Soviet military vs U.S.

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by oldjar07, May 14, 2013.

  1. oldjar07

    oldjar07 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,915
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    You watch too much Enemy at the Gates. They only shot their own troops in very limited circumstances. It may have started to decline in the mid 1980s, but it was still more powerful than NATO until the very end of the Soviet Union. The Russians have their own GPS, GPS jammers, and guided munitions.
     
  2. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Stalin purged millions of his own, either directly executed, starved or to the gulag. What makes you think he cared about his troops other than bullet stoppers to deplete a finite number of German supplies?

    I don't want to get too far removed from the OP...but c'mon....the average Russian or Soviet satellite conscript is little more than cannon fodder to the Kremlin....expendable. Stalin purged the military in '37, and even demoted Zhukov after the war...

    yes by the early 80's the Soviets had more personnel, tanks, artillery and nuclear weapons than any other Nation on Earth. They spent nearly 35% of their GDP on military spending...but the West still maintained a technological edge. The best the Soviets could have done is throw bodies on the battlefield which has been their style of fighting since WWI because they would lose a technology based limited war. NATO had superior equipment and technology by the mid-80s.

    Lenin said it himself...

    "Quantity has a quality all its own"

    Look at the high rates of alcholism and suicide in the Red Army all through the Cold War.
    It was worth the trade-off to the Kremlin for masses of easily mobilized and trained soldiers, supported by masses of battlefield weaponry

    Comrade Tank and Comrade Soldier....now pass the vodka..today we die.

    Frenchmen Marshal Saxe wrote centuries ago Wars are not won by big armies, but by good ones."
     
  3. KGB agent

    KGB agent Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    3,032
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    In 1990 USSR was world's #2 economy and had up to 20% of world's industrial potential. Anyway, it has nothing to do with military.
    Do you honestly think there will be hordes of French willing to die to defend their German friend and partners?
    Oh, that made me laugh a bit. Too much "Enemy at the Gates"? Okay, Americans never cared about the lives of their soldiers. Remember how they were sending a wave after wave of GI canon foodler with no chance to retreat at the beaches of Normandy to attack mashineguns? Also they can send a company of soldiers to suicide misssion of saving a single one just because random General wanted to. That is what average American is for US HQ. Canon foodler and garbage to waste. That is it, "Saving private Rian".
    Comfortable to think so, isn't it? So why didn't almighty US army liberated China then? It was so easy!

    You tactical and strategic knowledge is size of a mountain. Not. You know, that 1941 was the period of time both USSR and Germany had the highest casualties? By December 1941 Germans lost up to 50% of their forces dead/wounded/MIA. For one, it wasn't some random day of "Battle for Britain" with highest casualties for Luftwaffe. That was 22 June 1941, the day they attacked USSR (with 300 planes lost).
    That is what they call Blitzkreig. A massive organised attack on the enemy not beeing prepared for defence. That is what would happen in case of conventional war. Same to Germany offence in 1941. Same for USSR offence in 1945. Same in some random 1985. Whatever NATO was planing, but there is no chances they would possibly hold 5 million troops, 60 thousand tanks and 10 thousand aircraft. It would ended in 2 weeks at the beaches of English channel. You are twisting your "facts" end explanations to fit your mindset.
    Ah, too long supply lines. Typical invaders' excuse in any modern war. Somehow USA are fighting two wars on the other side of the globe without logistics failing. Sometimes they refer to "climate" as they didn't know what they would face, that was a mystery and their enemy wasn't fighting in the same conditions.


    With a tiny difference that there would be enormous ammounts of all AA types and no air superiority.
    Soviet doctrine supposed active use of tactical nukes for breaching fortified positions and "stable lines at which to defend". So why not using chemical weapons if you are already using nuclear?
     
  4. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I overlooked this and apologies for that...this is a well stated post...

    In this time period we're discussing, the Cold War...USAF deployed 639 aerial refueling tankers during the same period, the Soviets could muster but 50. I have heard the term teeth to tail ratio before, and you bring up a good point...the Soviets were concerned about getting bullets and missiles downrange... it lacked the trucks and maintenance support to resupply and sustain itself in combat for more than a few days.

    Bottom line up front...while it's tip of the spear was formidable...it was top heavy and unsustainable in a protracted conventional setting. Eventually the Soviets would have resorted to chemical weapons as it's chemical corps was vastly better equipped and trained than anything NATO could muster up...and NATO, in particular the U.S., would retaliate with tactical nuclear weapons. It would escalate quickly into a very serious situation..

    WMD vs. WMD...

    Unwinnable basically for either side; I just think you make an excellent point about Soviet doctrine at the time which neglects logistics in place of front-line soldiers and equipment. I too, served in the latter part of the Cold War and for every aircraft there were 151 airman vs. one aircraft for every 106 Soviet airman. Their equipment was often not as well maintained as a result.
     
  5. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Is that why during their invasion into Georgia virtually every military expert (and even many from Russia) commented on the huge lack of GPS systems and guided munitions in the Russian offensive? 20 years after the fall of the USSR?
     
  6. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And with that comment, I am pretty much of the realization that I am attempting to converse with somebody that has a completely closed mind, and really does not know what they are talking about.

    [​IMG]

    This coming from an individual who gives nothing but argument with no reasoning or real military thought to back their case.

    And please tell us, where has all of your military expertise come from? SOF magazine and reruns of The A-Team?
     
  7. KGB agent

    KGB agent Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    3,032
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You were wrong. I explained why you are wrong. Just as I did that a lot of times. Cheap demagogy won't help you.
    Nice to see you are not arguing with anything I told. Because these are facts, not twisted opinion.

    And yeah, I served in the military + were reading several memoirs of WW2 commanders recently. Besides, you don't need to be a professional football player or coach to argue about football, neither you need to be a politician to argue about politics. So...in your face.
    [​IMG]

    Maybe they were forming a public opinion the way somebody desires? Some "Russian" experts were saying that it would be very long and very costly. And look how situation backfired on them.
    True about GPS. Lie about guided munitions.
     
  8. oldjar07

    oldjar07 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,915
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    What a bunch of BS. Russia has more logistical vehicles now than the U.S. does, so I'm sure the Soviet Union had more, too. Why would the Soviets need aerial refeuling tankers? Generally, Soviet equipment wasn't as maintenance intensive as NATO aircraft and didn't need 151 airman for every one aircraft.
     
  9. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    30,071
    Likes Received:
    1,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Granny says any dem Russkies come `round here...

    ... she gonna inrtroduce `em to the business end...

    ... of a Mossburg 12ga.
    :grandma:
     
  10. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. There's an abandoned tank depot in Ukraine you should visit.
    Acres and acres of rusted out, abandoned tanks...literally abandoned. Relics from the Cold War. The U.S. mothballs a lot of their old equipment, drains the fluids, stores them in arid environments where they don't just rust away. The former USSR simply walked away. It's indicative of their doctrine of expendability, from their troops to their equipment. I'd argue their maintenance programs are 2nd rate and have been so even in the prime of the Soviet regime. Their priority is not logistics it's getting bullets, bombs and missiles downrange. Overwhelm their foe, a lesson learned from WW2, they were caught flat footed in the initial phases of the German offensive into Russia, and eventually overwhelmed them with personnel and equipment...and it was the United States and Britain that provided the logistical equipment, from trucks to repairing their railroads. Not much changed throughout the cold war....that's my opinion. The former USSR was nowhere near the level of logistical support that NATO would have had access to. Beans & bullets to support the tip of the spear for a sustained fight...this is what the United States was the best in the World at doing..and still is. Supporting the warfighter.
     

Share This Page