably the Soviet generals assumed that there was only one threshold, i.e. that between conventional and nuclear war. Warsaw Pact thus stood somewhere between massive retaliation and flexible response.

According to some contemporary accounts, it was in this period that the term of preemptive nuclear strike appeared in Warsaw Pact plans. A massive nuclear strike was supposed to be used only if three sources had confirmed that the enemy was about to employ nuclear weapons.

All exercises carried out in the following years make it clear that the use of nuclear weapons was expected no later than the third day of operations. However, exercises that counted on the use of nuclear arms from the very beginning were also no exception. In any case, the Czechoslovak war plan of 1964 shows how little the Eastern planners believed in relevance of Western flexible response. Not only does it not consider the possibility of a non-nuclear war, but it assumes that the war will start with a massive nuclear strike by the West.

carry on.

[hambac]

Well, prior to 1968 there were no soviet troops stationed in czechoslovakia, so the csla was supposed to be left wing of warsaw pact forces alone. I've also heard rumors, that soviets ordered csla with such a difficult objectives, so that cs. politics would find out csla can't handle it and let soviet troops to be stationed in czechoslovakia.