PDA

View Full Version : Q about the Soviet/Russian Armed Forces



Lt.Havoc
11-28-2006, 10:53 AM
Well, I´m currently engaged in a discussion in another forum about how far more advanced the Soviet/Russian Army is compared to the western ones.My sources say something totally diffrent wehn it comes to traning and gear.

Example: It was stated, that the Soviet/Russian Tanks where always better then those of the western nations, like the USA. But the author of the book "Tank War Central Front-Nato vs. Warsaw pact" says something diffrent. In the book, it was said, that Soviet/Russian Tanks always looked good on paper, but where not so advanced like these of the western nations. Soviet Tanks never had a autometically fire-extinguisher nor a explosion supression system installed. They also never had a full axis stabilisator that is needed to fire precisely in full speed.

Another point, is traning: it was also said, that the Soviet Tankers where as good or better trained as western ones. Same goes for the Soviet Soldiers. But another book, this time "Inside the Soviet Army" tells a diffrent story: most of the Soviet Army was made up from 2 years serving concripts that where poorly trained and let and only got low pay. Living conditons where hard and spartant, abuse of power was normal and hunger a typical part of military life.

Another thing is, that Svoiet soldiers never learned more then a forntal assualt and that the drill was boring and repetive.

Also, the Soviets nver had a professional NCO class like the west had, the majority of the NCOs tired to become officers as soon as possible due to the higher pay and better living conditons.

Now, another point rose up: the supriority of Russian weapon systems like the S-400 and the Smerch, as well as the fact that Russian Arty was always better then what the west had. Orginal qoute:

"We had Giatsint with 40 km range in late 70's, while only recently west invented PZh 2000 and other artillery systems with that range. In terms of artillery USSR had complete and undeniable technological superiority."

So, is the west outclassed yet again? Did they told us lies in the books? Where the 1:10 kill ratio in Korea War only a bluff? I studied my sources well and most of them are pretty accurate. Another qoute that amazes me, as somoe said that Korea War shifted as M26 arrived:

"Not really a good comparison, a heavy tank against a medium tank, why not compare M26 to IS-2, which will destroy it very quickly. And M26 is newer than IS-2."

So, who is right? Can somone give me a links or sources who I can use to substantiate my point? Was the Soviet Army better then I tought? I would be glad about some help here.

Jippo
11-28-2006, 11:27 AM
Soviet Tanks never had a autometically fire-extinguisher nor a explosion supression system installed. They also never had a full axis stabilisator that is needed to fire precisely in full speed.

Yes they have had those for 40 years. But I would call Russian weapons technology crude, as in opposite of optimised. This shows in everything from hand tools to tanks - if it works it is good enough. There is absolutely no effort in making something easier to use once it is "usable".



Another point, is traning: it was also said, that the Soviet Tankers where as good or better trained as western ones. Same goes for the Soviet Soldiers.

Hardly. Their training appears to be very formal and not encouraging improvisation. They also have lacked advanced training tools e.g. for force-on-force.


But another book, this time "Inside the Soviet Army" tells a diffrent story: most of the Soviet Army was made up from 2 years serving concripts that where poorly trained and let and only got low pay. Living conditons where hard and spartant, abuse of power was normal and hunger a typical part of military life.

Closer to truth.



Another thing is, that Svoiet soldiers never learned more then a forntal assualt and that the drill was boring and repetive.

This is my own opinion.



Now, another point rose up: the supriority of Russian weapon systems like the S-400 and the Smerch, as well as the fact that Russian Arty was always better then what the west had. Orginal qoute:

"We had Giatsint with 40 km range in late 70's, while only recently west invented PZh 2000 and other artillery systems with that range. In terms of artillery USSR had complete and undeniable technological superiority."

Well, they have traditionally had very high quality AA systems. But I wouldn't call their artillery technologically advanced, but numerous and operable also in adverse conditions. I believe as in western countries even individual guns can be directed to targets the smallest effective unit for indirect fire in Russia is still battery. (you may correct me if I am wrong) Giatsints effective range is less than 30km with normal ammunition.


So, is the west outclassed yet again? Did they told us lies in the books? Where the 1:10 kill ratio in Korea War only a bluff?

Kill ratios and high scores are always bluff, the real question how much. But only places where you can get accurate "scores" are sports arenas. In military world enemy kills are almost universally overestimated.


Was the Soviet Army better then I tought? I would be glad about some help here.

Bismarck said it well:
"Russia is never as strong as she looks. Russia is never as weak as she looks."

The above just being observations of a keen spectator in neighbouring country.


-jippo

Lt.Havoc
11-28-2006, 01:54 PM
Well, ya know, the preformacne of Soviet Troops after WW2 are exemplary, I mean, they used brute force all the time: Bulgaria 1956, CSSR 1968, Afghanistan 1979 and the war in Cheyena. Traning iproved most likley now, but are the Russians really superiror in warfare now?

They say, I should proof otherwise, but my only proof is, that the soviets did not took over the world and that Russia now has only 350.000 troops, from over 1.1 Million in 1989.

Is there any relaible source to confrim or deny the stuff I mentioned in my starter post?

Well, thanks so far jippo.

BTW: ccheked out the facts about the Giatsint ot 2S5: effective range is 28,4 km only, the M109 has a range from 32 km and the PHz 2000 even more. I doubt the Soviets had "Base Bleed" or Rocket Assisted Shells back then. Dont know where the guy got the 40km ragne from. Even so, the M175 and M110A3 had bigger ranges, even compared to the Soviet 203mm guns.

I also thingk, that the Land Based Tomhawk missel and the ATCAMs outdo the Smerch in range.

ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð
11-28-2006, 05:21 PM
They say, I should proof otherwise, but my only proof is, that the soviets did not took over the world and that Russia now has only 350.000 troops, from over 1.1 Million in 1989.


Considering the costs of fielding a 1.1 million man army (i.e. 150,000 costs the US 1 billion/month), it would be quite expensive to field them all. I believe that they have been working to help make the army more "professional" (i.e. more specialized postions left to non conscripts), and keeping specially trained soldiers longer in service threw contracts.

CPL Trevoga
11-28-2006, 07:55 PM
Well, ya know, the preformacne of Soviet Troops after WW2 are exemplary, I mean, they used brute force all the time: Bulgaria 1956, CSSR 1968, Afghanistan 1979 and the war in Cheyena. Traning iproved most likley now, but are the Russians really superiror in warfare now?


1968,1956 were not really combat operations per se and I would consider very successful. Very low civilian deaths.

Russian weapon design is influenced by over all doctrine, if you examine over all western and soviet war doctrine you would understand that 2km arty weapon range doesn't make that much of a difference for the Soviet.

AKS
11-28-2006, 08:25 PM
Well, ya know, the preformacne of Soviet Troops after WW2 are exemplary, I mean, they used brute force all the time: Bulgaria 1956, CSSR 1968, Afghanistan 1979 and the war in Cheyena. Traning iproved most likley now, but are the Russians really superiror in warfare now?


You are wrong to say that they used brute force in Hungry and Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan invasion, now Chechnya is a different story.

The invasion of Huungry and Czechoslovakia were very wellplanned operations which were carried out through the help of local pro USSR authorities, usually the local version of State Security. Afghanistan's palace takeover was also an excellent operation with minimal losses, now what happened later was because of BAD COMMAND and not because of lack of training.

Chechnya unfortunatly ended up being sucha mess because in the early 90's Russia was gone, I mean there was no Russia, there was just chaos, a bordelo if you will, evrything was for sale and evrybody did what they wanted how they wanted (I guess thats why West loved Yeltsin so much cuz he kept Russia just as the West wanted Russia to be IN CHAOS). This was the reason why Chechen conflict started and that is the reason why in Chechnya Russians performed sooo poorly.

Thanks to Putin's favorable view on military Russians are getting theyr **** together, and Russian army of today is leaps ahead of the Russian Army of the ninties, although major problems like extreme hazing still cripple army's performance.


And the Soviet training was pretty good actually, yes praporshiks and seargants (NCO's) were not the desirable jobs, but they still did their job. Weaponary was "basic" but just because it did not have lots of chips and lights and sounds does not mean they were bad. Russian school of engineering values durability and simplicity of design over complication and ease of use.

Only part that I KNOW for sure Russians really needed to make advancments were electronics and optics, because Soviet electronics and optics were nearly always worse than that of their western counterparts.

Also you have to take into consideration the way Soviet military doctrine functioned. Soviet's not having a heavy main battle tanks like the west, but relying on comperably smaller, lighter, medium tanks had to keep two or three types of tanks on the field. The elite guard units or the ones on the border were equiped by modernised T64's and T80's while most of the rest were on modernised t72's. People compare T72 to Abram's all the time forgetting that actually Abrams was to meet t80's first and then the swarm of t72's

Alan
11-28-2006, 09:06 PM
How good was the Russian army compared to... oh let's say, the American one?

Look at their war win/loss records.

Hellfish
11-28-2006, 09:53 PM
For what its worth, the M26 Pershing was a medium tank. They only called it a heavy tank as a morale booster. It, or the M4A3E8, would be a closer equivalent to the T-34/85 than the IS-2. The US only ever had the M103 as an operational heavy tank, and most of those went to the Marine Corps in the 50s. At one point the US had nearly 2000 T29 heavy tanks on order for the invasion of Japan, but only 10 were finished before the atomic bombs ended the need for them.

Hellfish
11-28-2006, 09:58 PM
Also you have to take into consideration the way Soviet military doctrine functioned. Soviet's not having a heavy main battle tanks like the west, but relying on comperably smaller, lighter, medium tanks had to keep two or three types of tanks on the field. The elite guard units or the ones on the border were equiped by modernised T64's and T80's while most of the rest were on modernised t72's. People compare T72 to Abram's all the time forgetting that actually Abrams was to meet t80's first and then the swarm of t72's

There is a theory that the Soviets would have used cannon fodder - old T55s and T62s probably crewed by Pact forces against NATO first, and once NATO had expended much of its ammunition supply, the T-72s, T-64s and T-80s would be committed to the fight on very advantageous terms.

Remember - Soviet tanks had a high proportion of HE and HE-Frag ammo compared to Western tanks, who had mostly (or entirely) HEAT and sabot rounds. Soviet tanks were designed for breakthroughs and exploitations, not head-on duels with NATO tanks.

Soviet doctrine relied heavily upon finding and breaking through the weak points in NATO lines then rampaging in the rear areas. Look at how many recon troops the Soviets had - battalion, regimental, division, corps and army-level recon forces. Nearly all of NATO, by comparison, had much smaller recon forces.

GazB
11-29-2006, 01:58 AM
Soviet Tanks never had a autometically fire-extinguisher nor a explosion supression system installed. They also never had a full axis stabilisator that is needed to fire precisely in full speed.


Both wrong. In fact one of the common western complaints about the BMP-1 was its fire suppression system filled the vehicle with poisonous gas. The concentration of fuel and ammo together with generally poor storage choices means that explosions are almost inevidible... but then the M60 generation tanks (ie Leopard, AMX-30, etc) were no better.
The Soviets had heavy tanks during wwii that had vertical gun stabilisation... and no tank can fire precisely at "full speed". Cross country full speed can't even be reached by most vehicles. (cross country speed might be 10-15% of top speed depending upon the terrain and vehicle)


Also, the Soviets nver had a professional NCO class like the west had, the majority of the NCOs tired to become officers as soon as possible due to the higher pay and better living conditons.

They used those NCOs to do jobs the west used NCOs for. Soviet NCOs however actually got officer ranks and better pay/conditions etc.


Now, another point rose up: the supriority of Russian weapon systems like the S-400 and the Smerch, as well as the fact that Russian Arty was always better then what the west had. Orginal qoute:


S-400 looks rather better than Patriot and SMERCH is much much better than MRLS. (SMERCH has a range of up to 90km and can fire UAV rockets to find targets and relay damage assessments).


We had Giatsint with 40 km range in late 70's, while only recently west invented PZh 2000 and other artillery systems with that range. In terms of artillery USSR had complete and undeniable technological superiority."


Giatsint has a range of 33km with rocket assisted projectiles. Might be confusing it with the 2S7M with a range of 47.5km with a 110kg shell. It is a 203mm gun.


Where the 1:10 kill ratio in Korea War only a bluff?

Why do you equate the US and other UN forces fighting North Korean and then Chinese forces as in any way relevant?


But I wouldn't call their artillery technologically advanced, but numerous and operable also in adverse conditions.

It is very good. They have laser guided shells for all tube artillery and guided top attack munitions for their rocket artillery too.

The Scud and FROG-7 have been replaced with ISKANDER and TOCHKA respectively, which when fitted with optical seekers have a CEP of less than 20 metres. (range 300+km and 120km respectively).


I doubt the Soviets had "Base Bleed" or Rocket Assisted Shells back then.

They had them in the 70s.


I also thingk, that the Land Based Tomhawk missel and the ATCAMs outdo the Smerch in range.

You can compare cruise missiles with a multiple rocket launcher. The land based Granit has a range of 2,000km... is it fair to compare to the 40km range of MRLS?


How good was the Russian army compared to... oh let's say, the American one?

Look at their war win/loss records.

How often has the Russian army faced the US army? That is the only valid comparison. You can't compare a war hardened chechen that probably did conscript service in the force he is fighting against armed with similar weapons to the force he is fighting with some Iraqi soldier who will surrender the first chance he gets.


There is a theory that the Soviets would have used cannon fodder - old T55s and T62s probably crewed by Pact forces against NATO first, and once NATO had expended much of its ammunition supply, the T-72s, T-64s and T-80s would be committed to the fight on very advantageous terms.

Well they deployed their forces completely wrong if that was their tactics. In Afghanistan against an unsophisticated enemy where the main threat was RPGs and Mines uparmoured T-55s and T-62s were used because the main threat wouldn't notice the difference between a 100mm shell, a 115mm shell or a 125mm shell and the locals could already look after and maintain the T-55 and T62.

Bitogno
11-29-2006, 07:39 AM
In my opinion Russian hardware can appear less modern but it is more reliable, their helos don't crash because there's a little bit of sand in their filters. But their main weakness is their doctrine. Their troops lack freedom on the tactical level, they always have to ask for orders. Thats why arab countries always lost against Israel and why hezzi did well against Israel.

Hellfish
11-29-2006, 09:51 AM
The Soviets had heavy tanks during wwii that had vertical gun stabilisation... and no tank can fire precisely at "full speed". Cross country full speed can't even be reached by most vehicles. (cross country speed might be 10-15% of top speed depending upon the terrain and vehicle)

Heavy tanks aren't worth comparing in this case, IMHO.




They used those NCOs to do jobs the west used NCOs for. Soviet NCOs however actually got officer ranks and better pay/conditions etc.

Which would mean they are NOT NCOs.



S-400 looks rather better than Patriot and SMERCH is much much better than MRLS. (SMERCH has a range of up to 90km and can fire UAV rockets to find targets and relay damage assessments).

S-400 and Smerch are good systems, but I don't know if its fair to compare them the way you have. The Patriot has seen combat, the S-400 hasn't. Likewise, you're comparing the Smerch to the very basic version of the MLRS. The MLRS has many types of rockets available to it, some of which can reach 300km+ IIRC. The fact that it can't launch UAV rockets isn't a shortcoming (nor is there a need for such a capability - nearly all US units down to platoon level currently have access to UAVs and UGVs.)



Why do you equate the US and other UN forces fighting North Korean and then Chinese forces as in any way relevant?

Agreed. Likewise, you can't look at the Arab-Israeli conflict and make similar conclusions. The Arabs aren't the Soviets (and, in addition, they had "monkey model" armor to fight with, unlike their Soviet equivalent) and training in Arab armies has always been considered abysmal. The Soviets had a very well established military education systen.



Well they deployed their forces completely wrong if that was their tactics. In Afghanistan against an unsophisticated enemy where the main threat was RPGs and Mines uparmoured T-55s and T-62s were used because the main threat wouldn't notice the difference between a 100mm shell, a 115mm shell or a 125mm shell and the locals could already look after and maintain the T-55 and T62.

No, their forces were NOT deployed wrong. The Czechs, Poles and East Germans were all in a position to be used as a first wave - I never said the Soviet forces would be used as cannon fodder. The Soviet forces from the Moscow, Leningrad and Ukraine military districts were often as well equipped as their GSFG counterparts.

Jippo
11-29-2006, 10:46 AM
But are we now talking about Russian/Soviet military capabilities or Warsaw Pact?


-jippo

Lt.Havoc
11-29-2006, 01:46 PM
Well, I wanted to keep it focoused on the soviet/Russian Forces only, hopefully.

About Patriot: some say the preformance is really bad, they only had a hit rate from 55% in the first gulf war and the range is not that great then the S-400. I just ask me, how good the S-400 is compared to the THAAD.

Well, yes, Soviet Tanks had fire extinguisher, but not really good ones and no explosion supression systems. I do think, that there was a mjaor shift in armor advancment in the 80s, NATO got the better tanks then. The T-80 was retrofitted with ERA plates, while the M1, Leopard and Challenger seemed not to need them.

Also, my view from thier doctrine was, that they would use massed force against an enemy and would try to get an numerical advantage. At least thats what my sources say.

I still dont think the avraged soviet soldier or NCO was better trained and led then his western counterparts.

Flamming_Python
11-29-2006, 02:08 PM
Well, I wanted to keep it focoused on the soviet/Russian Forces only, hopefully.

About Patriot: some say the preformance is really bad, they only had a hit rate from 55% in the first gulf war and the range is not that great then the S-400. I just ask me, how good the S-400 is compared to the THAAD.

Well, yes, Soviet Tanks had fire extinguisher, but not really good ones and no explosion supression systems. I do think, that there was a mjaor shift in armor advancment in the 80s, NATO got the better tanks then. The T-80 was retrofitted with ERA plates, while the M1, Leopard and Challenger seemed not to need them.

Also, my view from thier doctrine was, that they would use massed force against an enemy and would try to get an numerical advantage. At least thats what my sources say.

I still dont think the avraged soviet soldier or NCO was better trained and led then his western counterparts.

How many Western countries used conscripts or had a draft?

Lt.Havoc
11-29-2006, 02:19 PM
Well, a lot, but many deleted consription after WW2, for example, Britan. The USA eleiminated the draft after the Vietnam War. I´m not sure if France had the draft or sitll has it, but Germany still has them, but back in the 80s conscription time was longer, even so, most positons where filled with long term professional soldiers, ecspecially tank force, Navy and air force.

I dont know how many other EU nations had the draft, nor if Canada had one, so I cant really tell.

Edit: as far as I know, France has the draft, but the law forbids that concripts are used outside France, only professional soldiers can be used.

Lord Impaler
11-29-2006, 02:58 PM
I've often wondered if the Soviets were the only ones capable of carrying out their own doctrine successfully. They had more of a capability to put more men and machinery on the battlefield than their enemies, and it sometimes seems to me like Soviet tactics were best suited for one army: the Soviet Army.
Not that the concept wasn't sound: in a battle, the Soviets gave the greatest combat support to the unit that had advanced the furthest. This was based on the strategies of almost all the successful commanders throughout history.
I also admire some of the unique methods and practices they thought up: Viktor Suvorov tells us that the Soviet Army was considering the use of giant helicoptors to refuel their tank battalions instead of supply trains.
The idea of "monkey models" is brilliant in its own way: first, it provides a lower-cost model for the Soviets to produce in mass; second, it keeps Western intelligence from figuring out the machine's true capabilities if one of the satellites or friendly nations loses a monkey model; finally, if that nation turned on the USSR with its Soviet-provided equipment, the Soviets could fight these monkey models with the full-version--and win handily.

Jippo
11-29-2006, 02:58 PM
Well, yes, Soviet Tanks had fire extinguisher, but not really good ones and no explosion supression systems.

Well the fire suppression system on Soviet tanks is good. It is heat or manually triggered halon system. Halon is led to engine of battle compartments or both, it eats oxygen and fire is suppressed.

There is no explosion suppression systems anywhere. The methodological (not technological) difference between modern western and eastern tanks is the total separation of main gun ammunition to a seperate compartment where it can harmlessly blow up. Soviets took intentional decision not to do this separation to achieve much smaller turret and overall tank size and thus a smaller target and cheaper production.


-jippo

Lt.Havoc
11-29-2006, 03:20 PM
Joppo: hmm...well, the book mentioned fire supression systems, but it was not stated if it uses the halon sysem or not, but it was stated, that Soviet tanks seemed not to have a very good one. It was said, that during the Israeli and Arab confrontation, the Soviet supplied tanks burned out or exploded even after less critical hits. Both the T-62 and the newer T-72 always erupted in flames. Also, there where no venting hatches on the turret roof like the Abrams had, so the blast would be vented outside.

Its also intresting to note, that due to the small turret Soviet tanks had, it was getting quite cramped in them, and it was difficult to move in there. The T-62 had this problem and it was said, that the loading frequence was lower due to the small, cramped turret. The IS-2 and IS-3 had the same problems, and these where earlier tanks.
I´m not sure, did the T-64 got the autoloader or was it first issued in the T-72? I also read somewhere, that the autoloader in Soviet/Russian tanks ues a diffrent system compared to western tanks, is that ture?

Jippo
11-29-2006, 03:39 PM
Joppo: hmm...well, the book mentioned fire supression systems, but it was not stated if it uses the halon sysem or not, but it was stated, that Soviet tanks seemed not to have a very good one. It was said, that during the Israeli and Arab confrontation, the Soviet supplied tanks burned out or exploded even after less critical hits. Both the T-62 and the newer T-72 always erupted in flames. Also, there where no venting hatches on the turret roof like the Abrams had, so the blast would be vented outside.

Yes, very true but not actually the fault of the fire extinguishing system. Bigger problem is the ammunition storage and fuel tank locations - they are easily damaged when armor is penetrated and cause the results you described.

There is no point making venting hatches in the turret roof as the crew sits inbetween of the ammunition and turret roof, this is the methodological difference between the mentioned west/east tank designs I mentioned earlier.


Its also intresting to note, that due to the small turret Soviet tanks had, it was getting quite cramped in them, and it was difficult to move in there. The T-62 had this problem and it was said, that the loading frequence was lower due to the small, cramped turret. The IS-2 and IS-3 had the same problems, and these where earlier tanks.
I´m not sure, did the T-64 got the autoloader or was it first issued in the T-72? I also read somewhere, that the autoloader in Soviet/Russian tanks ues a diffrent system compared to western tanks, is that ture?

T-72 turret isn't really any more cramped than Leo 2 turret, there is no major difference for the gunner and tc positions. Autoloader was first in T-64 line continuing to T-80. T-72 / T-90 line has another design for autoloader.

I haven't been in T-62 turret so I can't comment.


-jippo

Lt.Havoc
11-29-2006, 04:22 PM
Ok, thanks for the info. Well, I ecpsceially mentioned the T-62 while it was the only tank who had the cramped turret problem. The later models seem to sloved that. Still, the T-90 sewems to be nothing more then a heavliy upgraded T-72/T-80, like the M48 to M60 transiton. That dosent mean the T-90 is bad, its just not new, but of course they put thier latest tech in the tank.

India seems to be the only one so far who buyed the T-90 and seems to have no problems with them, expect in the desert: a lot of tanks had techinical problems and breakdowns as they used them in the desert. I would have expected that the T-90 would preform well, even in hot and sandy areas, but thats not the case.

Well, I have to agree that Soviet/Russian tech is more solid and more "soldier proof". All the stuff they made is easy to mantain and operate but its somewhat rough and sophisticated compared to western tech. Well, sometimes, this is the achilles heel: new ICBM failed 2 times at tests, the new torpedo they made may have couse the explosion on the Kursk, several of thier Air Defense systems like the SA-6 and SA-3 didnt preformed that well etc.

I think some Soviet/Russian weapons are really great and seem to be really advanced, but I doubt they are far more advanced then what the west has. Does Russia has Drones like the Global Hawk or Predator? I´m not sure if they have them, but the USA seems to be very advanced on thier field of UAVs.

One thing I would like to find out with this thrad is, how much todays Russian army differs from the Soviet army, or the Russian Army in the 90´s.

Lazarou
11-29-2006, 05:14 PM
Does Russia has Drones like the Global Hawk or Predator? I´m not sure if they have them, but the USA seems to be very advanced on thier field of UAVs.
http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/tu243/photos.htm

;)

GazB
11-30-2006, 03:30 AM
Heavy tanks aren't worth comparing in this case, IMHO.


I was not comparing anything. Just stating the fact that Soviet tanks have had gun stabilisation systems for almost 60 years.


Which would mean they are NOT NCOs.

They don't use soldiers the way we do in the west. That doesn't mean that the jobs NCOs do in the west don't get done in the Soviet/Russian armed forces. They just use junior officers to perform the role.


S-400 and Smerch are good systems, but I don't know if its fair to compare them the way you have. The Patriot has seen combat, the S-400 hasn't.

The only Patriot model remotely comparable to S-400 would be the PAC-3 Patriot which has not seen use in combat. The only use in combat the earlier Patriots have seen saw them perform poorly against modified scuds (which they were not designed for anyway) and in the second case they managed to shoot down more friendly planes than enemy planes. In one case they were neutralised by a friendly aircraft defending itself. Hardly sterling stuff.


Likewise, you're comparing the Smerch to the very basic version of the MLRS.

I am comparing Smerch with the standard version of MRLS. Artillery rocket to artillery rocket. ATCAMS are not standard ammo and is more of a theatre weapon that performs a similar role to the scud or currently Iskander missiles.


The MLRS has many types of rockets available to it, some of which can reach 300km+ IIRC.

One of which reaches that range and it is used against a specific target, not the normal target of MRLs.


The fact that it can't launch UAV rockets isn't a shortcoming (nor is there a need for such a capability - nearly all US units down to platoon level currently have access to UAVs and UGVs.)


Makes it less self sufficient. The Russians also have Army UAVs.


Likewise, you can't look at the Arab-Israeli conflict and make similar conclusions. The Arabs aren't the Soviets (and, in addition, they had "monkey model" armor to fight with, unlike their Soviet equivalent) and training in Arab armies has always been considered abysmal. The Soviets had a very well established military education systen.


If you swapped equipment between the Israelis and Arabs the Israelis would still win IMHO.


No, their forces were NOT deployed wrong.

They had no where near the logistics or supply network to support an invasion of western europe.


The Czechs, Poles and East Germans were all in a position to be used as a first wave - I never said the Soviet forces would be used as cannon fodder. The Soviet forces from the Moscow, Leningrad and Ukraine military districts were often as well equipped as their GSFG counterparts.

They didn't have the types of forces needed to move forward into western europe.


some say the preformance is really bad, they only had a hit rate from 55% in the first gulf war and the range is not that great then the S-400. I just ask me, how good the S-400 is compared to the THAAD.


It took an average of 32 Patriots to hit each Scud intercepted and no Scud was properly intercepted in the sense of destroyed in the air. Due to the extra range the modified scuds were coming in at higher speeds than they were designed for. They were breaking up as they came in and the patriots tended to go for the largest part... the engines and (empty) fuel tanks, with the scud warheads impacting more often than not roughly where they were going to impact anyway. Hardly the fault of Patriot as it was not designed to intercept ballistic missiles. Just very lucky the modified scuds were even less accurate than the originals.


Well, yes, Soviet Tanks had fire extinguisher, but not really good ones and no explosion supression systems.

Hahahahaha.... explosion suppression? Explosive contains all the oxygen it needs to detonate already. That is why HE will work underwater or in space. What sort of systems do western tanks have that can "Suppress" an explosion... and why don't they use it on incoming HEAT warheads?


Also, my view from thier doctrine was, that they would use massed force against an enemy and would try to get an numerical advantage. At least thats what my sources say.


And who doesn't gather together their forces for an attack? Do you think Desert Storm took 6 months to prepare for to ship all those tanks over there so they could send out tanks one at a time to take on the Iraqis one on one?


I've often wondered if the Soviets were the only ones capable of carrying out their own doctrine successfully.

Even the rich countries of the west (with the exception of the US) lack in many areas. I doubt many western countries could do what the US does the way the US does it. It is the same for Russia. It has ICBMs, Strategic bombers, fighters, interceptors, attack helos, a wide range of transports, but also those hidden things like tanker aircraft, AWACS, airborne command aircraft, jammer aircraft, SSBNs, SSNs SSGNs, etc. Claiming Iraq failed because Soviet doctrine is flawed is amusing. Which other country in the world could face off against the entire world and win? There aren't many.


It was said, that during the Israeli and Arab confrontation, the Soviet supplied tanks burned out or exploded even after less critical hits.

Would suggest if the tank exploded it was a critical hit... that is what critical hit means. Fire suppression systems aren't 100% fool proof. Burning propellent will not be extinguished simply by removing the oxygen in the air... it generates its own oxygen as it burns... (how else could it burn inside the gun during firing).


Both the T-62 and the newer T-72 always erupted in flames. Also, there where no venting hatches on the turret roof like the Abrams had, so the blast would be vented outside.


The ready to use ammo is directly below the turret. If it explodes it will explode upwards. It is a design issue. Not a fire suppression issue.


Its also intresting to note, that due to the small turret Soviet tanks had, it was getting quite cramped in them, and it was difficult to move in there.

Where would you move? The current model Soviet/Russian tanks use an autoloader so there are only two crew in it... one either side of the gun.


I´m not sure, did the T-64 got the autoloader or was it first issued in the T-72? I also read somewhere, that the autoloader in Soviet/Russian tanks ues a diffrent system compared to western tanks, is that ture?

The only western tank with an autoloader is the Leclerc. The T-64 has an autoloader.


new ICBM failed 2 times at tests

The rocket the US used to take men to the moon had lots of failures before they put people in it. The Space Shuttle is supposed to be a mature system, yet there have been two failures.


the new torpedo they made may have couse the explosion on the Kursk,

It was not a new torpedo. The Soviets have been using Hydrogen peroxide powered torpedos for decades. (It wasn't the rocket powered Shkval torpedo).


several of thier Air Defense systems like the SA-6 and SA-3 didnt preformed that well etc.


The SA-6 performed rather well. Not only did it bring down a few planes it also forces the Israelis to change tactics that brought them into the engagement envelopes of the lower level systems.

Regarding the SA-3, it was obsolete by the time US planes came up against it...


Does Russia has Drones like the Global Hawk or Predator? I´m not sure if they have them, but the USA seems to be very advanced on thier field of UAVs.


The Soviets developed lots of drones. The Tu-243 Reis-D is still in use today. For longer range recon they still have the Mig-25 and satellites.

Go to this webpage:
http://www.pwgs.org/index1e.htm

and look down the list till you see under "IRKUT Corporation"
and download the Irkut-850 video.

The Russians have an excellent aviation industry... how hard do you think it is to make a plane with no pilot? The main problem for them is they don't really need them at the moment (or they need other things more...).

TheArmenian
11-30-2006, 04:05 AM
I was not comparing anything. Just stating the fact that Soviet tanks have had gun stabilisation systems for almost 60 years.



They don't use soldiers the way we do in the west. That doesn't mean that the jobs NCOs do in the west don't get done in the Soviet/Russian armed forces. They just use junior officers to perform the role.



The only Patriot model remotely comparable to S-400 would be the PAC-3 Patriot which has not seen use in combat. The only use in combat the earlier Patriots have seen saw them perform poorly against modified scuds (which they were not designed for anyway) and in the second case they managed to shoot down more friendly planes than enemy planes. In one case they were neutralised by a friendly aircraft defending itself. Hardly sterling stuff.



I am comparing Smerch with the standard version of MRLS. Artillery rocket to artillery rocket. ATCAMS are not standard ammo and is more of a theatre weapon that performs a similar role to the scud or currently Iskander missiles.



One of which reaches that range and it is used against a specific target, not the normal target of MRLs.



Makes it less self sufficient. The Russians also have Army UAVs.



If you swapped equipment between the Israelis and Arabs the Israelis would still win IMHO.



They had no where near the logistics or supply network to support an invasion of western europe.



They didn't have the types of forces needed to move forward into western europe.



It took an average of 32 Patriots to hit each Scud intercepted and no Scud was properly intercepted in the sense of destroyed in the air. Due to the extra range the modified scuds were coming in at higher speeds than they were designed for. They were breaking up as they came in and the patriots tended to go for the largest part... the engines and (empty) fuel tanks, with the scud warheads impacting more often than not roughly where they were going to impact anyway. Hardly the fault of Patriot as it was not designed to intercept ballistic missiles. Just very lucky the modified scuds were even less accurate than the originals.



Hahahahaha.... explosion suppression? Explosive contains all the oxygen it needs to detonate already. That is why HE will work underwater or in space. What sort of systems do western tanks have that can "Suppress" an explosion... and why don't they use it on incoming HEAT warheads?



And who doesn't gather together their forces for an attack? Do you think Desert Storm took 6 months to prepare for to ship all those tanks over there so they could send out tanks one at a time to take on the Iraqis one on one?



Even the rich countries of the west (with the exception of the US) lack in many areas. I doubt many western countries could do what the US does the way the US does it. It is the same for Russia. It has ICBMs, Strategic bombers, fighters, interceptors, attack helos, a wide range of transports, but also those hidden things like tanker aircraft, AWACS, airborne command aircraft, jammer aircraft, SSBNs, SSNs SSGNs, etc. Claiming Iraq failed because Soviet doctrine is flawed is amusing. Which other country in the world could face off against the entire world and win? There aren't many.



Would suggest if the tank exploded it was a critical hit... that is what critical hit means. Fire suppression systems aren't 100% fool proof. Burning propellent will not be extinguished simply by removing the oxygen in the air... it generates its own oxygen as it burns... (how else could it burn inside the gun during firing).



The ready to use ammo is directly below the turret. If it explodes it will explode upwards. It is a design issue. Not a fire suppression issue.



Where would you move? The current model Soviet/Russian tanks use an autoloader so there are only two crew in it... one either side of the gun.



The only western tank with an autoloader is the Leclerc. The T-64 has an autoloader.



The rocket the US used to take men to the moon had lots of failures before they put people in it. The Space Shuttle is supposed to be a mature system, yet there have been two failures.



It was not a new torpedo. The Soviets have been using Hydrogen peroxide powered torpedos for decades. (It wasn't the rocket powered Shkval torpedo).



The SA-6 performed rather well. Not only did it bring down a few planes it also forces the Israelis to change tactics that brought them into the engagement envelopes of the lower level systems.

Regarding the SA-3, it was obsolete by the time US planes came up against it...



The Soviets developed lots of drones. The Tu-243 Reis-D is still in use today. For longer range recon they still have the Mig-25 and satellites.

Go to this webpage:
http://www.pwgs.org/index1e.htm

and look down the list till you see under "IRKUT Corporation"
and download the Irkut-850 video.

The Russians have an excellent aviation industry... how hard do you think it is to make a plane with no pilot? The main problem for them is they don't really need them at the moment (or they need other things more...).

Thanks very much for that intersting link.

I must say that you are very knowledgable about military subjects.

You are from New Zealand but sounds like You are from Russian origin. Am I correct ?

koozya
11-30-2006, 04:29 AM
yea thanks for the link it has lots of videos. yak-141 looks good

Lord Impaler
11-30-2006, 09:25 AM
Even the rich countries of the west (with the exception of the US) lack in many areas. I doubt many western countries could do what the US does the way the US does it. It is the same for Russia. It has ICBMs, Strategic bombers, fighters, interceptors, attack helos, a wide range of transports, but also those hidden things like tanker aircraft, AWACS, airborne command aircraft, jammer aircraft, SSBNs, SSNs SSGNs, etc. Claiming Iraq failed because Soviet doctrine is flawed is amusing. Which other country in the world could face off against the entire world and win? There aren't many.

Obviously, Iraq failed due to a whole collection of flaws.
I didn't say that Soviet doctrine was flawed; obviously, it worked for them so I fully understand why they would hold to it. But I just wonder if it was a case where something that works well for one person just won't for another.

Lt.Havoc
11-30-2006, 01:09 PM
Well, these really are some moot points, its really intresting points. As for the Tanks: yes, I know they had axis stabilisator, the USA has them too for 60 years, what I may forgot to say is, that in the late 80´s, many western tanks had the full axis stabilisator, while Soviet tanks only relied on 2 axis stabilisators, wihch reduced the hit accuracy during full speed greatly.

Well, I recall, the M1A1/A2 aslo has an autoloader and I belive that the Germany Leopard 2 also has one. I really think I´m lacking the right sources atm, all my books are at least 10 or 20 years old and sites like Global Security or FAS didnt got updated since a while.

Has anyone some recommendations for me, what I should get book wise or has any intresting links to websites? I would be glad. Also, any sources where I could find some videos from Soviet/Russian military exercises/maneuver?

Hellfish
11-30-2006, 01:18 PM
M-1s and Leopards don't have autoloaders. There were proposals in the 80s to equip them with "Giraffe" unmanned autoloading turrets, but these were shelved when the cold War ended.

Jippo
11-30-2006, 03:06 PM
Well, I recall, the M1A1/A2 aslo has an autoloader and I belive that the Germany Leopard 2 also has one.

There are many sites online with correct information, dig deeper.


-jippo

Lt.Havoc
12-01-2006, 11:49 AM
Well, took a look around and yes, the M1A2 and the Leo2 dont have autoloaders. I guess they will never get them. I can understand the idea behind it, then it was said, that the autoloaders in the T-64, T-72 and T-80 had the problem that it was difficult to reload the gun in case the autoloader had a techincal breakdown and it was also said, the gun couldnt be fired manually in case of a malfunction of the autoloader.

Well, even so, the crews of the M1A2 and Leo2 are well trained to load the gun in 3 secs, so its not really that bad that they dont have autoloaders. The diffrence in crew trainig is also something I always wonderd: while the western tank crews got trained to use all aspects of the tank also that a driver can also fire the gun and a loader drive the tank etc. In the Soviet army, that didnt seemed to be the case, the crew mebers where only trained on thier specefic task in the tank.

That is so much of a problem, that in case one men is wounded or killed, the other can not take its place and thus make the tank useless. Guess that changed after Putin put all the military reforms in effect. But how much, thats what I cant say. I currently lack the sources to take a closer in depth look on the Russian military.

GazB
12-02-2006, 05:27 AM
You are from New Zealand but sounds like You are from Russian origin. Am I correct

Never been to Russia. No Russian, Soviet, or Eastern European relatives that I know of.


the USA has them too for 60 years, what I may forgot to say is, that in the late 80´s, many western tanks had the full axis stabilisator, while Soviet tanks only relied on 2 axis stabilisators, wihch reduced the hit accuracy during full speed greatly.

There is vertical and horizontal stabilisation... what other stabilisation is there for a tank gun? (Horizontal and Vertical is fully stabilised). And to repeat no tank can fire accurately at full speed except along a sealed road... which they would never fight from. Late 80s Soviet tanks could fire 4km range laser beam riding anti tank missiles from their main guns while moving at 30-40km per hour... 30km per hour is faster than any tank would be driving across country.


Well, I recall, the M1A1/A2 aslo has an autoloader and I belive that the Germany Leopard 2 also has one.

Wrong. They are talking about adding autoloaders if they go to 140mm guns because of the size and weight of the rounds, but currently the only western tanks with autoloaders are French and I think Japanese.


then it was said, that the autoloaders in the T-64, T-72 and T-80 had the problem that it was difficult to reload the gun in case the autoloader had a techincal breakdown

In a western tank it was difficult to reload if your loader was shellshocked or killed. No option is perfect and without problems. As ammo gets heavier autoloaders are becoming more and more attractive. The main flaw of the Soviet autoloaders is that the ammo is stored at the base of the crew compartment. This is corrected in the Black Eagle design where the crew and gun and autoloader are all seperated by armoured bulkhead with the ammo located in the back of the turret in a magazine like a rifle clip. It can be fed single rounds to reload or can be replaced in the field by a special support vehicle very quickly.


Well, even so, the crews of the M1A2 and Leo2 are well trained to load the gun in 3 secs, so its not really that bad that they dont have autoloaders.

After you have been operating all night and half the next day will they still be able to load as quick?


In the Soviet army, that didnt seemed to be the case, the crew mebers where only trained on thier specefic task in the tank.


When a tank is hit and put out of action the crew bail out and run. They don't play musical chairs and swap places.


That is so much of a problem, that in case one men is wounded or killed, the other can not take its place and thus make the tank useless.

What are you suggesting? Lets say the commander is killed in a Soviet tank. How well will that tank function without a commander? If the gunner is killed all current Russian tanks allow the commander to aim and fire the gun. If the driver is killed who is going to climb out and remove the drivers body and then drive? The gunner or commander? What sort of effectiveness will that tank have with a 2 man crew anyway? Reality is that the tank and its crew would head to the rear for repairs as well as reloads and refuelling and get another crewman to replace any lost.

Lt.Havoc
12-02-2006, 06:25 AM
Well, I was suggesting, that it would healthier to drive back in the rear, then run away during a tank battle. The chances to get killed by leaving the Tank is very high, so they would remove the driver from its seat and drive the tank back, but thats only wehn the tank can still drive. Even so, it was reported in many wars and battels, that immobilised tanks kept firing even if thier tracks where gone etc. As long as the turret works, you can still fire and it was done more then once.

I also already stated that the M1A2 and Leo2 dont have autoloaders, of course, if you have done re-loading all nigh and a tired it gets slower, but there it gets into tactics and strategy, that require to place fresh crews and tanks on the front.

I still do not belive that Soviet/Russian tanks are supirior to western ones. The use of the AT-8 is a nice feature, but the tanks where only equitted with a small amount of these missiles, but later made tests concluded that the AT-8 could not penetrate the armor of the M1A2.

It was stated many times in lots of publications, that the frist hit chance in speeds on more then 50km/h of a western tank is higher then those of a soviet one. The Ballte of 73 Eastings during Desert Strom as well as "Thunder Run" durin OIF saw M1A2 tanks at high speed firing on other vehicles and score always a hit. As long as the target is locked, the main gun will be pointed on it, until you fire.

Well, all this is of course hypothetical, while it thankfully never came to a war in Europe during the cold war. So, we can all say that the truth would lay inbetween all this analysis and all. Of course, the Soviets would have given the NATO a hard time and they would throw the best material and troops in such a war and would use everything both sides have to offer in weapons and tech.

Such a war would not have been fought with Tanks alone, then all other armed branches would be committed in such a war too. The main question would have been, if the NATO could stop the Soviets, due to the higher amount of men and material that the Soviets had.

Today, is all speculation. The Current Russian Army seems well equipped and there are many advance weapon systems in thier force. The overall quality of the troops has also improved and the relationship with the west is good, even with recent disputs, so we can say that there will be no war between any western country and Russia.

But the question is still there: how advanced is the Russian military compared to the west? What do they have, what we dont?

Also, very intresting points GazB.

GazB
12-04-2006, 02:14 AM
Well, I was suggesting, that it would healthier to drive back in the rear, then run away during a tank battle. The chances to get killed by leaving the Tank is very high, so they would remove the driver from its seat and drive the tank back, but thats only wehn the tank can still drive. Even so, it was reported in many wars and battels, that immobilised tanks kept firing even if thier tracks where gone etc. As long as the turret works, you can still fire and it was done more then once.

Obviously it completely depends upon the situation. If you are German and you know your forces are moving forwards and the tracks have been hit then you will bail and try to make it to your rear area to get another tank and continue your work. Skilled tank crew are worth too much to lose in a suicide mission. If however you are a poorly trained green Russian conscript (as opposed to skilled well trained Russian conscript) you might decide to man the gun and get as many germans as you can before they get you. You might choose the latter if your main means of escape is being covered by enemy MG fire or you might just not want to let the germans move forward. (ie your orders might be hold them here as long as you can). Courage, fear, whatever.
The situation might be that you tank is not replacable or it might be totally replacable.


I also already stated that the M1A2 and Leo2 dont have autoloaders, of course, if you have done re-loading all nigh and a tired it gets slower, but there it gets into tactics and strategy, that require to place fresh crews and tanks on the front.

Replacing the crew when the loader gets tired? Never heard of that before.


I still do not belive that Soviet/Russian tanks are supirior to western ones.

I didn't say they were.


The use of the AT-8 is a nice feature, but the tanks where only equitted with a small amount of these missiles, but later made tests concluded that the AT-8 could not penetrate the armor of the M1A2.


In the 80s when it was deployed how many operational M1A2s were there in US service. The vast majority of US tanks were M60s, just like the vast majority of Soviet tanks were T-72s.
In europe seeing a target at 4km would be unlikely anyway. As an anti helo capability however the AT-8 offered Soviet tanks something western tanks could only dream of...


The Ballte of 73 Eastings during Desert Strom as well as "Thunder Run" durin OIF saw M1A2 tanks at high speed firing on other vehicles and score always a hit.

Would suggest that fighting on open flat desert terrain is a rather poor example and would not translate at all to the European theatre at all.


The main question would have been, if the NATO could stop the Soviets, due to the higher amount of men and material that the Soviets had.


The trouble is that all during the cold war western figures were terribly unreliable. More often than not they had to justify defence budgets. Warsaw Pact figures included every tank the WP had including Soviet tanks that would never leave the Chinese border, while NATO forces rarely included French or US or British or many other nationalities tanks the would be "kept in the rear for national defence". As if that was something the WP would never do.


But the question is still there: how advanced is the Russian military compared to the west? What do they have, what we dont?

On paper they have everything the west has. In fact with air defence they tend to have better equipment than the west because western airforces were very good. They also led the way in various things like troop transport. They were the first to be fully mechanised for example through the mixed use of BMPs and BTRs. They also were the first to introduce the man portable anti tank missile in large enough numbers for them to be meaningful on the battlefield.

droopy
12-04-2006, 09:28 PM
Discutions like these make me dream of a super-computer that would simulate WW3 in Europe.
I have a fascination for the "what if scenario" WW3 in the '60s hardware like the Yak-128, SU-15, F-4,M-60 engaged in the final war ...

I`m not commenting about the orginal questions because it has already been answerd.

GazB
12-05-2006, 03:12 AM
Discutions like these make me dream of a super-computer that would simulate WW3 in Europe.


The problem is that it would have to be a really super computer. Most people who fantasize about going back and perhaps winning WWII easier forget that the decisions and tactics of the time were based on the information that was available at the time. If you change one thing then all bets are off. You might want to bump off Hitler to save the world a lot of pain, but the germany that created hitler could have easily have created much worse. Take away Hitler and you leave a power vaccuum that might have been filled by someone actually worse. Imagine a German leader that didn't hate the slavs. He initiates operation barbarossa but not for living space, but to genuinely liberate his Slavic brothers from Stalins yoke. With the manual labour, strategic resources, germany might have been able to defeat Britain and sue a peace deal with the US. With the Germans in charge of the British navy and British dock yards, how long before they challanged the US in naval might (especially allied with the Japanese... who would never have needed to move into the Pacific for oil and resources as Germany would have made deals for Siberian oil).

The variables would be enormous and near impossible to calculate. (If you could calculate them you could input the current situation and have a computer that could predict the future...)

droopy
12-05-2006, 05:03 PM
I agree ... but in 100 years i think that this will be possible.

That would have been a nightmare for most ... i wonder what would Romania have been because at that time it was allied with the germans.

Anonymosity
12-05-2006, 10:14 PM
Paging Lokos to the thread, paging Lokos to this thread.

Lokos, please write a book. I would buy it in a second.

Flamming_Python
12-05-2006, 10:25 PM
The problem is that it would have to be a really super computer. Most people who fantasize about going back and perhaps winning WWII easier forget that the decisions and tactics of the time were based on the information that was available at the time. If you change one thing then all bets are off. You might want to bump off Hitler to save the world a lot of pain, but the germany that created hitler could have easily have created much worse. Take away Hitler and you leave a power vaccuum that might have been filled by someone actually worse. Imagine a German leader that didn't hate the slavs. He initiates operation barbarossa but not for living space, but to genuinely liberate his Slavic brothers from Stalins yoke. With the manual labour, strategic resources, germany might have been able to defeat Britain and sue a peace deal with the US. With the Germans in charge of the British navy and British dock yards, how long before they challanged the US in naval might (especially allied with the Japanese... who would never have needed to move into the Pacific for oil and resources as Germany would have made deals for Siberian oil).

The variables would be enormous and near impossible to calculate. (If you could calculate them you could input the current situation and have a computer that could predict the future...)

Strictly speaking it's impossible (probability theory), but computer technology could rise to the point where it could calculate the rough position of nearly every single particle, atom, etc... on Earth, and work out the probability of every single human decision, and it's consenquences.

Chaos theory, however, would mean that such technology would really have to be very advanced and powerfull and accurate, and take every single variable into account in order to calculate a truly realistic scenario. And unfortunately, chaos theory comes into play a lot worse than in GazB's example.

Even if the wind is calculated as blowing in the wrong direction on a given day, it might mean that M1A1 number 162 misses that critical shot on T-80 number 95, which might result in the T-80 firing back, hitting, and then providing fire support for a Soviet armoured spearhead to penetrate NATO defenses and then possibly go on to achieve a critical tactical victory, which could then turn into a decisive strategic one.

So give it another centuary, or so droopy (possibly less). Funnily enough my estimation matches yours, and i'm the computer scientist :D


Paging Lokos to the thread, paging Lokos to this thread.

Lokos, please write a book. I would buy it in a second.

Hey don't make GazB feel bad!

To hell with the book, them 2 can re-write the whole Encyclopedia Britannica working together. :D

GazB
12-06-2006, 02:03 AM
So give it another centuary, or so droopy (possibly less). Funnily enough my estimation matches yours, and i'm the computer scientist

The problem is that all the choices create new options. Each of these options or choices will create new potential outcomes,a dn each of the different outcomes will create a whole range of near infinite further options. Now some options might be likely, whereas some would be irrational but still possible. This would mean you wouldn't get a prediction of what will happen, but a prediction of what might happen with a percentage of likelyhood... ie there is a good chance that x will y. x might however actually j instead of y. And for every option or possibility... well the alphabet isn't large enough...

The reality is that we can do this with a computer now. With some historical data it is the sort of thing weather computers are trying to do all the time to predict the weather.

Perhaps in a few hundred years we will have computers fast enough to take into account enough variables to make the results useful, but I think often common sense can be a good aide too.


Hey don't make GazB feel bad!

To hell with the book, them 2 can re-write the whole Encyclopedia Britannica working together.

:)

Use you common sense though... even the Encyclopedia Brittanica gets things wrong... like me sometimes...

Flamming_Python
12-06-2006, 05:17 PM
The problem is that all the choices create new options. Each of these options or choices will create new potential outcomes,a dn each of the different outcomes will create a whole range of near infinite further options. Now some options might be likely, whereas some would be irrational but still possible. This would mean you wouldn't get a prediction of what will happen, but a prediction of what might happen with a percentage of likelyhood... ie there is a good chance that x will y. x might however actually j instead of y. And for every option or possibility... well the alphabet isn't large enough...

The reality is that we can do this with a computer now. With some historical data it is the sort of thing weather computers are trying to do all the time to predict the weather.

Perhaps in a few hundred years we will have computers fast enough to take into account enough variables to make the results useful, but I think often common sense can be a good aide too.



:)

Use you common sense though... even the Encyclopedia Brittanica gets things wrong... like me sometimes...

Because of these choices and probabilities, the further from a starting set of data variables you go (2 hours, 1 day, etc...), the more the computing power required rises exponentially.

The more variables there are, the more the rate of exponentiality increases :D

As such, right now we probably have enough total computing power in the world right now, to accurately calculate the effects of WW3, until about 10 minutes into the conflict :D And that goes for just the battlefield calculations, not anything else.

This is a complete guesstimation, but it's in the right sort of ballpark I reckon.

Saranof
12-07-2006, 12:41 PM
Paging Lokos to the thread, paging Lokos to this thread.

Lokos, please write a book. I would buy it in a second.

I was just thinking that..

Brixmis
12-23-2006, 01:07 PM
I have managed to work my way through all the postings on this thread,and as an observer of WP forces in the former DDR, found all the theories,and opinions very interesting,and for what its worth I would like to add a few observations of my own,based on my own knowledge.

The soviet forces in GSFG,were without a doubt the biggest load of rubbish I had ever seen,the only way that they could have won anything would be based on numbers and attrition.

The first thing you have to grasp is that in the Soviet/Russian armed forces,maps are classified documents,the only way they can achieve mass movement is by using regulators,who don't know where they actually are,who are positioned at critical points to direct vehicles. So knock out the regulators and,the guys with the maps?

Imagine if you will a driver training column 2km long,comprising various types of wheeled vehicle,nose to tail driving in huge circuits,around East Germany,the only person with a map is the captain sitting in the front truck,and this goes on for weeks at a time,twice yearly,remember they rotated a lot of their troops every six months.

Their teeth arms practice drills all the time,by rote,their soldiers are not let out of their barracks on their own,except for "cultural" visits,and their barracks are "dry",unless of course they can distill the methyl-glycol antifreeze,boot polish,etc into a form of moonshine,very awe inspiring.

It might seem that they had good equipment,could be true,but we used to find their deployment routes,by following the broken down vehicles along the said routes. Their servicing levels were bad to say the least.

The auto-loader on the first T64/72,not only had problems with jamming,but it also had a tendency to eat the arm of the crew member who tried to clear it! it also had to elevate its main gun to eject the shell case through the rear hatch on the turret.

I saw a mention about the Soviets being the first army to deploy portable ATGM,down to squad level,so what, it was a crap system. It was so slow,that if you caught the flash of motor,you could open up on the operator,with small arms,to keep his head down,so he couldn't guide it. There was a confirmed story of a Centurion tank in the Sinai,with 10+ Sagger wires drapped over it.

So at the end of the day I would guess,that their best was as good as our best,but their worst was and is awful.
p-)

A Tourist

gaijinsamurai
12-23-2006, 09:18 PM
Interesting thread. I've learned a thing or two.
I'm no expert on armor, but I've long had the opinion that The Soviet's were at their best with the T-34. After that, tank development pretty much lagged behind the west.
Again, I'm no expert. My only experience on this matter has been from what I've read, and climbing around inside T-55s, T-62s, and T-64s in the aftermath of Desert Storm.

GazB
12-24-2006, 04:46 AM
My only experience on this matter has been from what I've read, and climbing around inside T-55s, T-62s, and T-64s in the aftermath of Desert Storm.

How many T-64s were there in Iraq? (note this is a very loaded question).


After that, tank development pretty much lagged behind the west.

So in the mid 70s with an early model T-72 vs the latest US tank... the M60, in what way was the M60 superior? And I don't mean the M60s upgraded with Thermal sights in the late 80s and 90s, I mean the Mid 70s M60s. Now the T-72 was the cheap mass produced tank, unlike the expensive but more capable T-64 and then T-80.


There was a confirmed story of a Centurion tank in the Sinai,with 10+ Sagger wires drapped over it.


Yes, because Sagger is so inferior to Dragon? The Sagger used in Europe would have SACLOS guidance and would be used rather more effectively than the Arabs managed no doubt... considering how poorly the arabs have managed with other items of equipment both from the west and east against Israel.
Another point of interest... just because the Centurion had wires draped over it does not mean it had suvived hits... it just means that it was overflown by 10 missiles perhaps hitting targets beyond the centurion.


So at the end of the day I would guess,that their best was as good as our best,but their worst was and is awful.


Considering the enemy was NATO how good did they need to be? War by concensus? How many committee meetings would NATO have needed to move their forces? And what if Turkey decided not to cooperate?


the only way they can achieve mass movement is by using regulators,who don't know where they actually are,who are positioned at critical points to direct vehicles. So knock out the regulators and,the guys with the maps?


Yeah, right. They would all sit in their vehicles waiting for some NATO soldier to walk up and shoot them? All BMPs had fairly sophisticated land navigation systems built in, but they just ignore that I guess and follow the flag signals of the guy with the map right?


The auto-loader on the first T64/72,not only had problems with jamming,but it also had a tendency to eat the arm of the crew member who tried to clear it! it also had to elevate its main gun to eject the shell case through the rear hatch on the turret.


Actually it is the T-62 that requires the main gun return to a certain elevation for the auto shell ejector to work. The gun is then returned to its previous elevation ready to be manually loaded. The T-64 and T-72 have rather different autoloader designs. Early on they had problems but if they really were on going you'd think they would revert to manual loading.. they didn't.


It was so slow,that if you caught the flash of motor,you could open up on the operator,with small arms,to keep his head down,so he couldn't guide it.

The Sagger was slow, but the Spigot was much faster... in fact it was supersonic. Equally the firing post on the Sagger could be 40m away from the launcher, so if properly used you can fire all you like at the launch flash...

GazB
12-24-2006, 04:49 AM
Spigot was very similar to Milan, except in penetration. Spandrel was similar to HOT and TOW. Both could be fired from the same launcher on the BMP-2 later retrofitted to the BMP-1.

Brixmis
12-24-2006, 05:51 AM
How many T-64s were there in Iraq? (note this is a very loaded question).



So in the mid 70s with an early model T-72 vs the latest US tank... the M60, in what way was the M60 superior? And I don't mean the M60s upgraded with Thermal sights in the late 80s and 90s, I mean the Mid 70s M60s. Now the T-72 was the cheap mass produced tank, unlike the expensive but more capable T-64 and then T-80.



Yes, because Sagger is so inferior to Dragon? The Sagger used in Europe would have SACLOS guidance and would be used rather more effectively than the Arabs managed no doubt... considering how poorly the arabs have managed with other items of equipment both from the west and east against Israel.
Another point of interest... just because the Centurion had wires draped over it does not mean it had suvived hits... it just means that it was overflown by 10 missiles perhaps hitting targets beyond the centurion.



Considering the enemy was NATO how good did they need to be? War by concensus? How many committee meetings would NATO have needed to move their forces? And what if Turkey decided not to cooperate?



Yeah, right. They would all sit in their vehicles waiting for some NATO soldier to walk up and shoot them? All BMPs had fairly sophisticated land navigation systems built in, but they just ignore that I guess and follow the flag signals of the guy with the map right?



Actually it is the T-62 that requires the main gun return to a certain elevation for the auto shell ejector to work. The gun is then returned to its previous elevation ready to be manually loaded. The T-64 and T-72 have rather different autoloader designs. Early on they had problems but if they really were on going you'd think they would revert to manual loading.. they didn't.



The Sagger was slow, but the Spigot was much faster... in fact it was supersonic. Equally the firing post on the Sagger could be 40m away from the launcher, so if properly used you can fire all you like at the launch flash...


I'm not going to get into a pissing contest about what you you know/what I know,I'm just telling you what I saw,not what I've read somewhere,I've actually had to point the sophisticated? BMP in the right direction,because the Regulator,went of for a "dump".

As for the T-64 not having to elevate its main armament,don't care what you've read sunshine,I have seen it happening,on a range in a little place called Zeitz south of Leipzig,in the former DDR,the problem with reading publications,written by "experts",is that most experts have a hidden agenda,mostly to do with Kudos,and money!

Up until the early 80's most "experts" were telling the world that the Hind couldn't hover,because of the strain it would impart on the rotor head,lo and behold,on the WP excercise "Waffenbruderschaft 80" held in the DDR,there it was doing what it couldn't do,not only seen by me,but it was on film as well!

The only truly professional fighting force in East Germany,were the East German armed forces themselves,and they were very very good.

As a footnote,the Centurion,had broken down,so it was a sitting duck,not one of the Sagger's hit it,it was repaired,and drove away from the position.

I can assure you that at the end of my time in the DDR,I did not subscribe to the Russian superman theory,to me they were just a mediocre,conscript army,who just wanted to do their time in GSFG,and go home.:-(

A Tourist.

Lt.Havoc
12-24-2006, 06:44 AM
Please, no "name calling" here. Brixmis: thats intresting, did you served in the British Army during the 80s? They where the ones who always send officers to the DDR to watch thier Wargames going on and such. Saw a photo posted here where a British soldier wehere standing in front of some T-72 and some Germany soldiers nearby.

Thing is, I belive that the Soviets did knew that they are watched and maybe wanted to look poor on purpose to give a flase feel of savty. On the otherhand, the Soviets always wanted to show of what they had and how supirior they where. The East german soldiers said, that even if they had good training and equitment, they lacked spare parts to repair thier stuff, even in 60s and 70s.

The Soviets didnt tursted thier formoer enemy, even if many Soviet soldiers mocked the DDR as the "16th State of the Soviet Union", therefor East Germany wanst allowed to build thier own Tanks or other equitment besides small arms, trucks and APCs. Most of the Army of the DDR was layed out to support the Soviet Army staionetd there and most produced stuff went to them, instead of thier own troops.

Mechanical breakdowns where a common thing and in the large wargames held, there where always estimated 5 to 10 % casualties all the time and that during a peacetime exercise. NATO and the USA never had such a high rate and still managed to have a high level of traning.

As for the political officers and all: thats what I read too, the Officers where the only ones issued maps and the ration between officer and entlist mens where higher then in any other army, the soviets didnt tursted thier own soldiers to be effective. The Political Officers had to ensure loality and therefor they where feared among the troops, then any failure in belive on the Soviet System was punished, ranging from denining the 2 days leave a month to guardhouse duty up to the Gulag.

Ok, during peacetime, it wasnt that harsh, but during a war the political officers would have brutally ensured that the soldiers stay in the line and dont have any thoughs on giving up. Indoctrination was the bane of life of any Soviet citizen and soldiers got the double dosage of political traning.

Equitment good or bad, I think it goes down the the fact that the Soviet Soldier was never as well trained and equit then his western counterpart. Also, the high amount of officers would have risked that the Soviet army is rednerd ineffective should they be taken out. The NCOs lakced the insative and always followed orders, without thier officers, they wouldnt know what they have to do.

Brixmis
12-24-2006, 10:29 AM
Hi,if I have offended anyone with my views,it was unintentional. I was not an "official" observer,the unit I served with,was in the DDR,every day of the year 24/7,in a lot of places we weren't supposed to be. The whole idea was covert observation. If the unthinkable had happened,I don't think the Soviet Union could have depended on unconditional support from its allies.

I can think of one occasion,when we were having a brew near Cottbus,south east of Berlin,we got into conversation with a local postmistress,the conversation got around to what the population in general though about their "friends"from the east,her reply was most enlightening. "What would you think of a people,who threatened to rape you,and your 8 year old daughter unless you gave them all the valuables in your house",okay she was alluding to 1945,but this was 1975,and she said that the germans had long memories. The non party line was,total ambivalence toward the "besuchers".

I am aware that a lot of armchair experts,thought that our intelligence regarding the capabilities and,tactics of the Soviet armed forces,in GSFG,was pretty poor,I can assure you that was not the case. The unit I was in had operated in the DDR,from 1946 until reunification in 1990,and relied on the Mark 1 eyeball,rather than other means of intelligence gathering. One interesting fact is that in Soviet army married quarters,only Majors and above were entitled to a fitted Bath in the bathroom. Pretty trivial stuff until you use it to figure out what size unit was moving into the new flats,based on the officer manning levels,working on how many baths were going into the new building,Yes,I have been onto a building site in the early morning to count baths!

There have been occassions when,signal monitoring units,have told us that the "crash move" we saw happen in a specific location didn't happen,because there was no signals traffic intercepted relating to the move. We informed them that the soviets were using the public telephone system,which they thought was hilarious,until the early 90's when various ex GSFG officers started writing about their service in the Russian press,stating that they employed this method of covert deployment to "spoof" the various listening posts along the IGB,and in Berlin. :oops: They also said the the only fly in the ointment were,the Allied Missions,operating in out of Potsdam in the DDR.p-)

If you really want to know what we did for 44 years,go and buy the book: Brixmis:Beyond the Frontline. Maybe some of the gainsayers,who don't think we did to well during the Cold War,might change their mind.:cantbeli:

Merry Christmas

A Tourist

Russian_dude
12-24-2006, 12:52 PM
Well, the Russians managed to manoever huge armies in '45 no problem. They did manage to find Berlin BTW. Also, the US army was also largely conscript untill the end of the Vietnam war and then was plagued by bad moral untill mid eighties.

The soviets had amassed so much artillery against NATO that I am not sure Soviet tanks would have encountered serious organized resistance at first.

Hellfish
12-24-2006, 01:42 PM
How many T-64s were there in Iraq? (note this is a very loaded question).

Har har har p-)




So in the mid 70s with an early model T-72 vs the latest US tank... the M60, in what way was the M60 superior? And I don't mean the M60s upgraded with Thermal sights in the late 80s and 90s, I mean the Mid 70s M60s. Now the T-72 was the cheap mass produced tank, unlike the expensive but more capable T-64 and then T-80.

Yeah, the M60A1 was a piece of crap.It wouldn't have held up to T-62s, nevermind T-64s or -72s.




Yes, because Sagger is so inferior to Dragon? The Sagger used in Europe would have SACLOS guidance and would be used rather more effectively than the Arabs managed no doubt... considering how poorly the arabs have managed with other items of equipment both from the west and east against Israel.
Another point of interest... just because the Centurion had wires draped over it does not mean it had suvived hits... it just means that it was overflown by 10 missiles perhaps hitting targets beyond the centurion.

Yeah, the Dragon was awful. I trained on it and it was a terribly awkward piece of kit to fire, woefully underranged and extremely difficult to track moving targets with.

That said, from what I understand, the Sagger wasn't exactly easy to use either. IIRC it had a joystick and the missile wasn't even captured by the controls until something like 2-300m into flight.

Maybe all 1st/2nd Gen ATGMs were this crappy?




Considering the enemy was NATO how good did they need to be? War by concensus? How many committee meetings would NATO have needed to move their forces? And what if Turkey decided not to cooperate?

I think the Soviets were well prepared to fraction the alliance if war broke out. Fake massacres by the Germans or stir up student riots in the Netherlands and France....


Yeah, right. They would all sit in their vehicles waiting for some NATO soldier to walk up and shoot them? All BMPs had fairly sophisticated land navigation systems built in, but they just ignore that I guess and follow the flag signals of the guy with the map right?

I've never heard of the BMP having any kind of land nav system. Link or explanation?




Actually it is the T-62 that requires the main gun return to a certain elevation for the auto shell ejector to work. The gun is then returned to its previous elevation ready to be manually loaded. The T-64 and T-72 have rather different autoloader designs. Early on they had problems but if they really were on going you'd think they would revert to manual loading.. they didn't.

IIRC the T-64 had a difficult, unreliable autoloader that was fixed for the T-72.

Lt.Havoc
12-24-2006, 01:55 PM
The T-64 was never exported to any country, only the soviets used the T-64. I also want to note that the T-64 and T-72 with autoloaders fired 5 shots per min and that couldnt be increased, a similar hand loaded gun in a NATO tank had a higher fire rate then this.

KMS
12-24-2006, 02:30 PM
go and buy the book: Brixmis:Beyond the Frontline.
A Tourist

I think that someone is trying to sell us his book here or is just simply very proud of his former outfit:)

I can personally attest that fitted bath availability in GSFG as described by you was rather accurate, the rest - not so much: a lot of misunderstanding and misinterpreting.
I would like to further elaborate on it once I have more time

As to another gentleman who stated:

"I think it goes down the the fact that the Soviet Soldier was never as well trained and equit then his western counterpart. Also, the high amount of officers would have risked that the Soviet army is rednerd ineffective should they be taken out. The NCOs lakced the insative and always followed orders, without thier officers, they wouldnt know what they have to do."

What makes you think that? Did you experience both training systems so you can make accurate comparison? Based on what facts you draw such conclusion?
At the same time I can make exactly opposite argument about quality of training based on the opinions of ex-Soviet soldiers who served in the FFL and KFOR in Bosnia. At the risk of stirring up some heated emotions here, lets just say that those who crossed paths with their NATO couterparts were and are less then impressed...
But the thing is that neither of us have experienced both systems and therefore our entire argument can be reduced to: "IMHO, he said - she said".

Also keep in mind that Soviet military, to the regret of many, constantly rotated its troops in and out of Afghanistan. So the soldier, NCO, lieutenant, etc. who a week ago was in combat in Afghanistan and was making decisions under fire could be the same person that according to you was a mindless drone that "lacked initiative".
The truth is that in a peace time majority of soldiers in any military are lacking initiative or desire to do anything in general. True leaders emerge in combat, it happened before and it will happen again: officers and NCO who are "know it all" on exercise and classrooms - freeze when first bullets go over their heads.
In the military nobody in general likes to take any initiative until their very life depends on it for one simple reason: initiative is always punishable, if something goes wrong - the "initiative man" = scapegoat...
Make a parallel with your civilian life: how many managers are willing to show initiative until they hear something from the corporate?

Anyhow, interesting topic but I have to run

Brixmis
12-24-2006, 02:33 PM
Well, the Russians managed to manoever huge armies in '45 no problem. They did manage to find Berlin BTW. Also, the US army was also largely conscript untill the end of the Vietnam war and then was plagued by bad moral untill mid eighties.

The soviets had amassed so much artillery against NATO that I am not sure Soviet tanks would have encountered serious organized resistance at first.

Two points,to hit Berlin from Russia,just follow the sun,secondly,the only reason they took Berlin was because,the western allies let them(politics).

Yes,the Soviets had masses of Arty,in lots,of different calibres,which equals,logistics nightmare. As I said earlier in this post,their success was based on numbers not,on good soldiering,bit like 1945. Again take out the command and control,chaos.

They were not taught to use their initiative,junior officers down to grunts,were not encouraged to develop any sort of free thinking,on military doctrine.

For the Soviets to gain any advantage,any move would need to have a very big element of surprise,one of the jobs of the Allied missions,was to look for Indicators of Hostility,watching for new equipment,coming in by road and rail,simple things like,seeing if more trucks came back from the harvest in the Soviet Union,than originally went. Seeing if more troops came into GSFG,than went home on the Bi-annual troop rotation,it's not just a question of lets go there is a lot of preperation involved,for big moves like that.

If you think that troop morale in USARER was bad,it was even worse in GSFG.

I would think the current Russian armed forces,are at least 4-500% better trained and equiped,than their Cold war counterparts were.p-)

A Tourist

Lt.Havoc
12-24-2006, 02:51 PM
Lots of intresting points. Still I belive that the Russian soldier wernt impressed, just for the fact that the Russians fought more wars then the NATO did. Still, it boils down to diffrent traning systems, doctrine and the diffrent countriess. A Russian soldier will always mock about a NATO one, as well as the other way around, I mean, you would never think that you serve in a bad army. Ask any soldier and you get to hear that they serve in the best army in the world.

Well, todays Russian army is better, a lot better I have to say. But back in the Cold War, well no. The war in Afgahnistan proved that. The Russian soldier fought brave but they lacked the leadership skills and the agressive smallunit tactics. It took them until 1984 to become more adapted to that kind of war. They re-introduced mountain troops, something the west still had back then (German Gebirgsjäger or the example).

The Soviets never had special units for low intensive conflicts like the USA had. Took them a while to get used to this kind of war.

Still, I doubt that the Soviet Army was that good at all. Too many things speak against that.

Brixmis
12-24-2006, 02:59 PM
I think that someone is trying to sell us his book here or is just simply very proud of his former outfit:)

I can personally attest that fitted bath availability in GSFG as described by you was rather accurate, the rest - not so much: a lot of misunderstanding and misinterpreting.
I would like to further elaborate on it once I have more time

As to another gentleman who stated:

"I think it goes down the the fact that the Soviet Soldier was never as well trained and equit then his western counterpart. Also, the high amount of officers would have risked that the Soviet army is rednerd ineffective should they be taken out. The NCOs lakced the insative and always followed orders, without thier officers, they wouldnt know what they have to do."

What makes you think that? Did you experience both training systems so you can make accurate comparison? Based on what facts you draw such conclusion?
At the same time I can make exactly opposite argument about quality of training based on the opinions of ex-Soviet soldiers who served in the FFL and KFOR in Bosnia. At the risk of stirring up some heated emotions here, lets just say that those who crossed paths with their NATO couterparts were and are less then impressed...
But the thing is that neither of us have experienced both systems and therefore our entire argument can be reduced to: "IMHO, he said - she said".

Also keep in mind that Soviet military, to the regret of many, constantly rotated its troops in and out of Afghanistan. So the soldier, NCO, lieutenant, etc. who a week ago was in combat in Afghanistan and was making decisions under fire could be the same person that according to you was a mindless drone that "lacked initiative".
The truth is that in a peace time majority of soldiers in any military are lacking initiative or desire to do anything in general. True leaders emerge in combat, it happened before and it will happen again: officers and NCO who are "know it all" on exercise and classrooms - freeze when first bullets go over their heads.
In the military nobody in general likes to take any initiative until their very life depends on it for one simple reason: initiative is always punishable, if something goes wrong - the "initiative man" = scapegoat...
Make a parallel with your civilian life: how many managers are willing to show initiative until they hear something from the corporate?

Anyhow, interesting topic but I have to run

Actually,no but this book is the only game in town,about the Allied Missions,I always smile when I read it,because the incidents and people in the book,are there because they make interesting reading for the intended audience,and most of the "good stuff" is still classified. The point I was trying to make about the Baths was,that however mundane something might seem,it can still generate some intelligence value.

I tend to agree with you about the troop rotation in and out of Afghanistan,I also thought it was never the soldiers fault for being a mediocre soldier,rather,sub standard training that was the culprit,but it's politics,none of the UK government have served in the Armed Forces,Esprit-de-Corps is just a trite french phrase to them(If they could spell it),and lack of foresight that govern our Armed forces nowdays,and NATO has gone downhill rapidly since the end of the Cold War,with most member states cutting back on their physical contribution,for various reasons.

Indeed,I am of the opinion that the Armed Forces in the UK,will eventually become a token Defence Force,as it is rather more fashionable to spend the money saved,on other good socialist causes,like improving the pensioners lot(Joke!),making sure every MP gets a pay rise to £100,000 per annum(No Joke!),And that all the cabinet members dont have to pay the London congestion charge(Not sure about that one?),protecting the breeding habitat of the Great Crested Newt(No Joke)!

Ever Hopeful,and keep your head down!

A Tourist:)

Russian_dude
12-24-2006, 05:19 PM
Two points,to hit Berlin from Russia,just follow the sun,secondly,the only reason they took Berlin was because,the western allies let them(politics).

Yes,the Soviets had masses of Arty,in lots,of different calibres,which equals,logistics nightmare. As I said earlier in this post,their success was based on numbers not,on good soldiering,bit like 1945. Again take out the command and control,chaos.

They were not taught to use their initiative,junior officers down to grunts,were not encouraged to develop any sort of free thinking,on military doctrine.

For the Soviets to gain any advantage,any move would need to have a very big element of surprise,one of the jobs of the Allied missions,was to look for Indicators of Hostility,watching for new equipment,coming in by road and rail,simple things like,seeing if more trucks came back from the harvest in the Soviet Union,than originally went. Seeing if more troops came into GSFG,than went home on the Bi-annual troop rotation,it's not just a question of lets go there is a lot of preperation involved,for big moves like that.

If you think that troop morale in USARER was bad,it was even worse in GSFG.

I would think the current Russian armed forces,are at least 4-500% better trained and equiped,than their Cold war counterparts were.p-)

A Tourist

No the sucess was based on the overwhelming local numerical superiority due to strategic surprise. Also, soviet weapons were pretty standartised with relatevly few models. You are thinking of Germans with a bewildering array of types from different countries including captured. Kinda like NATO with different weapon systems.

Brixmis
12-25-2006, 08:20 AM
No the sucess was based on the overwhelming local numerical superiority due to strategic surprise. Also, soviet weapons were pretty standartised with relatevly few models. You are thinking of Germans with a bewildering array of types from different countries including captured. Kinda like NATO with different weapon systems.

When I was talking about numerous different calibres,I was not reffering to 1945,but the 60's,70's,and 80's,the soviet army never threw their older pieces out. So,you had all the old pieces,interspersed with the new,from the 76mm Zis-3,and 130mm M-46,through to the 2s1,and 2s3,of the late 70's,lets not forget the smaller calibres,5.45,7.62,12.7,14.5,23mm?

If you want to argue about the merits of the logistics systems,employed by both sides during the Cold War,then the argument falls flat because GSFG's idea of logistics was to have no system,and before you ask if I have seen both sides of the coin,the answer is yes,and unless you were serving in GSFG,during the 70's,and 80's,you haven't.

However,I am always open to new ideas,and it might well have been that the system was so clever,that nobody observing it figured out what it is?
Maybe you can enlighten us.

A Tourist :)

GazB
12-28-2006, 05:14 AM
BMP in the right direction,because the Regulator,went of for a "dump".


So during exercises blank ammo is used... I guess another reason the Soviet Army was crap was because they used blank ammo?


As for the T-64 not having to elevate its main armament,don't care what you've read sunshine,I have seen it happening,on a range in a little place called Zeitz

The maximum elevation of a modern main tank gun is less than 20 degrees. The minimum elevation for a soviet tank is not greater than about 5 degrees. I guess they are going to lose the war now because their automatic loaders require a movement of a gun barrel of less than 30 degrees for reloading... an automatic loader can get damaged but then a human loader can get shell shock too.


Up until the early 80's most "experts" were telling the world that the Hind couldn't hover,because of the strain it would impart on the rotor head,lo and behold,on the WP excercise "Waffenbruderschaft 80" held in the DDR,there it was doing what it couldn't do,not only seen by me,but it was on film as well!


Skilled observers in the field also claimed that the Yak-36M couldn't take off with a rolling start and could only land and takeoff vertically. Common sense and a few writers pointed out that rolling takeoffs should be possible and would increase performance (by adding wing lift to engine lift). It was quite some time before the Soviets actually tried rolling takeoffs with that aircraft.


As a footnote,the Centurion,had broken down,so it was a sitting duck,not one of the Sagger's hit it,it was repaired,and drove away from the position.


Still waiting for evidence that any of those Saggers were actually fired at it.


I did not subscribe to the Russian superman theory,to me they were just a mediocre,conscript army,who just wanted to do their time in GSFG,and go home.

Where did this superman theory come from? Not me. However the "all their stuff is crap or crap copies of western stuff" is a theory that is still rampant in the west and obviously a theory you seem to support.


the Officers where the only ones issued maps and the ration between officer and entlist mens where higher then in any other army, the soviets didnt tursted thier own soldiers to be effective.

The only NCO in a Soviet Tank is the loader...


Equitment good or bad, I think it goes down the the fact that the Soviet Soldier was never as well trained and equit then his western counterpart.

But American conscripts did so well in Vietnam...


That said, from what I understand, the Sagger wasn't exactly easy to use either. IIRC it had a joystick and the missile wasn't even captured by the controls until something like 2-300m into flight.


That wasn't a problem because anything within 300m was engaged by volleys of half a dozen or more RPG-7s. Early models of Sagger you flew manually but later models had full SACLOS (ie place crosshair on target and keep it there till impact).


I've never heard of the BMP having any kind of land nav system. Link or explanation?


Steven J Zaloga book on BMP. He mentioned early models were unreliable as vibration from the engine effected accuracy and they took a while to set up (much like inertial nav systems on aircraft). Would doubt they would even bother to use it on exercise except for practise.


IIRC the T-64 had a difficult, unreliable autoloader that was fixed for the T-72.

That was the rumour. The reality is that both systems were unreliable initially, and both were modified and fixed... the T-64 was the expensive tank while the T-72 was the cheap mass produced export tank. The T-80 uses the same system as the T-64 from memory. Which suggests the T-72 system either didn't solve the problem or both systems matured to an acceptable level.


I also want to note that the T-64 and T-72 with autoloaders fired 5 shots per min and that couldnt be increased, a similar hand loaded gun in a NATO tank had a higher fire rate then this.

For the T-80 it is 8 shots per minute 24/7 across any terrain.


Two points,to hit Berlin from Russia,just follow the sun,secondly,the only reason they took Berlin was because,the western allies let them(politics).


So to hit the Uk, just keep following the sun... no problems. And the only reason the west even bothered with D-Day was to prevent them hitting the UK...



Yes,the Soviets had masses of Arty,in lots,of different calibres,which equals,logistics nightmare.

Rubbish. Tube Artillery was 76.2mm, 122mm, and 152mm with 203mm. How many calibres did the western allies have?


Again take out the command and control,chaos.


Yeah, because standard procedure in war is to leave your enemies command and control alone and just fight the guys on the front line... American and British troops fight better without command and control...


Seeing if more troops came into GSFG,than went home on the Bi-annual troop rotation,it's not just a question of lets go there is a lot of preperation involved,for big moves like that.


Yet so many things caught the west by surprise... even the invasion of Afghanistan...


I would think the current Russian armed forces,are at least 4-500% better trained and equiped,than their Cold war counterparts were.

They have lost all their Soviet allies and are defending their own turf... of course morale will be higher.


The war in Afgahnistan proved that. The Russian soldier fought brave but they lacked the leadership skills and the agressive smallunit tactics.

I'd have thought the events in the ME might have shown you a reason for that... the average Russian soldier wasn't trained to fight a guerilla war, just like the 82nd airborne or the US Marine weren't supposed to occupy cities and act like a police force. Doesn't mean the forces themselves are bad, just that politicians everywhere are idiots and think their military can be used for anything. You don't use a hammer to put in some rivets... you need a rivet gun.


The Soviets never had special units for low intensive conflicts like the USA had.

What special units do the US have for low intensity conflicts and why aren't they being deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan (and Somalia before that).


Took them a while to get used to this kind of war.


Better to avoid such wars rather than get used to them.


none of the UK government have served in the Armed Forces

The British government is the greatest enemy the british armed forces has ever seen. Any time the british forces manage to do a good job with meagre resources the government cuts their budgets...


So,you had all the old pieces,interspersed with the new,from the 76mm Zis-3,and 130mm M-46,through to the 2s1,and 2s3,of the late 70's,lets not forget the smaller calibres,5.45,7.62,12.7,14.5,23mm?


First of all I rather doubt any single unit would have every calibre in service at one time. Second, if standardisation is so wonderful the west was no better. 9mm pistol rounds used in pistols and smgs, plus 5.56 x 45mm for rifles and LMGs 7.62 x 51mm for MMGs, 50 cal HMG plus 20mm of various calibres. The only added calibre for the Soviet side was the 9mm for pistols but they didn't use SMGs very widely as AKs with folding stocks were compact enough. Most front line artillery units used 122mm, 152mm, 203mm.
All clearly different rounds and not likely to be confused by different units. In the west though what happens when a unit over a crackling line desperately asks for 120mm... do they want 120mm shells for tank guns or 120mm mortar rounds? They are not compatible. And before you say it 122mm rockets in WP forces are always referred to as grads to avoid confusion.
You can look at the logistic tails of NATO and Warsaw Pact forces and you can deduce which side intended to go on the offensive...

Brixmis
12-30-2006, 10:25 AM
Far to many quotes,to requote,and I was enjoying Christmas rather than looking through my myriad copies of Janes,or what ever it is you enjoy reading,I assume it is something like that because your knowledge of Soviet/Russian kit,and tactics would seem to be so encyclopeadic,it's almost ****?

I only have a couple of queries,firstly,if you had been around during the 6 -Day War,you would have read about the Cent. on the front page of virtually every newspaper in Europe,secondly I spent the best part of 5 years,chasing,and being chased by the Sovs,and East Germans,and I didn't see you there. As far as I know, no New Zealander ever served in the unit I was with during it's 44 year history,which means you must have been living there? So my question is,what part of the DDR is New Zealand in???????????

If you really want to prove you know what you are on about,have a look in your little books and tell us all,how many allied servicemen have been shot,killed and severely injured by WP troops,and security services in the DDR.since 1946?

(hint:2 were killed as late as the 1980's)

P.S. My service in the British Armed Forces was from 1965,until 1987,and I got my knees brown! Stag on!


A Tourist:cantbeli:

droopy
12-30-2006, 11:25 AM
Far to many quotes,to requote,and I was enjoying Christmas rather than looking through my myriad copies of Janes,or what ever it is you enjoy reading,I assume it is something like that because your knowledge of Soviet/Russian kit,and tactics would seem to be so encyclopeadic,it's almost ****?

I only have a couple of queries,firstly,if you had been around during the 6 -Day War,you would have read about the Cent. on the front page of virtually every newspaper in Europe,secondly I spent the best part of 5 years,chasing,and being chased by the Sovs,and East Germans,and I didn't see you there. As far as I know, no New Zealander ever served in the unit I was with during it's 44 year history,which means you must have been living there? So my question is,what part of the DDR is New Zealand in???????????

If you really want to prove you know what you are on about,have a look in your little books and tell us all,how many allied servicemen have been shot,killed and severely injured by WP troops,and security services in the DDR.since 1946?

(hint:2 were killed as late as the 1980's)

P.S. My service in the British Armed Forces was from 1965,until 1987,and I got my knees brown! Stag on!


A Tourist:cantbeli:

This reminds me about the movie Ronin in wich Sean Bean said he was in the SAS ... this is you are you telling me you were running covert ops during the Cold War and now you came to the forum and you enlight us based on your real life experience oposed to us who only read books.
Yeah right and i`m Batman.
Peace.

Brixmis
12-30-2006, 01:00 PM
:oops:
This reminds me about the movie Ronin in wich Sean Bean said he was in the SAS ... this is you are you telling me you were running covert ops during the Cold War and now you came to the forum and you enlight us based on your real life experience oposed to us who only read books.
Yeah right and i`m Batman.
Peace.

Hi,Batman.
Not even worth the comment. Try : www.brixmis.co.uk (http://www.brixmis.co.uk) then having improved your scant knowledge of the Cold War intelligence organisations by looking at that website,you might like to follow the links to two more bona fide allied units who also operated in the DDR,the USMLM,and the French MMFL. If you still don't want to concede that your education is sadly lacking,consider this,the Soviets,by reciprocal arrangement ran three separate missions in West Germany,for the same amount of time,one in the British area,one in the American area,and one in the French area.:oops:

Bye

A Tourist p-)

P.S. Ronin was an enjoyable film,but I don't base my comments on fantasy!

droopy
12-30-2006, 02:14 PM
:oops:

Hi,Batman.
Not even worth the comment. Try : www.brixmis.co.uk (http://www.brixmis.co.uk) then having improved your scant knowledge of the Cold War intelligence organisations by looking at that website,you might like to follow the links to two more bona fide allied units who also operated in the DDR,the USMLM,and the French MMFL. If you still don't want to concede that your education is sadly lacking,consider this,the Soviets,by reciprocal arrangement ran three separate missions in West Germany,for the same amount of time,one in the British area,one in the American area,and one in the French area.:oops:

Bye

A Tourist p-)

P.S. Ronin was an enjoyable film,but I don't base my comments on fantasy!

You totaly missed my point ;) ... back to the topic please.

Lt.Havoc
12-30-2006, 06:35 PM
Well, its true, both sides send military watchers to ease the tension between the two blocks. Besides that, both the KGB and CIA as well as any other major secrect ervice group civillian or military send agents into "enemy" land to get knowledge whats going on.

Thor
12-30-2006, 07:53 PM
Well, I´m currently engaged in a discussion in another forum about how far more advanced the Soviet/Russian Army is compared to the western ones.
It's really hard to tell if you're just kidding or if you're one of those borderline insanity cases.

How can anyone miss WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Israel-Arab Wars, GWI+II and every other bloody war were western equipment has faced eastern equivalents.

NATO commanders calculated with 1:5 and 1:10 wins over Warzaw pact forces.

Over here we used eastern equipment as reinforcements during a brief period in the 1990's, and we also tried out helicopters and tanks. The overall top-down conclusion was that it was junk.

Lt.Havoc
12-30-2006, 07:59 PM
Well, what do you mean with "It's really hard to tell if you're just kidding or if you're one of those borderline insanity cases."? No, I´m not kidding and I´m not insane (at least not more then usual), I just try to find some answers thats all. :)

Anonymosity
12-31-2006, 02:01 AM
It's really hard to tell if you're just kidding or if you're one of those borderline insanity cases.

How can anyone miss WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Israel-Arab Wars, GWI+II and every other bloody war were western equipment has faced eastern equivalents.

NATO commanders calculated with 1:5 and 1:10 wins over Warzaw pact forces.

Over here we used eastern equipment as reinforcements during a brief period in the 1990's, and we also tried out helicopters and tanks. The overall top-down conclusion was that it was junk.

Because none of these wars actually had the equipment being used by a properly trained and disciplined army? Furthermore, North korea probably calculates it will win 20/20 times if it fights the entire world. Fantasy.

Lokos
12-31-2006, 02:58 PM
NATO commanders calculated with 1:5 and 1:10 wins over Warzaw pact forces.


And which NATO commanders were these?

You are so full of it.

Lokos

Hellfish
12-31-2006, 03:05 PM
And which NATO commanders were these?

You are so full of it.

Lokos

Yeah, those figures sound hoplessly optimistic.

CPL Trevoga
12-31-2006, 10:37 PM
It's really hard to tell if you're just kidding or if you're one of those borderline insanity cases.
How can anyone miss WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Israel-Arab Wars, GWI+II and every other bloody war were western equipment has faced eastern equivalents.

NATO commanders calculated with 1:5 and 1:10 wins over Warzaw pact forces.

Over here we used eastern equipment as reinforcements during a brief period in the 1990's, and we also tried out helicopters and tanks. The overall top-down conclusion was that it was junk.

WWII, Korea, Vietnam was a win for Commies last time I've checked, even your country used some of that equipment, so I it's not that bad. We have a saying, bad dancer always blames his balls for bad dancing, may be your soldiers are not that proffessional if they can't get that **** to work.

Anonymosity
12-31-2006, 10:44 PM
And which NATO commanders were these?

You are so full of it.

Lokos

Lokos, Lokos...its the all amalgamated being of NATO commanders. I mean the monkeys in the Soviet Army were drunk 24/7 compared to the amazing geniuses of NATO.

Hunterhr
01-01-2007, 03:33 AM
WWII, Korea, Vietnam was a win for Commies last time I've checked, even your country used some of that equipment, so I it's not that bad. We have a saying, bad dancer always blames his balls for bad dancing, may be your soldiers are not that proffessional if they can't get that **** to work.

By the way, as for the three conflicts you mentioned, which side was fighting halfway around the world at the time?

I'd let the North Koreans know they've won by the way. 50 years is a long time to keep them hanging.

kilroy1911
01-01-2007, 07:21 AM
to the autoloader of russian tanks: I have read that there were/are pretty crappy in combat conditions. It was in book about arab israeli wars - when you drive in harsh terrain, the system seems to jam due to strong vibrations. Is it true? There was even written, that israeli tankers even remove autoloaders from captured tanks like Tirdan etc...

kilroy1911
01-01-2007, 07:26 AM
little bit off-topic:

In czechoslovakia there was a joke in Cold war times:

What is the difference between training alert and real combat alert?

During the training alert the officers are waked up by their soldiers and during real alerts they are waked up by soldiers of Bundeswehr:-)

well... it may be som indication of how the eastern armies were really prepared, because on every joke there is a little bit of truth..

Lokos
01-02-2007, 01:37 AM
well... it may be som indication of how the eastern armies were really prepared, because on every joke there is a little bit of truth..

Your joke seems to be implying that it wouldn't be WarPac that would be on the offensive. How much truth is there to that bit of the joke?

Lokos

Jippo
01-02-2007, 10:38 AM
to the autoloader of russian tanks: I have read that there were/are pretty crappy in combat conditions. It was in book about arab israeli wars - when you drive in harsh terrain, the system seems to jam due to strong vibrations. Is it true? There was even written, that israeli tankers even remove autoloaders from captured tanks like Tirdan etc...

Never heard about such thing, and I doubt such story very much.


-jippo

Lt.Havoc
01-05-2007, 01:50 PM
Your joke seems to be implying that it wouldn't be WarPac that would be on the offensive. How much truth is there to that bit of the joke?

Lokos

Well, the Soviet propaganda always told thier people that the NATO is the enemy that will attack the Warsaw Pact and that they are the agressors to world peace. Thats one of the offical reasons the DDR build the wall, that was known as the "Anti-faschistischer Schutzwall" (Anti-Fascistic protection wall), so you can tell where the joke comes from. Back in the day, every Warsaw Pact Soldier was told, that NATO would attack them and after the Cold War was over, many soldiers, ecspecially these in the DDR felt like that they where tricked by thier former goverment as they saw how defensice NATO was layed out.

GazB
01-10-2007, 08:25 PM
I have read that there were/are pretty crappy in combat conditions. It was in book about arab israeli wars - when you drive in harsh terrain, the system seems to jam due to strong vibrations.

Perhaps the Arabs did not maintain their equipment properly? Israelis might have decided that it would be easier to manually load than learn how to maintain them without the manual...


Back in the day, every Warsaw Pact Soldier was told, that NATO would attack them and after the Cold War was over, many soldiers, ecspecially these in the DDR felt like that they where tricked by thier former goverment as they saw how defensice NATO was layed out.

How defensive is NATO layed out? NATO can travel to different countries and break down airdefences... they have shown in Kosovo, and Afghanistan and Iraq. Sounds like they are designed to travel... Could the Soviets have done that? Probably not. And probably not because their defence structure is largely fixed and designed to defend their own territory.

There was nothing defensive about Kosovo. It was a foreign intervention that breached NATOs own guidlines... No NATO country was in danger. It was a war motivated by morals. So much for a defensive organisation. If it could invade and attack Serbia to save some albanians then it could just as easily invade Russia to save some Chechens or whatever. It would be framed in defensive language and the moral high ground but it is aggression none the less.

Lt.Havoc
01-11-2007, 12:26 AM
Well, the infolvment of NATO in Kosovo and beyond all happend after the Cold War was over and NATO was trying to find a new role. Such a thing like Kosovo or Afghanistan where unthinkeble back in the Cold War. No one would have ever used the NATO like that wehn the Soviet Union still existed. Also, the Russian invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and several Warsaw Pact countries sent troops, not much, only small units, but they sent them.

Also, NATO is not as a whole is not engaded in Iraq, its not a NATO operation.

GazB
01-11-2007, 02:15 AM
Such a thing like Kosovo or Afghanistan where unthinkeble back in the Cold War.

But it is acceptable now?

If it was the Arab league, or ASEAN that intervened wonder what the west would say?


Also, the Russian invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and several Warsaw Pact countries sent troops, not much, only small units, but they sent them.


That is a little different. Afghanistan was an ally of the Soviets... it wasn't an accident that the former Afghan army had pretty much all Soviet equipment.
It was rather like the US trying to keep commies out of central or south america. They supported some real scummy dictatorships just to keep those countries red white and blue.

Lt.Havoc
01-11-2007, 01:02 PM
But it is acceptable now?

If it was the Arab league, or ASEAN that intervened wonder what the west would say?



That is a little different. Afghanistan was an ally of the Soviets... it wasn't an accident that the former Afghan army had pretty much all Soviet equipment.
It was rather like the US trying to keep commies out of central or south america. They supported some real scummy dictatorships just to keep those countries red white and blue.

Well, this is not about if its accepteble for NATO to send troops to another country. I also recall, that the soviets both invaded Hugary and the CSSR even if they where allies to keep them in check. They also send equtment and troops to Angola, Ethopia, Namibia as well as Nicaragua and other states. I dont justfiy US actions in South america, it was wrong, but both sides played the "great game" during the cold war.

Both sied treid to keep thier states and countries in thier zone of influence and war was a major part of it. But its intresting that these actions where only carried out by the USA and the Soviet Union and not thier allies.

Still, NATO was all defensive back then until the end of the 80´s, the change first began during the 90´s and the war in Juguslawia. Anyway, as I recall, some Soviet types of ships where lbuild to carriy nuclear tactical missels, the DDR had them, for example. The the Bundesmarine never had such type of ship. While the Brits and the French had nuclear mussile carrieng submarines, they where still stratecig missels and I dont know about any tactical nuclear missels on thier ships.

I think, that the Warsaw Pact was more offensive in the layout as NATO, some of the battle plans and strategies back then suggest that fact.

Well, today, that all changed and is diffrent. NATO is more offensive now, while the Russians have a Army to defend thier homeland.

GazB
01-20-2007, 12:52 PM
Anyway, as I recall, some Soviet types of ships where lbuild to carriy nuclear tactical missels, the DDR had them, for example.

Do you think such nuclear weapons would be useful for "liberating" foreign territory for the Soviets to invade, or do you think naval tactical nuclear weapons might have been a defence from carrier groups?


I also recall, that the soviets both invaded Hugary and the CSSR even if they where allies to keep them in check.

The so called invasions of Hungary etc were hardly invasions. More like putting down rebellions.


Both sied treid to keep thier states and countries in thier zone of influence and war was a major part of it.

So if you admit the truth that both sides played the same game how can you draw the conclusion that one was aggressive and wanted to take over the world and was basically evil and the other side was just defensive and good and nice?

They can say what they like the evidence is clear. The Warsaw Pact consisted of a buffer zone between NATO and the Soviet Union for a defensive war that was expected to be initiated by NATO on WP territory. The alternative requires a rather more mobile air defence network and by a large margin rather more logistics material for the east in the form of trucks at the very least.

Lt.Havoc
01-21-2007, 10:30 AM
GazB, I have to remind you on the simple fact, that the Svoiet Union had one goal: export communism all over the world. NATO was always a devesive organisation and wehn you look at the battle plans, the war between NATO and Warsaw pact would have fought here, in my country, named germany. Hannover would have been a front city, thats only 50km away from where I live now.

I draw my conclustion from the fact, that thanks to the Soviets, we very 50 years split up in 2 countries and that the DDR was a operssive totalitarian regime that killed its own people while they wanted to flee. Any system that spys on its own people, locks them in thier own countrie, forbids any free open miden discussion and opressesthe freedom and the human rights is evil in my eyes. That made me extremly anti-communsitic.

A hot war would have been fought here in my countrie, not in the any Warsaw Pact one. NATO would have been hard pressed to defend germany and Europe from a large scale invasion of the Soviets, that had numerical advantage. They would have opend 3 or 4 fronts, with touhseds of tanks and even more soldiers that would have simply overrun any defence.

The Svoiets would have used any weapon avalible, like chemical ones. Image a Blitzkireg in a gigantic scale. I mean, the Soviet Union had over 1 Million soldiers, if not more, theyhad the biggest army in Europe, any army that large cant be only for defesive puropse.

Thankfully it never happend and its all speculation today. Today, the only sole superpower are he USA and they dont do the right things. Back then the picture was diffrent, very difrent. I know Ronald Regans involvment in the Iran/Contra Affair and dont say it was all good, but the NATO didnt had anything to do with it.

You try to claim the NATO was always so offesvie like it is today, but thats wrong. The role changed. I also support what NATO did in ex-Juguslawia, we Euroapeans where watching the whole thing getting out of control for too long and I remind you that the USA where also not taking any actions, until the pressure got higher on them.

Anyway, this is going off topic, maybe you create a new thread about NATO in ex-juguslawia, while this here is for the sole purpose to discuss the advatages of the Soviet forces and todays Russian army compared to the NATO armies back then and today.

GazB
01-21-2007, 09:29 PM
GazB, I have to remind you on the simple fact, that the Svoiet Union had one goal: export communism all over the world.

And how was that in any way any different from the west trying to export democracy all over the world?

Even with the end of the Cold War the West is now in the business of Imposing democracy on countries... and how has that been going? Even without another superpower supporting opposition there seems to be problems. The medicine seems to be killing the patient faster than the disease.


NATO was always a devesive organisation and wehn you look at the battle plans, the war between NATO and Warsaw pact would have fought here, in my country, named germany. Hannover would have been a front city, thats only 50km away from where I live now.

We have heard of plans by Israel to attack Iran. What we haven't seen is NATO archives and plans from the cold war revealed to show what they expected. Unless NATO was totally incompetant there would be just as many plans of attack as there are of defence. The NATO plan wasn't simply to retreat all the way to the English channel and repeat Dunkirk. And they knew well enough that a good offensive is the best defence of all.


I draw my conclustion from the fact, that thanks to the Soviets, we very 50 years split up in 2 countries and that the DDR was a operssive totalitarian regime that killed its own people while they wanted to flee.

In most courts in the world a 50 year jail term for what your country did would be quite normal. The DDR was also lead by Germans, not Soviets. The DDR was a puppet but the Soviets but they only pulled the strings. The puppet master was not even Russian... he was Soviet.


Any system that spys on its own people, locks them in thier own countrie, forbids any free open miden discussion and opressesthe freedom and the human rights is evil in my eyes. That made me extremly anti-communsitic.

I doubt I would like it any better. Fascim and Communism are extremes. If you really want a decent standard of living then you need to be somewhere closer in the middle. Every man for themselves, private companies run everything is not a good society model either.


They would have opend 3 or 4 fronts, with touhseds of tanks and even more soldiers that would have simply overrun any defence.


The NATO model of defence is actually very similar to the German tactics of retreat from the Soviet Union. Give up ground but damage them and withdraw in order with all the gear you can carry. That is why NATO "moves well". It is more mobile. It is designed so that it can be deployed away from home and wage war somewhere else. This makes it a much better invasion force than anything the Soviets ever had.

The Soviets wouldn't want to capture Europe. What would it do with it?
The damage caused by WWIII would make it a pretty unattractive prize.

What the Soviets wanted was to feel safe. NATO was a threat. Any WWIII scenario would not be about gaining living space in the west... it would be about destroying NATO. That is why Germany was kept split in two. A unified Germany was a threat. The rest of Eastern Europe was a buffer state for the Soviets. Protection from NATO.
And regards to your prison sentence... most Soviet officers enjoyed being posted to East Germany and other WP nations. The standard of living was much better than in the Soviet Union. You whine about being in prison for 50 years yet the prisoners had better living standards than the jailers...


The Svoiets would have used any weapon avalible, like chemical ones. Image a Blitzkireg in a gigantic scale. I mean, the Soviet Union had over 1 Million soldiers, if not more, theyhad the biggest army in Europe, any army that large cant be only for defesive puropse.

Well first of all you have to halve that army, because half of it was facing China. Second you can reduce it by a Quarter because you need troops stationed in the Soviet Union too... all of a sudden the forces they had don't look so all powerful. The US has a similar sized force and they are part of NATO too. The time it would take to mobilise the third category (lowest readiness) forces in the SU the US could have shipped their troops to Europe.

The west was very dishonest with its numbers. NATO nearly never included all of their forces, British forces only included those deployed to West Germany, French forces were rarely included, US forces outside of West Germany were never counted. On the Warsaw Pact side every single Soviet Soldier was counted... even the ones in bases in the artic circle.

But, no... having a large army must be a sign of aggression... would have nothing to do with the fact that they had conscription or anything. Conscript armies are no good for wars of conquest or foreign wars that the conscripts dont understand or appreciate. US conscripts in Vietnam were wondering what the heck they were doing there for example...
Conscript armies are only good for wars of defence. Total wars where the whole population is going to be fighting eventually anyway, having every male knowing how to shoot (even to a relatively low general standard) is a good base to start with.


Today, the only sole superpower are he USA and they dont do the right things.

The US is just the same as Russia. It has its own needs, its own beliefs of what is right and wrong and who is friend and who is not. Both act on those things. We might say that what Russia did in Chechnia is wrong but what we mean is that we think it was wrong for us or for some of the chechens. For some of the Russians it was right for some it was wrong. Nobody makes no mistakes.


You try to claim the NATO was always so offesvie like it is today, but thats wrong.

I don't think I said that. If I gave that impression I am sorry. NATO, as it stands today and has stood for the past 30 odd years (ie well through the 80s) had a force structure and capabilities that are/were offensive.
On paper the strategies might have been defensive, but they involved mobile self contained components of a greater war machine that made it mobile and transferable. It would have operated from the border of East and West Germany to the English Channel... and because of that it would also work in the Congo or Peru or wherever it was needed. Not just fighting forces but the infrastructure and supply and support needed to maintain the fight. That is what makes it aggressive. You can talk about the Soviets wanting to take over the world but NATO actually had the force design and structure to try it.


I remind you that the USA where also not taking any actions, until the pressure got higher on them.


Not in Kosovo... that was Madelines war.


maybe you create a new thread about NATO in ex-juguslawia

With respect, no. The trolls would ruin it within seconds. In fact unless the moderators were asleep I would expect such a thread to be deleted within minutes.

BTW glad we can keep this civil without namecalling or cheap shots.
For my part if I say anything that offends I appologise, but please point it out where you find things offensive... we can discuss that too.

Smersh
01-21-2007, 11:09 PM
I draw my conclustion from the fact, that thanks to the Soviets, we very 50 years split up in 2 countries

Thanks to the Soviets? The creation of 2 Germanies was a result of the bickering between the allies, not soley the responsiblility of the Soviet Union. Your statement is a gross over-simplification of the situation in Europe after the end of World War 2.

I hope this doesn't turn into a flame-war.

Flamming_Python
01-22-2007, 09:01 AM
Thanks to the Soviets? The creation of 2 Germanies was a result of the bickering between the allies, not soley the responsiblility of the Soviet Union. Your statement is a gross over-simplification of the situation in Europe after the end of World War 2.

I hope this doesn't turn into a flame-war.

In fact I believe the original plan called for Germany to be divided into 4, with France, Britain and the USA each controlling a segment of West Germany.

Anyway, GazB, remind me never to argue with you... :D


Well, the Soviet propaganda always told thier people that the NATO is the enemy that will attack the Warsaw Pact and that they are the agressors to world peace. Thats one of the offical reasons the DDR build the wall, that was known as the "Anti-faschistischer Schutzwall" (Anti-Fascistic protection wall), so you can tell where the joke comes from. Back in the day, every Warsaw Pact Soldier was told, that NATO would attack them and after the Cold War was over, many soldiers, ecspecially these in the DDR felt like that they where tricked by thier former goverment as they saw how defensice NATO was layed out.

Ditto and vica-versa for NATO. Except that NATO soldiers are still fed the same **** & bull about the Warsaw Pact being an ultra-agressive force that could have struck any moment and destroyed freedom.



I draw my conclustion from the fact, that thanks to the Soviets, we very 50 years split up in 2 countries and that the DDR was a operssive totalitarian regime that killed its own people while they wanted to flee. Any system that spys on its own people, locks them in thier own countrie, forbids any free open miden discussion and opressesthe freedom and the human rights is evil in my eyes. That made me extremly anti-communsitic.


Understandable. But that sort of authoritarian, closed political system can be applied to any economic system, whether capitalism or socialism. You can argue that by nature communism can only work with that sort of system, but let's not get into that arguement here.

Indiana Jones
01-22-2007, 04:08 PM
And how was that in any way any different from the west trying to export democracy all over the world?

Even with the end of the Cold War the West is now in the business of Imposing democracy on countries... and how has that been going? Even without another superpower supporting opposition there seems to be problems. The medicine seems to be killing the patient faster than the disease.

"The" West- hardly.The West is not a monolithic block. Furthermore, the democratic "West" for all its shortcomings was not under authoritarian or totalitarian rule and was not responsible for the death of millions of its own citizens as the contemporary Soviet state and Communist China was.

The NATO plan wasn't simply to retreat all the way to the English channel and repeat Dunkirk. And they knew well enough that a good offensive is the best defence of all. [...]I don't think I said that. If I gave that impression I am sorry. NATO, as it stands today and has stood for the past 30 odd years (ie well through the 80s) had a force structure and capabilities that are/were offensive.
On paper the strategies might have been defensive, but they involved mobile self contained components of a greater war machine that made it mobile and transferable. It would have operated from the border of East and West Germany to the English Channel... and because of that it would also work in the Congo or Peru or wherever it was needed. Not just fighting forces but the infrastructure and supply and support needed to maintain the fight. That is what makes it aggressive. You can talk about the Soviets wanting to take over the world but NATO actually had the force design and structure to try it.


This claim I find way too undifferentiated. The military doctrine of the FRG as the major constitutive part of NATOs European frontline forces for example was entirely defensive and did not allow for any large-scale offensive action. I am under the impression that you are confusing force structure with doctrine. While it is indeed true that NATO had greater capabilities of force projection and greater strategic mobility this was largely caused by geographical necessity and the traditionally larger reliance on naval power by some of its member states, most notably the USA and the UK.


In most courts in the world a 50 year jail term for what your country did would be quite normal. The DDR was also lead by Germans, not Soviets. The DDR was a puppet but the Soviets but they only pulled the strings. The puppet master was not even Russian... he was Soviet. [...]
And regards to your prison sentence... most Soviet officers enjoyed being posted to East Germany and other WP nations. The standard of living was much better than in the Soviet Union. You whine about being in prison for 50 years yet the prisoners had better living standards than the jailers...

Your chauvinist resentments are misplaced here and do not positively contribute to the discussion at all. The high standard of living in the GDR compared to other ComBloc countries was not the result of soviet magnanimity but the relatively (!) greater economic efficiency of the Eastern German workforce and industrial complex in general.

This (NATO- inserted by me) makes it a much better invasion force than anything the Soviets ever had.

Utter nonsense. The postwar Soviet forces were tactically and operationally devised as an all- out offensive army lavishly incorporating nuclear and chemical weaponry to destroy NATO troop concentrations in preparation of general conventional attack.

Conscript armies are only good for wars of defence.
L'armée impériale, the IDF, the Wehrmacht and other conscript armies operated highly successfully in offensive wars. As far as I can see, there is little empirical evidence to substantiate your claim.

Smersh
01-22-2007, 04:56 PM
"The" West- hardly.The West is not a monolithic block. Furthermore, the democratic "West" for all its shortcomings was not under authoritarian or totalitarian rule and was not responsible for the death of millions of its own citizens as the contemporary Soviet state and Communist China was.

you seem to have some problems in your comparison. China was never in the Warsaw pact so why would you use them in your example.

your all over the place in your post and very one-sided.

NATO defensive and offensive strategly lavishly incorporated tactical nuclear weapons as well. In the 80s the United States was stockpiling neutran bombs.

Whats with the whole argument about the DDR, has no relevance. This thread is pointless if it continues in the direction it going , it already has 2 stars.

Pekhota
01-22-2007, 05:51 PM
I draw my conclustion from the fact, that thanks to the Soviets, we very 50 years split up in 2 countries


The plan to reunite Germany was made up in the Potsdam agreement, this included economic reunification. The Allies however introduced a new currency in West Germany, thereby violating the terms of the Potsdam agreement, and ofcourse the USSR responded with the Berlin Blockade. This is how the country was split up.

Furthermore one could argue Germany split itself up, but supporting a dictatorship which spread across Europe and lead to the deaths of 50 Million. This lead to the Cold War occupation, which lead to the split. The excuse some apologists use of the Versailles Treaty is ridiculous. Yes it was harsh, but where is the talk regarding the Brest-Litovsk Treaty that was imposed on Russia in it's weakened state? It was 10 times as worse. Moreafter, there is no excuse for a war that killed some 50 million people. No excuse.

Indiana Jones
01-22-2007, 07:39 PM
you seem to have some problems in your comparison. China was never in the Warsaw pact so why would you use them in your example.

your all over the place in your post and very one-sided.

NATO defensive and offensive strategly lavishly incorporated tactical nuclear weapons as well. In the 80s the United States was stockpiling neutran bombs.

Whats with the whole argument about the DDR, has no relevance. This thread is pointless if it continues in the direction it going , it already has 2 stars.
Have I ? There were sweeping generalizations made about the "West", and "Democracy" and "Communism" respectively. I was arguing on the terms of my predecessor. The point is entirely valid.
As for nuclear warfare, you are quite correct insofar as NATO equally planned on employing nuclear weaponry. That however is of subordinate importance in this context. It is blatantly obvious that the Soviet military doctrine emphasized the offensive, tactically and strategically, while NATO did not.

The plan to reunite Germany was made up in the Potsdam agreement, this included economic reunification. The Allies however introduced a new currency in West Germany, thereby violating the terms of the Potsdam agreement, and ofcourse the USSR responded with the Berlin Blockade. This is how the country was split up.

You can review American and FRG primary source material under this link:
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/berlin_airlift/large/docs.php?action=airbridge
Two standard works on the issues of the interallied division and the Berlin blockade :
Keiderling, Gerhard: Rosinenbomber über Berlin- Währungsreform, Blockade, Luftbrücke, Teilung. Dietz, Berlin 1998.
Eisenberg, Carolyn Woods : Drawing the Line- the American decision to divide Germany. University of Cambridge Press, Cambridge 1996.

Of course it´s the Internet mate, but your conclusions are off the mark. Totally.

Furthermore one could argue Germany split itself up, but supporting a dictatorship which spread across Europe and lead to the deaths of 50 Million. This lead to the Cold War occupation, which lead to the split.
....Yes, of course. Solid reasoning there. :roll: Why don´t you start with the Teutonic Knights order and then work your way forward ? This is bizarre at best. The Russian people too, "supported" an eminently criminal dictatorship that caused monumental suffering. But lets just leave it here, because this thread is about the post WW2 RKKA. Let it suffice to say that all of Eastern Europe including Russia suffered terribly under the yoke of communism.

Smersh
01-22-2007, 08:19 PM
It is blatantly obvious that the Soviet military doctrine emphasized the offensive, tactically and strategically, while NATO did not.

Of course it did. But you interpert this as sinister. The Soviet Union was not going to repeat Barbarossa again! You have to understand how deeply the German invasion factored into almost every military decision post-WW2. It did not plan on fighting on its own soil again i.e defensive.

Its not worth getting into the complicated events that led to the break up of Germany, not only has occupied sectors, but into 2 independent nations. The main point is that its incorrect too blame soley the Soviet Union.

Bottom line, I don't understand what your arguing. This thread has no point.

GazB
01-22-2007, 10:16 PM
Anyway, GazB, remind me never to argue with you...

Who is arguing? This is just a discussion. :)


Furthermore, the democratic "West" for all its shortcomings was not under authoritarian or totalitarian rule and was not responsible for the death of millions of its own citizens as the contemporary Soviet state and Communist China was.


Was that communism or was that Stalin et al?
Hitler was democratically elected and was responsible for death and destruction on a scale never seen before or since.


This claim I find way too undifferentiated.

It is a claim based in western doctrine. Don't listen to them or try to work out what they want or need. Just look at their forces and see what they could or could not do and just assume the worst, because leaderships change and it this lot don't want to invade then the second lot might.


I am under the impression that you are confusing force structure with doctrine.

No doubt you will have heard of the Bomber gap and then the Missile gap. For those younger viewers here I will describe in more detail. Just after WWII the US and its allies suddenly found themselves face to face with a very large and very powerful enemy in the form of the USSR and its new co-opted allies. Without satellites or recon planes that could fly over the USSR and take photos they really didn't know much of what was happening in the USSR so they started to think the worst. The only source of info were Moscow parades whch had line after line of tanks and missiles on trucks and wave after wave of bombers flying overhead, with the Soviets saying we are strong we are strong... well the US had the bomb... what would you expect them to do?
Anyway seeing all these bombers, especially new jet powered bombers and all these new missiles the west started to think it was getting behind so it initiated programs to build more bombers and to build more missiles. By the time the first U2 spy plane flew over the Soviet Union and showed the US that in actual fact they already had fewer bombers and missiles than the west and what seemed like hundreds of bombers were actually a few dozen flown out of sight and back around to appear like rather more. Moreover the bombers that were in service were older types and the jet bombers at the parades were experimental and few actually ever reached service anyway.

...so what did the peace loving US do? It had a doctrine that created peace through parity of weapons, but they thought the Soviets had more weapons so they had spent good money and told the public they needed to spend that money on new weapons to keep the peace. They had two choices. Cancel the new weapons and stick to their doctrine of parity, or they could adopt a new doctrine. Peace through strength. Peace through superiority. Having enough bombers and missiles to be able to unleash a first strike that will defeat the other guys ability to strike back at all. A first strike doctrine.

Which one did they pick? The bombers were built and the missiles were built too.

Don't tell me that NATO was defensive, their missile and bomber aquisitions during the 50s and 60s were directed at supproting a first strike doctrine.
The result was that the Soviets, who knew exactly what was going on through their excellent human intelligence network throughout the west had to make a choice. Rely on the peace loving west not to see if their first strike doctrine might actually work, or start the same military build up and hope to achieve missile parity with the west. They managed that parity in the early 80s.


Your chauvinist resentments are misplaced here and do not positively contribute to the discussion at all. The high standard of living in the GDR compared to other ComBloc countries was not the result of soviet magnanimity but the relatively (!) greater economic efficiency of the Eastern German workforce and industrial complex in general.

Yeah, OK, the German was superior to the slav... heard that somewhere before.


Utter nonsense. The postwar Soviet forces were tactically and operationally devised as an all- out offensive army lavishly incorporating nuclear and chemical weaponry to destroy NATO troop concentrations in preparation of general conventional attack.


So you are saying if you punch someone in the nose and they plan to hit you back rather than to stand there and block your next blow they are aggressive?

Their response to aggression was to attack and destroy the source of the aggression.


It is blatantly obvious that the Soviet military doctrine emphasized the offensive, tactically and strategically, while NATO did not.


So your accusation is that the Soviets were more realistic when it came to war planning? Perhaps that is why German soldiers on the eastern front froze to death in their standard summer uniforms?


Let it suffice to say that all of Eastern Europe including Russia suffered terribly under the yoke of communism.

Suffered under Stalin and Hitler. Communism was much better for a peasant than the monarchy they had.

GreySpawn
01-22-2007, 10:59 PM
Just after WWII the US and its allies suddenly found themselves face to face with a very large and very powerful enemy in the form of the USSR and its new co-opted allies. Without satellites or recon planes that could fly over the USSR and take photos they really didn't know much of what was happening in the USSR .... By the time the first U2 spy plane flew over the Soviet Union and showed the US that in actual fact they already had fewer bombers and missiles than the west
i'll correct you here. first recon flights over soviet territory started just after the end of ww2 in may 1945, mainly over kamchatka, chukotka.. on 20 may 1945 two b24 were spotted over kamchatka, in all from may till september 1945 there were 27 intrusions with 86 crafts involved.. till the end 1950 - about 46 with 63 planes. there is a good work "hot sky of the cold war" depicting many such events.



Don't tell me that NATO was defensive, their missile and bomber aquisitions during the 50s and 60s were directed at supproting a first strike doctrine.

small add: ussr acheved parity with usa in missiles only in late 70th, never in bombers or nuclear subs. and not to forget - the stand took place not only between ussr and usa, but ussr against nato combined. in 60th there were 250 american bases around soviet union.

GazB
01-23-2007, 11:06 PM
i'll correct you here. first recon flights over soviet territory started just after the end of ww2 in may 1945, mainly over kamchatka, chukotka.. on 20 may 1945 two b24 were spotted over kamchatka, in all from may till september 1945 there were 27 intrusions with 86 crafts involved.. till the end 1950 - about 46 with 63 planes. there is a good work "hot sky of the cold war" depicting many such events.


Yes, I knew about them. I meant right over the Soviet Union... from one side to the other able to look deep into the heart of the Soviet Union where the Missile and bomber bases were supposed to be. If you can only see the corner of the wrapper of a Christmas present without seeing all of the present or even be able to touch or shake, or feel the weight of it, it is really hard to tell whether it is a neat new toy or just more clothes...


small add: ussr acheved parity with usa in missiles only in late 70th, never in bombers or nuclear subs.

Agreed, yet every speech leaders like Raygun ever made they were talking about Soviet nuclear superiority and how it threatened world peace...


in 60th there were 250 american bases around soviet union.

It was the nuclear missiles based in Turkey that created the Cuban Missile Crisis...

Funny that the US was prepared to go to war if the USSR placed and kept missiles in Cuba, but though nothing of their own basing of nuclear weapons in Turkey. The US reaction was blockade and war, the Soviet reaction was to achieve parity and see how the other guy liked it. Now which is the actions of an aggressor?

Smersh
01-23-2007, 11:51 PM
Yes, I knew about them. I meant right over the Soviet Union... from one side to the other able to look deep into the heart of the Soviet Union where the Missile and bomber bases were supposed to be. If you can only see the corner of the wrapper of a Christmas present without seeing all of the present or even be able to touch or shake, or feel the weight of it, it is really hard to tell whether it is a neat new toy or just more clothes...

Such flight over the USSR would have shown that the "red scares" of missiles gaps and bomber gaps in the 60s, didn't exist. But like in poker you don't reveal your hand.


Funny that the US was prepared to go to war if the USSR placed and kept missiles in Cuba, but though nothing of their own basing of nuclear weapons in Turkey.

Haha it is a funny thing. and there is still a embargo.:roll:

Murray B
01-24-2007, 06:29 PM
For those younger viewers here I will describe in more detail. The only source of info were Moscow parades whch had line after line of tanks and missiles on trucks and wave after wave of bombers flying overhead, with the Soviets saying we are strong we are strong... well the US had the bomb... what would you expect them to do?

Yes, I agree the younger viewers are important. Important enough to warrant the truth.

The Soviets got the bomb pretty quick too and you forgot to mention "Sputinik" and the ICBM that carried it into space. Who else had a working ICBM at that time? The U.S. may well have been able to bomb Moscow if a Savage from a carrier could make it that far but it would have taken hours. An ICBM could reach Washington in maybe 23 minutes and could not be countered. The Americans had every reason to be worried about missiles after "Sputnik".

Bombers are the same. Giant, sub-sonic B-52s were just not up to the job by '60, pen-aids or not. The Valkyrie might have worked for a time, but it got cancelled. The Americans had ever reason to be worried about supersonic Soviet bombers.

Now, here is something I have noticed about the Soviets. They always pretend that they are completely helpless. They did this before by losing to Finland and they do it still.

I have read that only half of their nuclear rocket forces are still intact. Which leaves what, fifteen thousand? Heck, that makes them practically defenseless.

Or not, but for whatever reason, woe usually comes to those that attack Russia. If it is not the people then it must be the climate.

GreySpawn
01-24-2007, 10:06 PM
Yes, I agree the younger viewers are important. Important enough to warrant the truth.
The Soviets got the bomb pretty quick too and you forgot to mention "Sputinik" and the ICBM that carried it into space. Who else had a working ICBM at that time? The U.S. may well have been able to bomb Moscow if a Savage from a carrier could make it that far but it would have taken hours.

in 1952 three rb-45c, one from black sea and two from finland, made it safe over ussr with one them flew over moscow at height about 11km. at night of 29 april 1954 three b-47 intruded from baltic sea, reached kiev, novgorod, smolensk and safely made it back.



An ICBM could reach Washington in maybe 23 minutes and could not be countered. The Americans had every reason to be worried about missiles after "Sputnik".

ok, lets bring some facts:
- us nuke(gentlemen, it's a nuclear device) - 1945, russian nuke - 1949
- us termonuclear device - 1952, ussr - 1953
- first us icbm launch - 1957, operational us icbm unit - 1959 (atlas-d), range - 11000km, power - 3Mt.
- ussr - 1957 & 1959(r-7, r-7a), 8000km, 3Mt.



Bombers are the same. Giant, sub-sonic B-52s were just not up to the job by '60, pen-aids or not.

you really do not know much about their capabilities, do you? anyway,
in early 50s usa had about 400 heavy bombers capable of carrying nukes, ussr had about 20, not to mention that usa had forward bases while ussr not. first aerial test drop of nuclear bomb in ussr was completed in 1951. in early 60s ussr had about 100 Tu-95 and 60 3M, wich could deliver about 200-250 nukes over usa. at the same time usa had about 1300 bombers wich could bring about 3000 nukes to russia. speaking about missiles - usa had 180-190 icbm's Atlas and Titan, plus over 140 polaris's on nuclear subs. ussr at the same time had about dosen r-7a and r-16 plus 5 subs with r-13 onboard. and that was one of the reasons to send medium range missiles r-12 and r-14 to cuba - to achieve at least partial success in arms race. until mid-60s ussr conducted 220 nuclear explosions, usa - 333. till the end of 50s usa had over 18000 nukes which was equivalent to about 16000Mt, ussr - less that 200Mt, end of 60s in us there are estimated 40000 nuclear devices. ussr possesed about 1/5 of those numbers.



The Valkyrie might have worked for a time, but it got cancelled. The Americans had ever reason to be worried about supersonic Soviet bombers.

first russian supersonic bomber was tu-22, was adopted in 1960 and was a medium range bomber. usa already had about 90-100 "hustlers". while tu-22 achieved aerial refueling capability in late 60s, hustlers already have had that and established several records.



Now, here is something I have noticed about the Soviets. They always pretend that they are completely helpless.

not helpless. they were forced to continue arms race and they always had to catch up(with minor but spectacular exeptions) - in numbers, parameters etc. if you compare contemporaneus russian equipment to western there are always will be inferiorities in technology or characteristics or something else. basically gap that was created with ww2 and it's consequences is still there multiplied by soviet beurocracy.



I have read that only half of their nuclear rocket forces are still intact. Which leaves what, fifteen thousand? Heck, that makes them practically defenseless.

you obviously didn't learn history properly. russia possessed about 20000 nuclear devices from wich about 7000 are strategic warheads. and it was planned them to reduce to about 2500 untill 2012. with us initiative i guess those plans are scrapped. china, england and france possessed about 500 warheads each.



Or not, but for whatever reason, woe usually comes to those that attack Russia. If it is not the people then it must be the climate.
than answer is simple - do not attack, do not provoke, and do not prepare for an attack on russia. and you will be fine. the next time please live such comments aside to keep this discussion civil.

GazB
01-25-2007, 01:11 AM
Yes, I agree the younger viewers are important. Important enough to warrant the truth.


I absolutely agree.


The Soviets got the bomb pretty quick too and you forgot to mention "Sputinik" and the ICBM that carried it into space.

Sputnik was a ball less than 1 metre in radius that beeped. It had no recon purpose at all, no cameras, no sensors... it just sent out an electronic beep that could be detected from earth.
The ICBM that launched it was the SS-6 Sapwood and at the time it was quite impressive and rather more reliable than many of the US equivelents. It was largely used for the space program and not that many served as ICBMs because they were huge and expensive... the US had plenty of long range bombers that could reach Soviet targets and a ring of bases around teh Soviet Union, the Soviets had very few bombers that could threaten the US itself. For the Soviet Union ICBMs were rather more important than to the US which could already strike the Soviets with nukes from bombers.


Who else had a working ICBM at that time?

So Werner Von Braun was on holiday in the US? Of course the US was working on ICBMs, and huge inter continental cruise missiles that looked like huge rocket powered bombers that would fly at mach 3 at high levels for ranges of 6-10,000km, but ICBM performance made them obsolete as ICBMs were much less vulnerable to interception.


The U.S. may well have been able to bomb Moscow if a Savage from a carrier could make it that far but it would have taken hours. An ICBM could reach Washington in maybe 23 minutes and could not be countered.

First of all it would take over an hour to fuel that missile, but the time taken was not that important. The West had rather more bombs, plus they also had the delivery systems to deploy them, in the form of Bombers, based in the US and all through Western Europe, including Turkey. FOr the dozen or so nukes the Soviets could have fired at the US the US could have delivered hundreds of nuclear warheads from bombers and from short range missiles based in Europe.


Bombers are the same. Giant, sub-sonic B-52s were just not up to the job by '60, pen-aids or not.

Why do you think that? In the late 60s early 70s the B-52s had a fairly good loss rate of less than 15% from SA-2s and enemy fighters. Sure they had support, but imagine having to cover the entire north pole area, not to mention lots of other points of attack that simply were not covered by radar or PVO airbases.


The Valkyrie might have worked for a time, but it got cancelled. The Americans had ever reason to be worried about supersonic Soviet bombers.


The Valkyrie was a huge step backwards... to fly fast it had to fly high, flying high means you can detect and track it easily, which is the hardest part of an interception... detecting the target in the first place. No Supersonic bomber shown in the 50s and 60s had the range to reach the US, even on one way suicide missions. Only the current Blackjack could manage the role and it has a main armament of 3,000km range cruise missiles as its only weapon up till about the year 2000. The Bear could do it too but it is subsonic.


Now, here is something I have noticed about the Soviets. They always pretend that they are completely helpless. They did this before by losing to Finland and they do it still.

Are you suggesting that the war in Finland especially engineered to lull the world into a false sence of security? (BTW it was the Fins that capitulated so they didn't actually lose). I would have thought stupid planning plus a bad choice of equipment was largely to blame. Using bolt action rifles in a forrest agaisnt an enemy equipped with SMGs is asking for trouble but it was a good test of the KV-1 tanks. They didn't lose a single KV-1.


I have read that only half of their nuclear rocket forces are still intact. Which leaves what, fifteen thousand? Heck, that makes them practically defenseless.

Their strategic rocket forces had about 2,000 warheads during the cold war. The US had a similar amount. To have 15,000 missiles would be rediculous, as each missile carries between 7 and 10 warheads each.
There is rough parity in numbers of missiles between the US and the Russians and that parity is being maintained on purpose. They still have the firepower to wipe out more than half the world population if they wanted to... if that makes them defenceless what does that make Germany, or the Netherlands, or the UK?
(In fact if that makes them defenceless then everyone is.)


Or not, but for whatever reason, woe usually comes to those that attack Russia. If it is not the people then it must be the climate.

Not a great surprise that those dumb enough to underestimate the Russians also underestimate their battlefield too.


first russian supersonic bomber was tu-22, was adopted in 1960 and was a medium range bomber. usa already had about 90-100 "hustlers". while tu-22 achieved aerial refueling capability in late 60s, hustlers already have had that and established several records.


More to the point the Hustler might have reached Soviet targets from European bases, but Tu-22 never had anything close to the range required to reach US targets.


you obviously didn't learn history properly. russia posses about 20000 nuclear devices from wich about 7000 are strategic warheads.

Actually under START (STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty) I both sides were limited to about 6,000 strategic warheads each... that is ICBMs, SLBMs, and bombs carried by strategic bombers. By about 2012 those figures have to be at about 1,800 to 2,000 warheads for both sides.
Tactical nukes are not covered.

Murray B
01-25-2007, 08:40 PM
you really do not know much about their capabilities, do you?

Um well, I've read a little. Lets see, off the top of my head. Product of Boeing, WA state. Last ones came out in '56, was that the G? , I can't remember. Nickname BUFF (close to Big Ugly Flying Fellow) About the same size and speed as a 747. LLTV and FLIR on the lower nose. CSRL in the belly and two of the biggest mother pylons you have ever seen on the wings. Sixties payload probably W48s with some AGM-69s at some point but I would have to look up exactly what they carried and when and then I would tell you NOT.

B-52s went through a serious upgrade program after McNamara cancelled the Valkyrie and then spent even more money upgrading the obsolete bombers. What they got was a giant noisy beast with a radar cross section the size of a barn. After the E-266 went into service with its vacuum tube based, downlooking (was it pulse?, I can't remember) doppler radar the BUFFs chances of completing a SAC mission declined dramatically.

Now for "Sputnik". The U.S. president had been advised that nobody had an ICBM and that U.S. companies were the closest to building one. The Soviets had no civilian space agency so orbiting even a mouse proved beyond any doubt that they also had operational ICBMs. There was great panic in Washington over a very real missile gap.

Weren't those Hustlers beautiful? One of the prettiest in the history of aviation. And fast too. Well fast for a few miles anyway. For use strategically they had to fly subsonic and were so inefficient at those speeds that they had to be retired.

Nope it was mainly B-52s from '56 to maybe '82 or whatever, when the first B-1s arrived. For that short quarter century it seems there was a bit of a bomber gap too.

Maybe you are right, this is all I've got off the top of my head and it is not much. Any facts that you can add will be helpful.

GazB
01-25-2007, 11:32 PM
Nickname BUFF (close to Big Ugly Flying Fellow)

Actually it is Big Ugly Fat F**ker. The flying fellow is the clean version for public consumption.


Now for "Sputnik". The U.S. president had been advised that nobody had an ICBM and that U.S. companies were the closest to building one. The Soviets had no civilian space agency so orbiting even a mouse proved beyond any doubt that they also had operational ICBMs. There was great panic in Washington over a very real missile gap.


As I said earlier ICBMs were less important to the US. The US could already deliver its nukes to the Soviet Union, and while they didn't have intercontinental missiles they had short and medium range ballistic missiles in bases in Europe that would get to their targets in between 5 and 15 minutes and do the same to the Soviets that the handful of Soviet ICBMs could do to the US. (Of course the Soviets had medium and short range missiles as well, but none of them could reach the US).

When the US heard about Sputnik they raced to put up their own satellite and did so within a few years.

As I said the US perceived a bomber and missile gap and started to rectify it. When they got some decent information about what was really happening in the Soviet Union they found there were missiles and bombers in the SU but nothing like what the US already had or were about to make.

They had a choice to make and the choice was known to the Soviets through their spy network... both what the choices were and which they made. The result was that both sides went on a panic missile building program. (the Soviets did develop bombers but knew ICBMs were more efficient and less interceptable.)

Murray B
01-26-2007, 02:13 PM
[
Actually it is Big Ugly Fat F**ker. The flying fellow is the clean version for public consumption.


If you mean the bad work that has a "u" then you are sadly mistaken. I can prove conclusively, using the archives and standard historical methods, that no one in any military anywhere has known any foul language let alone ever used any. Any report of said language is a complete myth.

This is proven by what I have not found in any archives, namely swear words, and I rationalise the mistaken reports thusly:

Antony Fokker was a Dutch aircraft designer that produced safe reliable aircraft that were used by militaries all over the world. His mother was practically a saint and is equally well known. He and his mother are revered by 'military guys' everywhere in the same way as civilians revere Gandhi or Mother Theresa.

Let me give you an example. A civilian receiving a punishment might say "Mother Theresa save me" or more commonly just "Mother Theresa". An 'army guy' in the same situation would often say, very quietly, "Mother Fokker" instead. Civilians, with minds always in the gutter, hear something else but that is their bad.

So, based on archival sources, which I have studied for over 25 years, the correct term must be Big Ugly Fat Fokker and not the bad word that you said. All Praise the Archives!

P.S. I can also prove from the archives that army guys never drink alcohol and that a latex prophylactic is a device to seal a barrel. Military people just would not understand what civilians do with these "barrel covers". It boggles the mind.

GreySpawn
01-26-2007, 02:49 PM
man are you serious?

Murray B
01-26-2007, 03:47 PM
man are you serious?

Actually, I think the archives are full of crap but everyone keeps quoting them to me like they were some kind of holy texts.

Go ahead though, and try to find a swear word in any archive. There isn't any because the archives are filtered just like I said they were.

The absence of swear words in the archives does not prove that "military guys" never swear. In truth I've run into a couple of 'army guys' that could turn the air blue. They knew all the civilian profanities and even used a couple new ones that I've never heard before.

Why is it so wrong for me to misuse the archives exactly in the same way that the other guys do? Just because you believe them does not mean they are right.

Now honestly, what good are archives to an artsy historian without knowledgeable and seasoned 'military guys' to help interpret the information?

Indiana Jones
01-26-2007, 03:55 PM
Now honestly, what good are archives to an artsy historian without knowledgeable and seasoned 'military guys' to help interpret the information?
Let me assure you that artsy historians usually employ specialist expertise whenever available. Your reasoning appears to be somewhat...er...idiosyncratic.

Murray B
01-26-2007, 04:10 PM
Let me assure you that artsy historians usually employ specialist expertise whenever available. Your reasoning appears to be somewhat...er...idiosyncratic.

Really, then why have a read from the "experts" descriptions and images showing "fillets" on a production KV-85? No such "fillets" are possible and yet most historians have agreed there were "fillets". Check it for yourself.

What these so called "experts" do is less than useless because history was accurate before they started.

mkenny
01-26-2007, 04:16 PM
Let me give you the background here.
Murray Balascak is convinced he has found startling new information about the introduction of the T34/85 at the battle of Kursk.
The tank did not enter service until 1944 but Murray is convinced he is right and it was in service in 1943.
This means that ALL ARCHIVE DOCUMENTS stating the contrary are 'fake'(according to Murray)

This information is known only to Murray, Soviet experts on the T34 and its development have been decieved and do not realise they are being duped by Western Fascist sympathisers
Thus Murray is going around a number of forums trying to bolster his case by systematically rubbishing all archival sources.
He comes across as slightly eccentric but there is a plan behind all this idiocy

mkenny
01-26-2007, 04:19 PM
Really, then why have a read from the "experts" descriptions and images showing "fillets" on a production KV-85? No such "fillets" are possible and yet most historians have agreed there were "fillets". Check it for yourself.

What these so called "experts" do is less than useless because history was accurate before they started.

I warned you!

Now he will start again......................

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=99890

GazB
01-26-2007, 10:20 PM
I know it was F**ker because I have discussed it with someone who works in the USAF and works with BUFFs.
I can understand it not being in any archive, but then you have just explained why archives are a tool, but not a complete and ready written bible of truth. If archives didn't need interpretation historians would have enothing to do and nothing to argue about.

If archives were only truth then according to US, UK, German, and Soviet records at least 200 million soldiers would have to have died from snipers and fighter pilots alone.

Jippo
01-28-2007, 09:36 AM
Are you suggesting that the war in Finland especially engineered to lull the world into a false sence of security? (BTW it was the Fins that capitulated so they didn't actually lose). I would have thought stupid planning plus a bad choice of equipment was largely to blame. Using bolt action rifles in a forrest agaisnt an enemy equipped with SMGs is asking for trouble but it was a good test of the KV-1 tanks. They didn't lose a single KV-1.

Finns capitulated? Surrendered you mean? When was that?

Finns equipped with smg's is a myth, majority of the armed forces was equipped with rifles just like the Russians.

They didn't lose a single KV-1 of the one KV-1 that was tested on the Finnish front. :)

-jippo

GazB
01-28-2007, 09:59 PM
Finns capitulated? Surrendered you mean? When was that?


So when the Finns accepted terms that were worse than the terms offered by Stalin before the war started it was because they had won?


They didn't lose a single KV-1 of the one KV-1 that was tested on the Finnish front.

And did they take it to the front line or leave it in the rear? It was tested and it passed the test, 1 or a thousand, if they couldn't knock it out they couldn't knock it out.

Jippo
01-29-2007, 04:45 AM
So when the Finns accepted terms that were worse than the terms offered by Stalin before the war started it was because they had won?

We can argue until our faces turn blue, but those demands were a prelude only. The goal of SU was invasion of Finland. compare: Molotov-Ribbentrop, baltic countries & Poland, war plans of SU for Winter War versus the actual fate of Finland as a nation.

Worse you say?

Katyn could be in Finland you know.



And did they take it to the front line or leave it in the rear? It was tested and it passed the test, 1 or a thousand, if they couldn't knock it out they couldn't knock it out.

No it fought and survived, and it was a success in that sense that all other test tanks models were destroyed.

But it could have been destroyed as well as many serial produced Klims after it, there is no reason it couldn't have been knocked out. Allthough Klim was a very good tank for it's time it could have been easily lost as well. For individual things like that luck is the deciding factor among other things. So I simply wouldn't be boasting about a single tank surviving against all odds. :) That is not very reliable statistically.


-jippo

GazB
01-30-2007, 07:12 AM
No it fought and survived, and it was a success in that sense that all other test tanks models were destroyed.

But it could have been destroyed as well as many serial produced Klims after it, there is no reason it couldn't have been knocked out. Allthough Klim was a very good tank for it's time it could have been easily lost as well. For individual things like that luck is the deciding factor among other things. So I simply wouldn't be boasting about a single tank surviving against all odds. That is not very reliable statistically.

The trouble the Germans had in knocking out KV-1s suggests the Finns might have had their work cut out to knock out one. It was basically a Tiger with a much weaker gun 3 years earlier than the real Tiger.

Jippo
01-30-2007, 08:39 AM
The trouble the Germans had in knocking out KV-1s suggests the Finns might have had their work cut out to knock out one. It was basically a Tiger with a much weaker gun 3 years earlier than the real Tiger.

Klim was a tough nut to crack.

No contemporary AT or tank guns in the Finnish arsenal were able to bunch through it. Finns had capability to truly reliably knock it down I believe no earlier than -44. But they were knocked down well before that by more primitive means like molotovs, satchel charges and mines. In Finnish environment tanks are totally dependant on the accompanying infantry, and helpless without.


-jippo

Kilgor
01-30-2007, 04:16 PM
We can argue until our faces turn blue, but those demands were a prelude only. The goal of SU was invasion of Finland. compare: Molotov-Ribbentrop, baltic countries & Poland, war plans of SU for Winter War versus the actual fate of Finland as a nation.

Worse you say?

Katyn could be in Finland you know.


A puppet government was set up and was ready to be flown in and take control. Revisionists will talk of ceding territory, but after what happened to the Baltic states, it was pretty obvious. Finland of course would have had many military, government and intelligentsia rounded up and executed or deported to Siberia.

That would have been surrender.

GreySpawn
01-30-2007, 06:12 PM
That would have been surrender.
oh-ho-ho! sweet! we have a military mastermind in teh kitchen.. the next thing i presume you'll say that germany have not surrendered too?

Kilgor
01-30-2007, 10:56 PM
oh-ho-ho! sweet! we have a military mastermind in teh kitchen.. the next thing i presume you'll say that germany have not surrendered too?

unfortunately your Kremlin scripted text book about the 'glorious socialist victory over the bandit fins' is not correct. Most sane historians call it a armistice. The soviet union got the land they wanted, the fins kept their independence and government.

Russian_dude
01-31-2007, 09:04 AM
I think Stalin just did not want to provoke England and France into going to war with him, if he swallowed Finland. This is the only reason he did not finish Finland off. The Finns fought bravely, but there is no way they could have lasted for more then an extra few weeks.

Lazarou
01-31-2007, 09:20 AM
The soviet union got the land they wanted.
Only 12% of it. p-)

Lazarou
01-31-2007, 09:35 AM
I think Stalin just did not want to provoke England and France into going to war with him, if he swallowed Finland. This is the only reason he did not finish Finland off.
The final push to crush the defending Finnish forces and the following occupation would've been very costly. The Soviet Union had already suffered massive casualties (hundreds of thousands of men KIA/MIA/WIA + a huge amount of equipment) and had been humiliated in front of the whole world. Stalin - and Finland - made a wise decision.

The Finns fought bravely, but there is no way they could have lasted for more then an extra few weeks.
Yes, the serious lack of ammunitions alone would've made the Finnish Defense Forces collapse eventually.

Russian_dude
01-31-2007, 10:43 AM
The final push to crush the defending Finnish forces and the following occupation would've been very costly. The Soviet Union had already suffered massive casualties (hundreds of thousands of men KIA/MIA/WIA + a huge amount of equipment) and had been humiliated in front of the whole world. Stalin - and Finland - made a wise decision.

Yes, the serious lack of ammunitions alone would've made the Finnish Defense Forces collapse eventually.

All the more reason to finish them off. Costly victory is better then a cheap defeat. Summer was coming and Finns were almost out of ammo. Mannerhem line was breached, Soviets improved their tactics. Besides, what's cost to Stalin, just look at some battles in summer 1942.

Jippo
01-31-2007, 01:05 PM
All the more reason to finish them off. Costly victory is better then a cheap defeat.

What about not starting wars with neighbours? Cheap peace is better than a costly war, ain't it?

I don't find talk about "finishing off" nations amuzing at all.


-jippo

Lokos
01-31-2007, 01:12 PM
The final push to crush the defending Finnish forces and the following occupation would've been very costly.

You're confused. You see, I've already had this discussion with the usual suspects on these boards, and I don't remember you coming out as the more convincing party. If you wish to reignite the debate, then, please, let's bring the old thread back to life, you read through it, and then we'll go from there. In fact, here you go:


1) Who started it?

The Soviets escalated it to the point where a shooting conflict was inevitable. This is not a judgement on the Soviets, as such political plays were modus operandi at that time in modernity. They sought security for Leningrad through a healthy buffer zone, as well as control over a number of strategic points in and around Finland. This was not so much a measure against the Finns, but a preemptive move to block potential German invasion jump off points.

2) For what motives?

Look to above.

3) How many died?

71,214 KIA
16,292 died in hospital
39,369 MIA

= 126,875 irrecoverable losses

4) Who won?

There are a number of things that need to be pointed out, here.

The first is that it is a Finnish myth that the Soviets had overwhelming numerical superiority at the onset of the war. They massed 200,000 men for the invasion, whilst the Finns mustered 130,000. This was not an ideal correlation of forces. It is a commonly held military maxim that a force superiority of 3:1 should be achieved when on the offensive. This, as much as anything else, damaged the Soviet offensive potential.

The second major mistake on the part of the Soviet leadership was to draw upon formations from the black soil regions of the Ukraine for the bulk of the invasion forces. Not only were the Ukrainians unused to the temperatures in Finland, they were also untrained for it, and illequipped.

The third major mistake on the part of the Soviet leadership was beginning the war in 1939, whilst the Red Army was still in the throes of the Purges. More than 80% of the senior officer corps had become victims, and replacements were not adequately trained or experienced enough for the tasks assigned to them.

The fourth major mistake was the failure to ensure a fluid logistical situation. Lack of basic supplies and equipment severely hampered Soviet forces throughout the campaign - even well into its terminal stages.

The fifth, and perhaps most important, mistake has a lot to do with the second. Most of the Soviet troops employed during the Winter War were led by men who did not have the practical skills needed, and were in turn terribly trained when it came to basics such as: a) combined arms b) co-ordination c) reconnaissance d) effective application of artillery forces e) attacking fixed defences etc.

Another unfortunate factor was that the weather during the Winter War was horrific. It was one of the three worst winters in recorded Finnish history.

DESPITE THIS:

The Soviets won the war.

By February 1940, reorganized, reinforced, re-quipped and competently led Soviet forces broke through the Mannerheim Line and were advancing upon significant Finnish population centres. The Finns had an exhausted, smashed army that could no longer effectively resist. Only the threat of Allied intervention kept the Soviets from outright rejecting the 5 March terms offered by the Finns, and led them to accept them on 12 March.

For their efforts, the Soviets were awarded with significant territories.

On the other hand, some would say that Finland won it based on the fact that their nation managed to stay in existence. I find this to be an unconvincing argument. The military situation, on the ground, in March 1940 was firmly in the favour of the Soviets. The peace deal saw them gain territory. A limited victory, perhaps, but a victory nonetheless.

Lokos

From http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=73578&page=8

That was the opening post. Seven pages later, it was still quite convincing, with some qualifiers.

Of course, you may feel that you, personally, have not yet shot your bolt. Therefore, I hope you enjoy this opportunity to - in accordance with MPnet tradition - lose a debate against me on an EF topic.

The reason you might detect a small amount of arrogance in the above statement is that I've done this too many times before with people who've seen a documentary and think they know all there is to know. It's annoying. And my patience is not infinite.

Lokos

Jippo
01-31-2007, 04:39 PM
The reason you might detect a small amount of arrogance in the above statement is that I've done this too many times before with people who've seen a documentary and think they know all there is to know. It's annoying. And my patience is not infinite.

Lokos


Lokos, it is not small amount of arrogance. It is completely one sided view of history.

I always thought history as a objective study. Objective, of course in the limits of human mind, but by god you are not even trying.

I'll bring up couple of points without expecting an answer (which I will undoubtedly get) just to make a case. And I will not engage in any debate with you since it is absolutely futile. You know all, and are always right

But the key points:

"This is not a judgement on the Soviets"

Nazis did it so it was ok for soviets?


"control over a number of strategic points in and around Finland"

This is what Finnish people call Finland, not just few points in the periferia. Some destroyed units had band for a parade which was to be arranged on the west coast.


"Who won?"

So Soviets make five mistakes and weather sucks, but really won. Bohoo! You also fail to notice Finnish action as a factor to Soviet failure? Perhaps you think there was no merit? Or was it simply those pesky Ukrainians that lost the war?

Of course Soviets won. Always in wars the side that cannot meet it's objectives wins and the one that can loses. Yes that is the way.

"French and British saved Finland"

With what forces? I find this more of an excuse than any of the others.


"Finnish forces were exhausted"

And Soviet weren't??? If Soviet intelligence didn't know so what if the Finns were exhausted? In a poker game one will not win by having better cards but not playing them.

As said, have your one-sided view of the events. I don't care of what you think enough to try and make and effort.



Here are couple of other quotes:

"The Soviet Union waged a war of aggression against Finland, a small, courageous nation fighting for its freedom."

Historian Roy Medvedev, June 1988

"The deeds of the Finns during the Winter War gave others an example of how a people must fight for its independence."

Colonel General Dimitrij Volkogonov, February 1989

"The truth was on the side of the Finns when they heroically defended their freedom and their independence."

Historian Boris Sokolov, December 1989

"In early March Stalin conceded defeat, abandoning his occupation plans and settling for a compromise agreement, leaving Finland independent. With the signing of the Peace Agreement on 13 March Finland had to cede 10 % of her territory to the USSR, but Finland herself remained free."

Dr. Tomas Ries, November 2001



-jippo

Lt.Havoc
01-31-2007, 05:06 PM
People, I have to remind you, that this thread is intendted to take a veiw on the Soviet forces of the Cold War and the Russian Army of today and answer the question if they where supirior to the west. While its intresting to read about the Winter War of the Finns, I belive this topic should get a own thread, where things can be discussed.

We are getting off-topic and this can quickly become a flame war and I dont want hat to happen, so please discuss the Finnish Winter war outside of this thread.

Smersh
01-31-2007, 05:55 PM
People, I have to remind you, that this thread is intendted to take a veiw on the Soviet forces of the Cold War and the Russian Army of today and answer the question if they where supirior to the west

we all have our opinions, I'm getting tired of this type comparison threads. Lets be grateful it was never tested out in reality, and hope it never will.


As far as the "Winter War" part. This topic too is getting very old..., I agree about looking at history objectively but a vast majority of sources are not, most written in a ones sided anti-soviet manner. largely speculating on Soviet intentions .I don't see anything un-objective about Lokos pointing out the other-side of some finnish war myths.

nice quotes but What exactly are some those quotes suppossed to prove. They sound like propaganda phrases, using vague words.

In terms of one country breaking the soverignty of another country for its own security, thats not a extinct concept. Look at the United States in Iraq, today. (and Iraq shares no border with any part of the United States)

Lokos
02-01-2007, 11:07 AM
I always thought history as a objective study. Objective, of course in the limits of human mind, but by god you are not even trying.

There is no such thing as objectivity. I admit to a Soviet bias. It is my area of specialisation. However, the fact at hand is that you are free to debate me on the merits of my arguments. In the other thread, your analysis of the situation was eminently lacking. You used aviation historians in a debate on personnel losses. What is the agenda, here?


Nazis did it so it was ok for soviets?


No. What I was quite clearly stipulating was that most nation states of the time were not in any way loathe to undertake a seriously realist approach to politick. To judge the Soviets especially harshly in light of the moral ambiguities present in all belligerents of the time seems disingenuous. They all did it, and I am simply trying to acknowledge that.


This is what Finnish people call Finland, not just few points in the periferia. Some destroyed units had band for a parade which was to be arranged on the west coast.


The Finnish people had every right to resist the Soviet Union's desire to a healthy buffer zone. I am not suggesting that the Soviet Union had some kind of right to this territory. Mainly providing the motivation for the invasion.


So Soviets make five mistakes and weather sucks, but really won. Bohoo! You also fail to notice Finnish action as a factor to Soviet failure? Perhaps you think there was no merit? Or was it simply those pesky Ukrainians that lost the war?


They got their buffer zone. Finnish action, whilst highly effective at staving off defeat, was not going to be a factor forever in a war the Soviet Union was intent on finishing decisively. This did not prove to be the case. The Soviet Union, as an opponent for Finland, was far too strong materially, numerically, economically, logistically etc.

It is funny that you mention the Ukrainians. Whilst you balast me for taking the Soviet POV to heart, you at the same time fail to acknowledge that the summer trained troops sent to Finland in 1939 were in no way, shape or form suitable to fighting a war in the terrain and climate they were facing.


and weather sucks

If only German apologists allowed the winter of 1941 to be dismissed as lightly as you have dismissed the winter of 1939.


Of course Soviets won. Always in wars the side that cannot meet it's objectives wins and the one that can loses. Yes that is the way.


Finnish objectives: Survive.
Soviet objectives: Establish a buffer zone. Weaken Finland.

What if both sides meet their 'objectives'? Who won, then?

Your argument only works if I accept that the Soviet aim was the total occupation of Finland. There is no reason to believe that even for a moment.

The Soviet Union, in March of 1940, was ready to continue the conflict. By April, Finland would have logistically and strategically been on its knees. Who won?


With what forces? I find this more of an excuse than any of the others

Was Stalin able to wave a magic wand - in your universe - that was able to discern for him French/British forces available for action? The mere threat of intervention was enough. This has already been explained in the other thread - why come at me from the same angle again?


And Soviet weren't???

How do I put this? No. They were not. By March 1940 the Soviet forces facing Finland were the strongest they'd ever been. And the manpower reserve wasn't quite dry, just yet.


If Soviet intelligence didn't know so what if the Finns were exhausted? In a poker game one will not win by having better cards but not playing them.


What is your argument, here? Soviet intelligence knew the state of Finnish forces - generally, at least. Were you under the impression that they believed Finnish formations to remain undamaged in the midst of the 1940 campaign?


"In early March Stalin conceded defeat, abandoning his occupation plans and settling for a compromise agreement, leaving Finland independent. With the signing of the Peace Agreement on 13 March Finland had to cede 10 % of her territory to the USSR, but Finland herself remained free."

Dr. Tomas Ries, November 2001


Stalin conceded defeat? With Soviet forces about to invest Viipuri? With the Finnish Main Line of Resistance broken? With Soviet forces re-trained and ready for combat? With Soviet logistics, combined arms, artillery support, air support and leadership finally in working order?

That's quite funny to me, actually.

Finland apparently won the war by losing a tenth of the country and having its military devastated. I would not want to win many such wars.

Yet you, of course, are talking about the 'moral victory'. 'We survived as a nation, and therefore won'. That kind of thing. To this I have no answer. If this is what your national mythos requires, so be it. I speak of battlefield realities, not idealised notions of struggle and perseverence. The Finnish armed forces, by March 1940, were on the verge of collapse. The Soviets were not. If the campaign had continued, April would have meant the end of Finnish organised resistance - or at least its greatest part. Instead, Stalin got the territory he wanted, and Finland was allowed a reprieve.

All this seems to have happened so that, today, you can argue you 'won' a costly and spiritually impressive victory over the Bolshevist Hordes of Doom that were about to exterminate all Finns - instead of losing a 'heroic and glorious struggle against the Bear'. Your people was, in many respects, much luckier than mine. We had to take the 'lost a heroic and glorious struggle' option.

I guess every people needs a myth. Some kind of national forge in which to undertake a baptism of fire. I have nothing against that. But don't confuse it with the reality of the situation at the time. The military reality.

Lokos

Jippo
02-01-2007, 01:19 PM
Sorry for the quite harshly put first post, it was a natural reaction to your first post but maybe too quickly written. I actually quite enjoyed your second post and argumentation.

I have couple of notes to point out, namely in the status of forces, threat of france & britain (I'd say more than that Germany!), goals of Soviets, etc...

But were going wildly off-topic, so I think we can still save this debate for few months at least and respect the original subject. (For which I really would like to hear your opinion btw.)


-jippo

Indiana Jones
02-01-2007, 01:22 PM
I admit to a Soviet bias. It is my area of specialisation.
No offence, but this is plain hilarious. Freudian slip, perhaps ? ;)

With Soviet forces re-trained and ready for combat? With Soviet logistics, combined arms, artillery support, air support and leadership finally in working order?

Soviet forces had, as Barbarossa would amply demonstrate, at best gone from abysmal to poor. While that does constitute an improvement, your terminology suggests they were on par with contemporary international standard, which of course is a fallacy.

Lazarou
02-01-2007, 01:34 PM
Of course, you may feel that you, personally, have not yet shot your bolt. Therefore, I hope you enjoy this opportunity to - in accordance with MPnet tradition - lose a debate against me on an EF topic.
How about no. You know what they say about opinions and *******s; everybody has one. You have yours, I have mine. You don't have to agree with the mainstream Western conception of history nor are we obligated to succumb to your pro-Soviet bias.

Smersh
02-01-2007, 01:35 PM
Soviet forces had, as Barbarossa would amply demonstrate, at best gone from abysmal to poor. While that does constitute an improvement, your terminology suggests they were on par with contemporary international standard, which of course is a fallacy.

two problems the entire Red Army did not take part in the winter war.

and what exactly is the "international standard"?

Teme
02-01-2007, 04:33 PM
Your argument only works if I accept that the Soviet aim was the total occupation of Finland. There is no reason to believe that even for a moment.

Lokos

And your area of specialty is suppose to be Soviet Union and WWII?

Have you ever heard of Terijoki goverment?

Writing history should be left to historians. Not to people with political bias or agenda.

GazB
02-02-2007, 01:12 AM
Writing history should be left to historians. Not to people with political bias or agenda.

Hahahahahahahaha.... I have yet to meet or speak with someone with no political bias or agenda. Such people don't exist... unless you count fictional "people' like Vulcans off Star Trek.

Lokos
02-02-2007, 03:51 AM
Have you ever heard of Terijoki goverment?

What about it?

Am I supposed to be flabbergasted and go 'Why, what do you speak of? I had no idea! You were right all along!'?

Present an argument.


No offence, but this is plain hilarious. Freudian slip, perhaps ?


The Soviet Union and the RKKA constituted my specialisation in studies of military history. Yes, the choice of words was poor. Mocking the choice of words, instead of dealing with the argumentation, is simply ad hominem rubbish. Stick to the topic.


Soviet forces had, as Barbarossa would amply demonstrate, at best gone from abysmal to poor. While that does constitute an improvement, your terminology suggests they were on par with contemporary international standard, which of course is a fallacy.

'Contemporary international standard'? What the hell are you talking about? How much better do you think the French and British performed in 1940? Or the Poles in 1941? Or Yugoslavia? Or Greece? Or the Netherlands? Belgium? Denmark? The Soviet Union's more combat ready Far Eastern armies crushed several Japanese formations in 1938 and 1939. This was not an 'abysmal' army. It was an institution with huge deficiencies. That does not mean it did not improve from the Winter War into the 1940 campaign.

Is this really an avenue of argument you would like to pursue? That the Soviets did not make improvements on all levels between the winter campaign and its counterpart in 1940?

How you have managed to toot the Wehrmacht horn in a Soviet-Finnish conflict line of debate is beyond me. Kudos to you, however, for doing it with panache.

Lokos

Kilgor
02-02-2007, 04:33 AM
What about it?

Am I supposed to be flabbergasted and go 'Why, what do you speak of? I had no idea! You were right all along!'?

Present an argument.



One of the better facts that Stalin wanted to install a puppet government in Finland. After all, he had invaded and installed his puppets in all the other states allocated to the soviet union in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Finland's fate was of course to be no different, except when they decided to fight back.

Lokos
02-02-2007, 06:51 AM
One of the better facts that Stalin wanted to install a puppet government in Finland. After all, he had invaded and installed his puppets in all the other states allocated to the soviet union in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Finland's fate was of course to be no different, except when they decided to fight back.

Is this pile of conjecture, supposition and pure speculation supposed to amount to an argument?

Are you currently mind linked with Stalin's corpse? How is it that you would know what Finland's fate was to be?

Lokos

Indiana Jones
02-02-2007, 07:56 AM
Quote:
No offence, but this is plain hilarious. Freudian slip, perhaps ?


The Soviet Union and the RKKA constituted my specialisation in studies of military history. Yes, the choice of words was poor. Mocking the choice of words, instead of dealing with the argumentation, is simply ad hominem rubbish. Stick to the topic.

You're probably confusing ad hominem and ad personam here.
Don´t be a drama queen, Sir. I did not mean to insult you. I think this is fairly obvious to any halfway impartial observer. It was an entertaining statement, plain and simple.
As a sidenote: May I inquire if you are by any chance identical with this gentleman ?
http://forum.axishistory.com/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=7311

This was not an 'abysmal' army. It was an institution with huge deficiencies. That does not mean it did not improve from the Winter War into the 1940 campaign. [...] Is this really an avenue of argument you would like to pursue? That the Soviets did not make improvements on all levels between the winter campaign and its counterpart in 1940?

"Institution with huge deficiencies ? "Abysmal army ?" May I press you to point out substantial differences between the given definitions ? In addition, I mentioned expressis verbis that the RKKA did improve in the timeframe in question, quote:

Soviet forces had, as Barbarossa would amply demonstrate, at best gone from abysmal to poor. While that does constitute an improvement,
Therefore I would ask you to read my postings more carefully. Your continued use of euphemisms such as:

Soviet forces re-trained and ready for combat? With Soviet logistics, combined arms, artillery support, air support and leadership finally in working order?

...may suggest that our respective understandings of combat-readiness and efficiency simply differ considerably.

'Contemporary international standard'? What the hell are you talking about? How much better do you think the French and British performed in 1940? Or the Poles in 1941? Or Yugoslavia? Or Greece? Or the Netherlands? Belgium? Denmark? The Soviet Union's more combat ready Far Eastern armies crushed several Japanese formations in 1938 and 1939
Neither the Armée de terre nor the British army, while also lacking behind doctrinally, were plagued by the lingering climate of fear and suspicion that had befallen the contemporary Soviet army...there are other fundamental weaknesses obviously intrinsic to the WW2-era RKKA which would merit consideration in this context, but lets just leave it at that. While such speculations are useless and best left to amateurs, I guess it is not to bold to assume that had any of the beforementioned armies commited similar resources against Finland, they would have yielded distinctly better results.
The Poles, for very obvious reasons, do not make for a valid comparison in 1941. The Greeks or Yugoslavs did not remotely possess either the manpower or industrial resources to put them in a position to conduct offensive operations of greater magnitude. Comparing them to the RKKA in this regard would do both sides injustice.

How you have managed to toot the Wehrmacht horn in a Soviet-Finnish conflict line of debate is beyond me. Kudos to you, however, for doing it with panache.

What am I to say ? Your accusations are simply besides the point. The Wehrmacht was not part of my argumentation. In fact, I did not even argue with you at all-to this point. I´ll give you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you are somewhat frustrated given the preponderance of rather poorly informed guests on this site, but overall I would appreciate a less snappy tone.

Smersh
02-02-2007, 12:03 PM
"Institution with huge deficiencies ? "Abysmal army ?" May I press you to point out substantial differences between the given definitions ? In addition, I mentioned expressis verbis that the RKKA did improve in the timeframe in question, quote...

Exactly there as substantial differences in almost every country and this affects their militaries. so I have no idea what an "contemporary international standard" is. If the point was that the Red Army had many problems in 1941 thats true, but so what. How does this relate. In two examples in the later part of the winter war, and in the East agaisnt Japan twice(Japan below the 'international standard'?), the Red Army showed developing combined arms tactics.

I see a big contradiction in both your posts one talking about some kind of standard and your 2nd post showing each country is different and there is no standard.

Teme
02-02-2007, 02:30 PM
Is this pile of conjecture, supposition and pure speculation supposed to amount to an argument?

Are you currently mind linked with Stalin's corpse? How is it that you would know what Finland's fate was to be?

Lokos

1. Stalin made secretly same demands to Finland in 1938 as he made to the Baltic Rebublics



Inevitably hindsight would turn up alternatives that might have been pursued: if Finland had agreed to the demands for bases secretly put forward by the Soviet Union beginning in 1938, if Finland had agreed to conclude the same kind of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance treaty that would eventually be signed in 1948, or if it had even given in to the demands for bases made by its eastern neighbour at the end of 1939 - couldn’t war have been avoided?
http://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=25928


Only Finland remained unoccupied. Planning and preparation of the occupation of Baltic countries and Finland started 1938 according to historians who have access to Soviet archives.

2. Stalin set up the Terijoki Puppet Goverment



When the Red Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army) began its advance during Winter War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War) on November 30th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_30), 1939 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939), he was ****ounced the head of the Terijoki Government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terijoki_Government), Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin)'s puppet régime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppet_r%C3%A9gime) (of the so-called Finnish Democratic Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Democratic_Republic)) intended to rule the captured Finland. But as the Winter War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War) went wrong, and a negotiated peace with the Finnish government became unavoidable for the Soviet leadership, Kuusinen was put aside and made chairman of the Supreme Soviet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Soviet) of the Karelo-Finnish SSR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karelo-Finnish_SSR) (1940 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1940)–1956 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956)).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuusinen


Why would Stalin set up Finnish Democratic Republic goverment without any function like let's say governing Finland ???

3. Soviet commanders received written orders not to cross Swedish border once they are across Finland.

4. Captured troops and equipment included marching bands. They were told there will be a victory parade in Helsinki once the war is over.

5. Stalin did not give up the plans of annexing Finland after the Winter War. Molotov's demand to solve the Finnish question 'in the same scale as in the Baltic states' when he visited Berlin in November 1940 is well known and documented.

6. The instructions Finnish communists received from Moscow during the so-called Interim Peace (period between wars in 1940-41) stressed that their aim was to be to incorporate Finland in the USSR as a soviet republic.

7. Historians have now access to Soviet Archives.

Winter War was so humiliating to the Soviet Union that in official history it is supressed as "border skirmish" just to adjust the borders a little bit.

"Father Stalin never fails! He reached his goals with Finland." ;)

Lokos
02-03-2007, 05:24 AM
You're probably confusing ad hominem and ad personam here.

There is no confusion. An ad personam attack is but a sub-type of an ad-hominem one.


Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensibly damning character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions. This tactic is frequently employed as a propaganda tool among politicians who are attempting to influence the voter base in their favor through an appeal to emotion rather than by logical means, especially when their own position is logically weaker than their opponent's.



I think this is fairly obvious to any halfway impartial observer. It was an entertaining statement, plain and simple.


I was not entertained.


May I press you to point out substantial differences between the given definitions ?

The former is a statement of fact - the latter is a value judgement. Do I really have to point out the substantial differences between those terms to you, in depth? I can and do call the Wehrmacht an institution with 'huge institutional deficiencies' - but I would not call it an 'abysmal army'.


...may suggest that our respective understandings of combat-readiness and efficiency simply differ considerably.


May I suggest you stop using the decidedly exemplary Wehrmacht as the benchmark of combat-readiness and efficiency. That military institution was not typical of its time.


Neither the Armée de terre nor the British army, while also lacking behind doctrinally, were plagued by the lingering climate of fear and suspicion that had befallen the contemporary Soviet army...

I'm sorry. You seem to be citing 'fear' and 'suspicion' as actual factors in the performance of the RKKA in the field - and that of the French and British armies. Do elaborate, with sourcing and examples.


...there are other fundamental weaknesses obviously intrinsic to the WW2-era RKKA which would merit consideration in this context, but lets just leave it at that

I would like to not leave it at that.


I guess it is not to bold to assume that had any of the beforementioned armies commited similar resources against Finland, they would have yielded distinctly better results.


I do not enjoy playing fantasy scenarios out. You don't know how the French or the British would have performed in Finland during 1939. The end. Any buts or ifs are speculation, and completely unprovable.


The Poles, for very obvious reasons, do not make for a valid comparison in 1941.

I wasn't making the comparison with regards to 1941, though, was I? I believe it was 1939 that was the basis for the comparison.


The Greeks or Yugoslavs did not remotely possess either the manpower or industrial resources to put them in a position to conduct offensive operations of greater magnitude. Comparing them to the RKKA in this regard would do both sides injustice.


If they did, they wouldn't have been Greeks or Yugoslavs. The RKKA was the RKKA. The Royal Yugoslav Army was just that. We compare them as they were, not by making them equal in resources, first. You have an odd way of looking at military institutions. Tactical, operational and strategic doctrines are derived from the cold realities: manpower, resources, industry, geography.


What am I to say ? Your accusations are simply besides the point. The Wehrmacht was not part of my argumentation.

Unseemly. You use the Wehrmacht as the standard of comparison, then say that it was not a part of your argumentation?

My comparison was made precisely out of this reason. No military institution looked capable when compared to the Wehrmacht in 1939-1941. None.


I´ll give you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you are somewhat frustrated given the preponderance of rather poorly informed guests on this site, but overall I would appreciate a less snappy tone.


I have no apologies to offer you.


As a sidenote: May I inquire if you are by any chance identical with this gentleman ?
http://forum.axishistory.com/profile...profile&u=7311


No.

Though I do know the 'gentleman' in question.

I only lurked in the Axis History Forums for a short period.

If you need further information as to how I know this person, feel free to PM.

I don't see what this has to do with anything being discussed, though, and would prefer sticking to the topic at hand.


1. Stalin made secretly same demands to Finland in 1938 as he made to the Baltic Rebublics


Source that for me.


Written for Virtual Finland by Timo Vihavainen PhD,
Renvall Institute, University of Helsinki

It's a pity that this gentleman shows no sources at all in this 'academic' publication. I need that information to properly engage the assertions made.


2. Stalin set up the Terijoki Puppet Goverment


1. Neither the Kuusinen article nor the Terijoki article cite their sources. Interesting.

2. Observe the following:


The Finnish Democratic Republic (Finnish: Suomen Kansanvaltainen Tasavalta) was a short-lived Soviet puppet regime in those minor parts of Finland that were occupied by the Soviet Union during the Winter War. Its government was known under the name of the Terijoki Government. The Soviet Union argued that it was the only rightful government for all of Finland that was capable of ending the Winter War and restoring peace; in fact Suomen Kansanvaltainen Tasavalta is regarded as a puppet government.

It was established on December 1, 1939, in the then-Finnish border town of Terijoki (which is now Zelenogorsk, part of the Saint Petersburg recreation area in Russia). During its lifespan Otto Ville Kuusinen was chairman and head of government.

On March 12, 1940, it was merged with the Karelian ASSR within the Russian SFSR to form the Karelo-Finnish SSR, a Soviet republic in its own right.


That doesn't tell me much about what Stalin intended to do with the Terijoki government.

In the end, you're speculating. I don't like that. It's hard to disprove - though even harder to prove.


3. Soviet commanders received written orders not to cross Swedish border once they are across Finland.


It's not like they would have had to travel far on the Petsamo-Kirkenes axis to hit Sweden. You are aware there was combat in the far north, yes? This doesn't tell me much about Soviet war aims.


4. Captured troops and equipment included marching bands. They were told there will be a victory parade in Helsinki once the war is over.


Every division in the Soviet military had a marching band...


5. Stalin did not give up the plans of annexing Finland after the Winter War. Molotov's demand to solve the Finnish question 'in the same scale as in the Baltic states' when he visited Berlin in November 1940 is well known and documented.


Let me ask you a simple question. What was stopping Stalin from diverting, say, five or six field armies (250,000-300,000 men) and finishing off Finland once and for all in 1944? It is not as if the opportunity was not there. It is not as if they could not spare said armies.

What Molotov demanded, and what Molotov wanted, are two different kettles of fish. You are again speculating.


6. The instructions Finnish communists received from Moscow during the so-called Interim Peace (period between wars in 1940-41) stressed that their aim was to be to incorporate Finland in the USSR as a soviet republic.

What would be the point of sending different instructions? It's what Finnish communists wanted to hear.


7. Historians have now access to Soviet Archives.


They do. And?


Winter War was so humiliating to the Soviet Union that in official history it is supressed as "border skirmish" just to adjust the borders a little bit.


Uh-huh.


"Father Stalin never fails! He reached his goals with Finland."

As they say in these parts: Finland Strong!!!!111!!!11one1one

Lokos

Doublethinker
02-03-2007, 05:53 AM
Treaty of Mutual Assistance and Friendship
between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
and Finnish Democratic Republic

The Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Government of Finnish Democratic Republic assured that now, when the heroic struggle of the Finnish people and efforts of the Red Army are liquidating the most dangerous war hearth, created near the borders of the Soviet Union by the former plutocratic Finnish government in order to please the imperialist powers and when the Finnish nation had created its Democratic Republic, fully based on the peoples support, there came the time to establish the lasting friendly relations between our countries and to ensure, by the joint efforts, the security and inviolability of our states;
acknowledging that there came the time to fulfil the age-old dream of the Finnish nation about reunification of the Karelian peoples with the cognate Finnish nation in the common Finnish state and bearing in mind the auspicious and answering the interests of the both Parties settlement of the boarder questions, especially ensuring the security of Leningrad and southern coast of Finland;
with the aims to strengthen the spirit and main regulations of the Peace Treaty of October 23, 1920, based on the mutual recognition of the national independence and non-intervention into the internal affairs of the other Party, found it necessary to conclude the following Treaty of Mutual Assistance and Friendship between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Finnish Democratic Republic and have for that purpose appointed as their plenipotentiaries
The Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics:
V.M.Molotov, The Chairman of the Council of the People's Commissars and the People's Commissar of Foreign Affairs,
The People's Government of Finland:
O.W.Kuusinen, The Chairman of the People's Government of Finland and the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
who, having presented their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:
Article I
As the sign of friendship and deep trust of the Soviet Union towards the Finnish Democratic Republic, coming to meet the age-old dream of the Finnish nation about reunification of the Karelian peoples with the Finnish nation in the common independent Finnish state the Soviet Union agrees to hand over to the Finnish Democratic Republic the regions of the Soviet Karelia that are mainly populated by Karelians - 70 000 square kilometres in total - to be included into the national territory of the Finnish Democratic Republic and with setting the border line between the USSR and the Finnish Democratic Republic according to the enclosed map (http://heninen.net/sopimus/1939k_e.htm).
As the sign of friendship and deep trust of the Finnish Democratic Republic towards the Soviet Union, coming to meet the wishes of the Soviet Union to strengthen the security of the USSR and especially the city of Leningrad, the Finnish Democratic Republic agrees to some movement of the border line on Karelian Isthmus to the North from Leningrad with handing over to the Soviet Union the territory of 3 970 square kilometres, in which connection the USSR considers itself to be obliged to compensate to Finland the cost of the railway roads on the territory of the Karelian Isthmus that passes to the USSR in the sum of 120 millions of Finnish marks.
Article II
The Finnish Democratic Republic, in accordance with the mutual interests of strengthening the security of the USSR and Finland agrees:
a) to lease to the Soviet Union for 30 years the Hanko peninsula and sea territory around it to the distance of five miles to the south and east and three miles to the north and west and a number of the islands close to it on the south and the east in accordance to the enclosed map, for the purpose of establishing there the Navy base, able to defence from the aggression the entrance into the Gulf of Finland with the purpose to ensure the security of Finland and the USSR. With the aim of the defence of the Navy base the Soviet Union granted the right to hold there at its own expense strictly limited number of the land and air forces, the maximal number of which shall be defined by the separate agreement;
b) to sell to the Soviet Union the islands Suursaari (Hogland), Seiskari, Lavansaari, Tytärsaari (Maly and Bolshoy), Koivisto (Björkö) in the Gulf of Finland and Finnish parts of Rybachy and Sredny peninsulas on the coast of the Arctic Ocean for the agreed sum of 300 millions of Finnish marks.
Article III
The Soviet Union and the Finnish Democratic Republic undertake to render each other the every possible assistance, including military assistance in the case of armed attack or the threat of armed attack on Finland and in the case of armed attack or the threat of armed attack on the soviet Union through the territory of Finland of any European country.
Article IV
The Contracting Parties undertake not to participate in any alliances or coalitions whose objects are aimed against one of the Contracting Parties.
Article V
The Contracting Parties agreed to conclude in the shortest time the Trade Treaty and to raise the annual turnover between the two countries much higher the turnover of 1927, when it reached the highest number of 800 millions of Finnish marks.
Article VI
The Soviet Union undertakes to help the Finnish People's Army the help with tha arms and other military materials on the privileged basis
Article VII
The present Treaty in the parts concerning the liability on the mutual assistance between the USSR and Finnish Democratic Republic (articles III-V) shall remain in force for twenty-five years. If none of Contracting Parties, at least one year before the expiration of this period, will not present a statement of denunciation of the Treaty, it shall remain in force for the next twenty-five years.
Article VIII
The present Treaty shall enter into force on the day of it signing and is subject to subsequent ratification. The instruments of ratification shall be exchanged in the possible shortest term in Helsinki - the capital of Finland.
Done in Moscow on December 2, 1939 (http://heninen.net/sopimus/1939f_e.htm), in two languages, Russian (http://heninen.net/sopimus/1939.htm) and Finnish (http://heninen.net/sopimus/1939_f.htm), both texts being equally authentic.

V.Molotov, O.Kuusinen
from http://heninen.net/sopimus/1939_e.htm
and Tanner's "Winter War"
according to http://www.around.spb.ru/finnish/docs/fdr_dog.php Russian version of the treaty was published in "Izvestija" No. 279 (7049) on the 3rd of december, 1939.

Doublethinker
02-03-2007, 06:16 AM
Also, accoridng to Tanner's memoirs: Winter, swedish ambassador in Moscow, tried to meet Molotov on the 2nd of January to offer him new proposals of the Finnish government [concerning territorial demands of the USSR]. But he was forced to wait till the 4th of December. And when he finally met Molotov, the latter declined swedish proposal to act as a mediator, stating that the USSR acknowledges the existence of only one finnish government - the Finnish Democratic Government. He also declined swedish attempts to represent the interests of the finnish people, since the Soviet government declined to acknowledge the existence of the finnish government that granted Sweden such power.

http://militera.lib.ru/memo/other/tanner_v/index.html (Russian version only)

Lokos, it seems to me, that you are fighting a losing battle here. These two historical documents (I acknwoledge that memoirs can hardly be accepted as "documents", but still they do have some weight) provide enough grounds to state the following:

a) After the USSR started its agression it planned to create a new pro-soviet state on the territory of Finland once and for all. Not on some part of it, but on all of the territory of the Finnish republic. That was the main reason why the Finnish Democratic Republic was created.

b) The USSR changed its plans and finally conceded that the Finnish government was eligible for negotiations and came to terms with the "former finnish government" (as it it's called in the treaty) not with the new one, thus effectively giving up all claims about the Finnish Democratic Government being the ONLY one to represent the will of the Finnish people.

c) Why did it happen? Was it military prowess of the Finnish army, the faliure of the Soviet Intelligence to present actual numbers of the opposing enemy forces, the fact that the conflict was dragging on for longer than expected and that the Finnish campaign turned out to be not a cakewalk as was expected by Stalin, the increasing pressure on the Soviet Union by the International community, the growing threats of Allies to intervene on behalf of finns?
I'd say all of it. All of these components taken altogether gave the result that Stalin gave up the idea of establishing a new government in Finland.

Indiana Jones
02-03-2007, 08:58 AM
Quote:
I think this is fairly obvious to any halfway impartial observer. It was an entertaining statement, plain and simple.

Lokos:
I was not entertained.

By Jove and his entire inbred offspring. You did not need to feel entertained. It was your statement I referred to as entertaining.

The former is a statement of fact - the latter is a value judgement.
Sophisms and semantics, really. If you recall, I characterized the RKKA and its learning curve performance-wise as going from abysmal to poor. You are of course correct that having "institutional deficiencies" does not necessarily equal poor performance in the field, but this was never in question here. If you feel my assessment of the RKKA was too rash or oversimplified-then you are correct. However, my aim was not to provide a differentiated analysis here for I simply lack the required time and motivation. Still, the available data of this particular campaign allows no other general conclusion.

I can and do call the Wehrmacht...[...]I suggest you stop using the decidedly exemplary Wehrmacht...(etc.) I did not at one point, explicitly or implicitly, invoke the Wehrmacht in any comparison- you continue to do so. While you are entirely right indeed that the Wehrmacht set the bar during WW 2, or the GPW, or whatever variant you prefer, the Wehrmacht was not what I referred to as the "international standard"- particularly so because it was indeed two notches above. In order to gain firm ground again and to prevent this discussion from degenerating into hair-splitting, we need a tertium comparationis. I would basically suggest measuring every belligerents archievements against the force and casualty exchange ratio to determine their effectiveness in the field. To complete the picture, factors such as replacement policies, strategic dispositions, etc. have to be taken into account. If we apply these standards, I feel that given the resources available for the task and the utter disparity in heavy weaponry, the Soviets archieved very little in the Winter war, while the Finns shone. Neither side could realise their political objectives entirely, but taking the existential threat to Finnish sovereignty into account, the Finns archieved more at significantly less expense.


Quote:
The Poles, for very obvious reasons, do not make for a valid comparison in 1941.
Lokos:
I wasn't making the comparison with regards to 1941, though, was I? I believe it was 1939 that was the basis for the comparison.

Precisely. I, too, found the following to be rather startling. I´ll let you speak for yourself:

How much better do you think the French and British performed in 1940? Or the Poles in 1941? Or Yugoslavia? Or Greece? Or the Netherlands? Belgium? Denmark?



Quote:
Neither the Armée de terre nor the British army, while also lacking behind doctrinally, were plagued by the lingering climate of fear and suspicion that had befallen the contemporary Soviet army...
Lokos:
I'm sorry. You seem to be citing 'fear' and 'suspicion' as actual factors in the performance of the RKKA in the field - and that of the French and British armies. Do elaborate, with sourcing and examples.


I am not at home at the moment and won´t be for perhaps 2 or more weeks- I cannot post a complete bibliography. But as a beginning, you might take a look at one or more of the following volumes, which are arranged in no particular order:
Glantz, David M.: Stumbling Colossus- The Red Army on the Eve of World War. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, 1998.
Erickson, John : The Road to Stalingrad. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London 1975. (see the first chapter on "reforms and repairs")
Hedeler, Wladislaw: Die Chronik der Moskauer Schauprozesse 1936, 1937 und 1938. Planung, Inszenierung und Wirkung. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, 2003. (Not exactly what I would call a good work, but it does provide a nice chronological overview on the impact of the purges)

Teme
02-03-2007, 02:48 PM
1. Stalin made secretly same demands to Finland in 1938 as he made to the Baltic Rebublics

Source that for me.




http://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/ne...ntNWSAID=25928 (http://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=25928)

It's a pity that this gentleman shows no sources at all in this 'academic' publication. I need that information to properly engage the assertions made..

Well, I gave you one link.

Here is another, a Pravda article November 26, 1939:
http://www.histdoc.net/history/pravda1.html


Cajander mourns over the politicians in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. They, you see, proved to be shortsighted. But he is farsighted, he, a buffoon holding the post of prime minister. He sees far, he is a politician from the school of farsighted Beck and farsighted Moscicki. Let him learn, how those Polish clowns feel after having lost their engagements for good.
It is soon, probably, when Cajander will have an opportunity to see in practise, that farsighted politicians are not the marionettes from the Finnish government, but the present leaders of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, who concluded a mutual assistance pact with USSR. Nevertheless Cajander cannot get away from providing the answer which is more and more persistently demanded by the people of Finland.
- Why you, Cajanders, wrecked the negotiations? The people did not demand this from you. But who then insisted on wrecking?
The Prime Minister of Finland wriggles like a grass-snake. He whimpers smearing tears on his dirty face: It clearly says Finland should have done the same as other Baltic countries. Now Finland has to pay the consequenses for not obeying.



2. Stalin set up the Terijoki Puppet Goverment

1. Neither the Kuusinen article nor the Terijoki article cite their sources. Interesting.

2. Observe the following:

That doesn't tell me much about what Stalin intended to do with the Terijoki government.

In the end, you're speculating. I don't like that. It's hard to disprove - though even harder to prove.
You are complaining that I am speculating that Finnish Democratic Republic goverment was crated to govern Finland. What is your speculation why it was created and lived only two months?

Here is some more links to prove for my speculation:



Soldiers! Turn your weapons against the destroyers of your home stoves! Go over to the People's Government led by OTTO KUUSINEN. This governments brings peace to the country! It has concluded a treaty of mutual assistance and friendship between the Soviet Union and the Democratic Republic of Finland. This treaty secures the independence of Finland, it secures a peaceful life and flourishment of the Finnish people, it relieves you from the horrors and destruction of the war. Down with the bloody henchmen of the people, the renegade gang of Mannerheim, Tanner, Ryti! Down with arsonists of peasant houses and workers' homes! Long live the people of free Finland and its Democratic Government! http://www.histdoc.net/history/lentole.html

http://www.sodatkuvina.cjb.net/images/Talvisota/Dokumentit/KuusisenHallituksenPropagandaa.jpg


Finland´s army´s soldiers!
Fulfilling the orders of foreign provokers and warmongers are group of
Finland´s people enemies, all these Cajanders, Erkkos and Rytis, leading you in
war against the people of Finland´s Democratic Republic and against Red Army
which has come to aid Finnish people.
You are workers just like we - - Son of our common native country.
Turn your weapons against our native country´s common enemies, against
the bankers and foreing imperialists "government".
Soldiers! Change your sides for Finland´s People Government!
Long live People Government leaded by Otto Kuusinen!
Petsamo´s people meeting´s resolution
6th December 1939


Also you could read carefully the Soviet-Democratic Republic of Finland Mutual Assistance Agreement which was posted by Doublethinker. That pretty much says it.



3. Soviet commanders received written orders not to cross Swedish border once they are across Finland.

It's not like they would have had to travel far on the Petsamo-Kirkenes axis to hit Sweden. You are aware there was combat in the far north, yes? This doesn't tell me much about Soviet war aims.



The opposing force was the 47th Corps, commanded by Corps Commander Da****sev , which was a part of the 9th Army, commanded by Army Commander Chuikov . The first objective of the 163rd (from now on the 163.D) division, commanded by Division Commander Selendsov , was to destroy the Finnish forces at the border and advance to the Suomussalmi village. As the second objective, the division was to advance to Puolanka via Hyrynsalmi and Ylinäljänkä. After reaching Puolanka, the 44th motorized division (hereafter 44.D) was to advance rapidly from Puolanka towards Oulu, the coast of the Gulf of Bothnia and the Swedish border ( the division had received before the war strict orders not to cross the Finnish-Swedish border) . http://www.winterwar.com/Battles/Suomussalmi.htm

163. and 44. divisions were attacking at Suomussalmi. Their aim was to cut Finland in half. Finland is 300 kilometers wide at that area. Ovbiously the target was not to adjust the borders a little bit near Leningrad.



4. Captured troops and equipment included marching bands. They were told there will be a victory parade in Helsinki once the war is over.
Every division in the Soviet military had a marching band...

What were they thinking? Send a marching band to war?


In the winter dawn of 30 November four Soviet Armies with 23 divisions - some 460,000 men with over 2,000 tanks - began advancing across the length of Finland's 1,200 km long eastern border. Their objective was to occupy the entire territory of Finland by the end of the year, installing Moscow's puppet 'Terijoki Government' in Helsinki, and establishing a new 'Democratic Republic of Finland'. Their troops were issued with detailed written warnings not to cross into Sweden once they had reached Finland's western border, and the 7. Army included a military band for the victory parade in Helsinki.
http://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=25937





5. Stalin did not give up the plans of annexing Finland after the Winter War. Molotov's demand to solve the Finnish question 'in the same scale as in the Baltic states' when he visited Berlin in November 1940 is well known and documented.
Let me ask you a simple question. What was stopping Stalin from diverting, say, five or six field armies (250,000-300,000 men) and finishing off Finland once and for all in 1944? It is not as if the opportunity was not there. It is not as if they could not spare said armies.
Stalin sent 375 000 men to Karelian Isthmus only 1944.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_strategic_offensive



“Why was Finland never occupied?” asked Yugoslavian dictator Tito in April 1945. Stalin replied, “We took the Americans much too much into account.” Finland was, of course, not the only issue whose treatment by the Russians was influenced by Soviet relations with the United States. Stalin respected the wishes of the Americans because the Soviet Union was dependent on the military and economic support it received from the USA.
...

“This war is not like earlier wars,” Stalin said to Tito. “Any power that occupies a land brings its own political system there too. Everyone will extend their political influence as far as their armies can go.” In the direction of Finland the Red Army could go as far as the 1940 border, but no further. In 1974, Molotov said in an interview: “We were wise not to annexe Finland. It would have been an running sore... The people there are stubborn, very stubborn.”
http://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=28271

It was easy for Molotov to be afterwise ;)


What Molotov demanded, and what Molotov wanted, are two different kettles of fish. You are again speculating.

Are you trying to say that that Molotov demanded to fulfill the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact part of Finland being part of Soviet sphere but that was not what he actually wanted?


HITLER AND MOLOTOV MEETINGS
BERLIN, NOVEMBER 12 AND 13, 1940
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTS
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/Hitler-Molotov%20Meetings.htm




6. The instructions Finnish communists received from Moscow during the so-called Interim Peace (period between wars in 1940-41) stressed that their aim was to be to incorporate Finland in the USSR as a soviet republic.

What would be the point of sending different instructions? It's what Finnish communists wanted to hear.

What different instruction are you talking about?

Also after the WWII Finnish Communist were instructed to take control the same way as in rest of the Eastern Europe.



The Communists also sought power in Finland; there can be no doubt about this. In Finland, too, they took control in 1945 of the Ministry of the Interior and the Security Police. But ravaged by Stalin's purges, the Finnish Communist Party (SKP) was ill prepared for this role. In the end, the SKP lacked the all important unqualified support of the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the determined resistance of civic society in Finland contributed greatly to the defeat of the SKP's efforts to take power. President J.K. Paasikivi relied particularly on the support of the SDP in defending Finnish democracy. In the labour movement the Social Democrats were able to beat the Communists at their own game - active organizational work and propaganda.
http://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=25908




7. Historians have now access to Soviet Archives.


They do. And?

And today we know more than we knew 15 years ago.



As they say in these parts: Finland Strong!!!!111!!!11one1one

Lokos

Dear Lokos,

You seem to be well read man. However sounds like your sources are official Soviet history books. Do you think official soviet history would ever admit that the Invincible Red Army failed in occupying tiny little neighbouring country?

Oops. Breakfast time. Have to go but I'm ready to continue later...

Lokos
02-04-2007, 10:11 AM
Lokos, it seems to me, that you are fighting a losing battle here.

Tales of my demise are not accurate.


a) After the USSR started its agression it planned to create a new pro-soviet state on the territory of Finland once and for all. Not on some part of it, but on all of the territory of the Finnish republic. That was the main reason why the Finnish Democratic Republic was created.

You know that for a fact (the portion in bold)? I hold this truth to be self-evident: presume as little as possible when it comes to the Soviet Union, or the intentions of its leaders. The line of argument you are pushing is simple: Stalin planned to conquer Finland completely, and therefore his failure constitutes military defeat and a Finnish victory.

The above reasoning is flawed. In March 1940, the RKKA forces opposing the Finnish Army were in a war winning position. There is little doubt about that. In making this judgement, we look to Mannerheim's own estimation of future Finnish capabilities. That estimation includes a general collapse of organised Finnish resistance by late April, at the latest.

We come to the question: Did Stalin know this? If he didn't, his senior military leadership certainly did. The breach of the Mannerheim Line was a fundamental strategic success. It presented a unique opportunity to envelop and overwhelm Finnish formations with strengthened Soviet combat forces. Yet Stalin accepted the Finnish peace proposal; a proposal that involved the loss of 10% of Finnish territory.

What Stalin knew for certain was that the RKKA was performing far better in March 1940 than in December 1939. It was winning the war. So, idealistic semantics aside, how was Finland victorious? How was Stalin's absolute intent to conquer Finland?

One can perhaps speak of opportunistic dreaming - as in, a possible annexation if the war was going particularly well. This scenario would have been provisioned (i.e. the puppet government etc) for realisation. However, such provision neither precludes nor excludes the very real likelihood of a more limited absolute intent. Stalin settled when he did not have to. Likely, due to French and British threats (again, I point out that Stalin was not aware of the extent of French and British forces available for deployment). I do not see how one could deny the cold military reality, however. The gallant Finnish struggle was about to be terminated, when the war was aborted, in favour of gaining a significant bufferzone for Leningrad.


b) The USSR changed its plans and finally conceded that the Finnish government was eligible for negotiations and came to terms with the "former finnish government"

Plans or contingencies? There is a rather severe distinction to be made.


c) Why did it happen? Was it military prowess of the Finnish army, the faliure of the Soviet Intelligence to present actual numbers of the opposing enemy forces, the fact that the conflict was dragging on for longer than expected and that the Finnish campaign turned out to be not a cakewalk as was expected by Stalin, the increasing pressure on the Soviet Union by the International community, the growing threats of Allies to intervene on behalf of finns?


I agree that some of these were reasons behind the decision on behalf of the Soviet leadership to pursue annexation. I do not agree that the annexation was the war aim of the Soviet Union.

Indiana:


You did not need to feel entertained. It was your statement I referred to as entertaining

Your mocking of that statement I did not find entertaining. Was further clarity required on this? I am well aware of what you meant.


Sophisms and semantics, really

Not in the least.


I characterized the RKKA and its learning curve performance-wise as going from abysmal to poor.

Both 'abysmal' and 'poor' are value judgements. I ask you a simple question: what is the standard by which you are making such judgements? You assert that you are not using the Wehrmacht in this role. Then where is this standard coming from?


Still, the available data of this particular campaign allows no other general conclusion.


Yes, actually, it does. However, I 'lack the required time and motivation' to elaborate more extensively.


I did not at one point, explicitly or implicitly, invoke the Wehrmacht in any comparison

Then where is the standard coming from by which you are judging the RKKA?


While you are entirely right indeed that the Wehrmacht set the bar during WW 2

Perhaps in 1941 and, to a lesser extent, 1942.


would basically suggest measuring every belligerents archievements against the force and casualty exchange ratio to determine their effectiveness in the field.

Fan of Dupuy, then?

Allow me to understand: you are comparing two different military institutions, with different doctrines, different material constraints, different socio-cultural establishments, differing scientific approaches and utterly divergent tactical, operational and strategic emphasis - and making judgements based on casualty infliction rates bearing in mind force ratios? All this, whilst not taking into account institutional evolution throughout a six-year conflict? In other words, equating the state of being of the RKKA in 1941 with that of the RKKA of 1945, and comparing this apparently singular military institution with the Wehrmacht of 1941 and 1945 as one continuity, for example?

It is a good jest.


To complete the picture, factors such as replacement policies, strategic dispositions, etc. have to be taken into account.

How are you doing so? You are simply paying lip service to 'taking other factors into account', and dismissing the chronological aspect of such analysis.


the Soviets archieved very little in the Winter war, while the Finns shone.

And yet the Soviets were one operation away from victory in strength - as opposed to the exhausted Finnish potential.


Precisely. I, too, found the following to be rather startling. I´ll let you speak for yourself

A typo. Grant me some credit.


Glantz, David M.: Stumbling Colossus- The Red Army on the Eve of World War. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, 1998.
Erickson, John : The Road to Stalingrad. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London 1975. (see the first chapter on "reforms and repairs")


Owning both books, I find no passage that states anything approximating 'Soviet performance in the field was constrained by fear and suspicion'. Perhaps you are talking about decisions or lack thereof made by officers, due to a fear of being purged if a mistake was made or was perceived to have been made. In 1941, doctrinally, the Soviet command chain was highly flawed, and the independence of Soviet officers severely reduced, in favour of heavy command centralization. This fact precludes any sort of 'fear' or 'suspicion'. That fear and suspicion were present in the officer corps is a certainty. Their role and independence, however, were dictated by doctrine - not that fear or suspicion.

Teme:


Well, I gave you one link.

You gave me an academic publication with no sources. Bad form.


It clearly says Finland should have done the same as other Baltic countries. Now Finland has to pay the consequenses for not obeying.


Yet I see nothing concrete. You continue to speculate. This is a fool's game.


What is your speculation why it was created and lived only two months?


I don't speculate. Perhaps the Soviet Union did plan for the annexation of Finland. Perhaps such plans were deemed unfeasible, whether for reasons military, political, or both.

When push came to shove, however, in March 1940 - the month in which organised Finnish resistance was about to begin a severe decline - the Soviets accepted a peace treaty that gave them what they required. Limited victory? Certainly. Victory? Absolutely.

What does it matter that more Soviets were killed than Finns? Are we under the impression that the leadership of the RKKA, cognisant of the strategic situation and the dire straits facing the Finnish Army, was afraid of it? Explain to me the peace deal, if you will.


Also you could read carefully the Soviet-Democratic Republic of Finland Mutual Assistance Agreement which was posted by Doublethinker. That pretty much says it.


All I see is the Soviets covering bases, and hoping for a 'short, victorious war'. Though their war was not short, it was shortly to be victorious. Why did the Soviets stop at 10% of Finnish territory? Is your hubris so entrenched that you actually believe the Soviet command staff was intimidated by the prospect of engaging the wavering Finns again, though Soviet armies had pierced the only suitable main line of resistance in all of Finland?


163. and 44. divisions were attacking at Suomussalmi. Their aim was to cut Finland in half. Finland is 300 kilometers wide at that area. Ovbiously the target was not to adjust the borders a little bit near Leningrad.


Their 'target' was to win a war. Do you propose that they would do this by adjusting the borders near Leningrad a bit and then entrenching? Legitimacy requires victory and the cause for war. The cause was fabricated, the victory was very real.


What were they thinking? Send a marching band to war?

The passage you quoted from Virtual Finland tells me exactly nothing at all. ALL Soviet rifle, tank and motorized divisions had marching bands. There would have been many such bands in the deployed armies. Marching bands in regular formations are considered tradition in many militaries of the Western world.


Stalin sent 375 000 men to Karelian Isthmus only 1944.


More, actually. Closer to 415,000. But why not 700,000? Why not 800,000? These reserves were available. The reasoning is simple: such forces were not needed. Finland was deemed a secondary theater, and second echelon forces were dispatched to subdue it. Govorov's plan for making the Finnish army strategically irrelevant unfolded virtually as planned, and the campaign bore enormous fruits in ten days.

Why did the Soviet Union not pursue outright annexation, do you think?


“Why was Finland never occupied?” asked Yugoslavian dictator Tito in April 1945. Stalin replied, “We took the Americans much too much into account.”

Not in 1940, he didn't. Yet annexation was very possible, even then. So, why? Why did he settle?


Are you trying to say that that Molotov demanded to fulfill the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact part of Finland being part of Soviet sphere but that was not what he actually wanted?


Are you familiar with the art of haggling?


What different instruction are you talking about?


The implicitly non-existent ones...


Also after the WWII Finnish Communist were instructed to take control the same way as in rest of the Eastern Europe.




Also after the WWII Finnish Communist were instructed to take control the same way as in rest of the Eastern Europe.


From your own source:


In the end, the SKP lacked the all important unqualified support of the Soviet Union.

Why?


Do you think official soviet history would ever admit that the Invincible Red Army failed in occupying tiny little neighbouring country?


Since I do not give much credit to the official Soviet history of the war, I could care less.

Lokos

Doublethinker
02-04-2007, 11:51 AM
You know that for a fact (the portion in bold)? I hold this truth to be self-evident: presume as little as possible when it comes to the Soviet Union, or the intentions of its leaders. The line of argument you are pushing is simple: Stalin planned to conquer Finland completely, and therefore his failure constitutes military defeat and a Finnish victory.


Nah, you are mistaking me for someone else, who argued with you.

Its just that you started with doubting that there was any plan to conquer all of Finland and ignoring the Kuusinen pseudo-government at all, so I presented some facts to show that you really don't want to go that way since all facts point to the fact that there WAS a plan to turn Finland into a Soviet satellite.

But was establishment of a pro-Soviet government the main aim of the war? I don't know. Probably, the question of a pro-Soviet government was supposed to be the difference between "major victory" and "victory" in strategy games - to win, he needed to conquer the territories near Leningrad. Total domination of Finland was probably something more of an extra objective to achieve if it fitted intp the timeframe. It didn't, so Stalin gave it up, because the he decided, PROBABLY, that the ends didn't justify the means for some reason, probably because of possible international implications, caused by the dragging on of the military conflict.

So I'm probably with you on this one.

Indiana Jones
02-04-2007, 12:25 PM
Fan of Dupuy, then?

Dupuy and his methods have their merits, no doubt. Especially so when it comes to the evaluation of tactical and, to a degree, operational performance. I am not a follower of his, though. Fan ? This is not exactly football.

Allow me to understand: you are comparing two different military institutions, with different doctrines, different material constraints, different socio-cultural establishments, differing scientific approaches and utterly divergent tactical, operational and strategic emphasis - and making judgements based on casualty infliction rates bearing in mind force ratios? All this, whilst not taking into account institutional evolution throughout a six-year conflict? In other words, equating the state of being of the RKKA in 1941 with that of the RKKA of 1945, and comparing this apparently singular military institution with the Wehrmacht of 1941 and 1945 as one continuity, for example?

It is a good jest.[...]


Quote:
I characterized the RKKA and its learning curve performance-wise as going from abysmal to poor.
Lokos:
Both 'abysmal' and 'poor' are value judgements. I ask you a simple question: what is the standard by which you are making such judgements? You assert that you are not using the Wehrmacht in this role. Then where is this standard coming from?



Perhaps I did not illustrate what I am aiming at quite as elaborately as I should have, but your assumptions are over the top. Again, the point of comparison in this particular case, was, as mentioned before, not the Wehrmacht but the Finnish Army in the particular timeframe in question, fully bearing in mind the evolution of both militaries.The Wehrmacht, in whatever stage of Barbarossa, was not part of the equation. We can quarrel all day long about methodology in order to ascertain definitions of effectiveness and/or/as opposed to, efficiency and their reciprocal relations among the contrahents... but the crux of the issue remains how an army exploits its manpower and resources relative to its opponent. This has not to be intermingled with political dimensions, though.


Quote:
the Soviets archieved very little in the Winter war, while the Finns shone.
Lokos:
And yet the Soviets were one operation away from victory in strength - as opposed to the exhausted Finnish potential.

True...but that nothwithstanding, where is the contradiction ? In any asymetrical setting such as this, winning or the potential to do so, is not a yardstick of efficiency- not at all, de facto. The Finns did manage to sufficiently discourage Stalin to press home the advance. The eventual losses outweighed the possible gain.


Quote:
Precisely. I, too, found the following to be rather startling. I´ll let you speak for yourself
Lokos:
A typo. Grant me some credit.

You´re right. I apologise.



Quote:
Glantz, David M.: Stumbling Colossus- The Red Army on the Eve of World War. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, 1998.
Erickson, John : The Road to Stalingrad. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London 1975. (see the first chapter on "reforms and repairs")
Lokos:

Owning both books, I find no passage that states anything approximating 'Soviet performance in the field was constrained by fear and suspicion'. Perhaps you are talking about decisions or lack thereof made by officers, due to a fear of being purged if a mistake was made or was perceived to have been made.
In a nutshell- yes, indeed.

In 1941, doctrinally, the Soviet command chain was highly flawed, and the independence of Soviet officers severely reduced, in favour of heavy command centralization. This fact precludes any sort of 'fear' or 'suspicion'. That fear and suspicion were present in the officer corps is a certainty. Their role and independence, however, were dictated by doctrine - not that fear or suspicion.

Do you not see a correlation between the two factors ? Fear and suspicion, a lack of trust in Junior CO´s in the widest sense, etc. directly shaped the doctrinal fixation on command-push, (as opposed to recon- pull, always relatively speaking) and vice versa. This tendency was, as you certainly know, manifest even among the senior generality until the very end of the war. Which is were we touch some of the more general drawbacks inherent in Soviet military science...

M_S
02-04-2007, 01:24 PM
Scoreboard:
Lokos 35673 - Irritating hordes 0

People seems to try winning a discussion with quantity, not quality.

Jippo
02-04-2007, 02:26 PM
Scoreboard:
Lokos 35673 - Irritating hordes 0

People seems to try winning a discussion with quantity, not quality.

Really? I quite don't see it happening. And who is part of this irritating horde.

Actually he is twisting words to change the supposed intentions of the Soviet leadership. Their intentions were quite clear, and that was invasion of Finland. That is know from the Soviet orders of the attack.

He just likes to argue and people fall in to that. Twisting words is ok but that doesn't change the facts.

Occam's razor is a useful tool also here. If soviets:

- invaded all other countries mentioned in Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
- arranged a fake provocation to start war with Finland in which they had:
+ overwhelming troop and material advantage (1:4 manpower, 1:100 tanks, 1:30 in aircraft[also note how Lokos mentions 1:3 advantage needed for an assault])
+ troops attacking Finnish troops in positions over thousand kilometres from Leningrad
+ bombed also civilian targets all through the country
+ there were three main attacks 1. through Viipuri to Helsinki, 2. north of Laatokka to go around Viipuri defences, 3. to cut the country in two at Oulu by advancing to the northern part of baltic sea.
+ In Lapland troops were to attack from Salla to Rovaniemi and from there to the Swedish border.
+ plans to advance through the country were found when entire divisions were decimated
- After loosing the initial struggle in -39 (the plan was to invade the whole country in just about two weeks with minimal opposition) were tied into a prolonged battle in which they had around 400 000 thousand casualties by end of the winter -40. (again you can note how Lokos fails to acknowledge wounded as casualties)
- If army looses men, it most often looses them in the tip of the spear. This means that after loosing 40% from it's manpower has pretty much lost it's ability to attack.
- After which Soviets gave Finland requirements for peace treaty.



Now if there is clear evidence which makes it look very likely that Soviets were trying to invade Finland but couldn't succeed in it with acceptable cost in material, manpower and time. The most likely reason for that evidence to exist is the the fact that Soviet leadership tried to invade Finland.

This argument is btw. bloody useless and off-topic. Get on with your lives...


-jippo

Lt.Havoc
02-04-2007, 02:38 PM
People, can you please discuss the Soviet-Finnish Winter War in a seperated thread? I know its a intresting topci, but it has nothing to do with the orginal intention of this thread at all. The main goal was to answer some questions I had, regarding the effictivness of the Soviet Army of Cold War xompared to NATO and the current stand of todas Russian Army.

I amy humbly aks you all to please go back on the topic.