I'm just wanting some opinions on which country had a better military overall during the cold war. My opinion is that if the cold war went hot and most fighting was in Europe, the Soviet Union would have won at any point in time during the cold war. The Soviet Union had both very good technology and huge numbers for its land forces. For example, in terms of tanks, the Soviet Union was usually 10 years ahead of the U.S. technologically and produced huge numbers of these tanks. The Soviet Union had a slightly weaker air force than the U.S., but it had by far the best air defenses of any country. Overall, the air war would have been fairly even. The U.S. always has had a far better navy than the Soviet Union, so the U.S. can project force anywhere in the world while the Soviets could only project force in Europe and Asia, though in the Soviet's case, there is no need to project force anywhere else. If it came to it, I think the Soviet Union was more prepared for a nuclear or chemical war as well.
Actually, I take it quite differently. And for different reasons, I will hit on one at a time. But for anybody else, realize I am talking about a purely conventional war comparison. As for tanks, that is both true and not true. While the general design of the Soviet Tanks was often better, the optics and the fire control of the US ones were definitely better. And when the M1 started to roll out, they were definitely messing their pants. So if you are talking 190 and better, I would agree partially. After 1980, I would disagree. However, the Soviets did have a god-awful amount of tanks, and quantity has a quality all it's own. As for the air forces, I think that would have been an ugly battle, then both would likely have been equally devastated, and reduced to raids and strikes. However, the US did have the upper hand no question when it came to heavy bombers. And even though it had not been publicly released yet, any war from 1980 on would have seen the F-117 in action. When it comes to the fleet action, it is no question the US would have the upper hand. The Soviets never really had a serious naval presence. Myself, I and many other strategists (from Sir John Hackett to Tom Clancy) figured that it would first be the Soviets punching West, a long fighting withdrawl through Germany, then finally a push back starting around the French border. One of the biggest reasons I think the Soviets would have eventually lost is how Warsaw Pact tactics have generally done in actual combat. Now in WWII they served the Soviets pretty well, once the Germans had exhausted themselves against Stalingrad and Moscow. But then in most modern conflicts (Iran-Iraq War, Gulf War I and II) they did pretty poorly. Unlike the Germans of WWII (which were defending all of Germany at all cost), NATO would have done a fighting retreat, trying to exhaust and weaken the Soviets as they moved forward, avoiding pitched battles whenever possible. Then striking strategically at logistics depots and supply lines. In an outright fact to face battle, the Soviets would likely have won through sheer numbers. But looking at the strategies of both sides, I think they would have lost an actual war.
Yeah- made me think of the Tom Clancy novel which played with the theme. The other issue that I think would have been huge was the quality of troops- Soviet troops were overwhelmingly 2 year conscripts. I am not saying that their troops would be any less brave, just that training and experience counts.
I would like know which one had the better general staff and command. If the USSR had another Zhukov, but NATO didn't have a Von Manstein then that could be the difference. We saw the Soviets get ripped apart by the Fins in the Winter war and total cockup that was operation Barbarossa, even the Soviet invasion of Iran had it's problems.
I was in the military at the end of the cold war. And we've seen how Soviet gear has fared in various wars since. I think we would have won for various reasons: 1. Better gear and better-trained soldiers. Not really a question here. The Soviets kept a lot of old gear lying around, but couldn't keep up technologically in important things like aircraft, tanks, artillery, communications, etc. The M1, for instance, could take a direct hit from a T-72 and survive. Meanwhile, it could achieve catastrophic kills long before the T-72 was even in range. 2. Better combat endurance. The teeth-to-tail ratio in the Soviet military was about 3-1 (three rear-echelon support troops for every frontline fighter). The U.S. ratio was 10-1. On the one hand, that meant the Soviets had far more combat power for a given number of troops. But that combat power was very fragile, and quickly lost effectiveness. We might have had a smaller ratio of spear tips, but we could keep those spear-tips supplied and rested for a very long time thanks to our very large support operations. 3. Better initiative. Soviet forces were designed to fight set-piece battles where the main maneuver pieces were battalion or brigade-sized. Artillery, for instance, tended to be controlled by battalion and brigade commanders. U.S. forces were designed to fight opportunistic battles, where things could be triggered by a platoon leader or a tank commander. In other words, U.S. forces gave a lot more initiative and responsibility to their junior commanders. That translated into tactical and strategic nimbleness. The U.S. did have some disadvantages. Less strategic mobility in its ground forces, for instance. By that I mean that an M1 used up a *lot* more fuel than its Soviet counterpart, and also weighed a lot more: there were lots of bridges in Europe that a Soviet tank could cross but an M1 couldn't. One reason we had such a huge teeth-to-tail ratio is because we needed it to keep our resource-hungry troops going. But overall, the U.S. and its allies would have won a defensive battle against the Soviets -- and done so decisively.
Red Storm Rising was a good book, but so was "The Third World War", by Sir John Hackett. And the training and experience is also something that would have made a large difference. Up until they got involved in Afghanistan, the Soviet military really did not participate in any conflicts. Sure they sent advisors to many, but no real commitment of troops (other then "occupations" in their neighbors like Poland). The US on the other hand had both the Korean War and Vietnam, as well as many other UN actions from Beirut to Haiti. And that experience would be invaluable. And another major difference would have been in the NCO corps. Most people do not realize that unlike the US military, the Soviet military did not have a "Professional NCO corps". The vast majority of NCOs were simply conscripts that were more "politically reliable", and therefore went to a special school. They did not have the years of experience that most US and other NATO noncommissioned officers had. In an actual conflict, that would have made a world of difference.
All continental Europe NATO members steamrolled in 2 weeks, if conventional. But I pretty sure it would go full-nuclear the day it started with no winners. *caught*Soviet pilots in Korea*caught* *caught*Chechoslovakia and Hungary*caught* Oh,did you? Well it seems that all those Tu-22,95,160 were just a myth then.
And did I not say specifically that they sent "advisors"? *looks back* Yea, I was pretty sure I did. Comparing the experience of some senior officers who acted as "advisors" with entire Mechanized and Air Mobile regiments and divisions is nowhere near the same thing. The Tu-22 was a fine bomber, and in many ways ahead of it's time. But they never had the range they were expected to have, and while their bombing performance in the Iran-Iraq war was impressive, their combat survivability was not so impressive. The Tu-95, a Post-WWII relic? Sorry, not even going to go there. Tu-160, another fine craft. But only a handfull of them built, starting in 1981. Sorry, but when compared to the B-52s and B-1s, there is little comparison. Once again, you are reading what you want, and not what I said. I did not claim that the Soviets had no bombers, only that the US had the upper hand. And simply naming a few bombers the USSR produced does not do anything to show that is incorrect.
Pilots, who actually took part in combat, could not fit into advisors. Same goes for soldiers restoring order. Can't say that was a nice try. All 22 were so called eurostrategic bombers. They never were intended to be able to reach US mainland. Specifically build to take part in European theater. Why would you waste money and resource and build a 10000+ km range bomber if you are going to strike targets, which are max of 2500 km from your airfields? You serious? B-52 and Tu-95 both made their first flight in 1952 .Both have similar specifications. Both are still in active service. Shame on you! Oh, how did post WW2 B-52 relic made it into comparison? There were about 30 Tu-160 and 60 B-1 built. And 160 is objectively better, than B-1. (1000 km/h faster, for one) You are wrong. You don't know, that Tu-95 and B-52 are identical. You don't know how 22 were going to be used------> Superiority you claim is just a fantom. Same goes for tanks(not referring to you specifically). T-80U and some T-72 variants would beat M1 on firepower,protection,mobility, range of attack. Same for M1A1, excluding firepower. Meanwhile, yes, had some weak spots like worse targeting system or crew's greater vulnerability in case of penetration of armor. But there is zero reasons to claim that it is better or worse. just different.
I think there are some very biased answers here. The optics and fire control systems on tanks in the Soviet Union weren't any worse than Western tanks. Maybe the export models were. If you want to talk about messing your pants, look at the T64 tank. The T80 and T90 are more than capable compared to the M1 and its variants. The Tu160 was very similar to the B1, and only in slightly fewer numbers. The same with the Tu95 and the B52. The B2 is fairly worthless in this type of conflict. Plus the Soviets didn't put as much effort into strategic bombing compared to close support for ground troops and interdiction. Relatively old Russian SAMs seemed to have no problem with the F117 in the Serbian conflict. I think it is more likely NATO would have attacked the Warsaw Pact first if or when they thought they had a strategic advantage over them. The Soviet Union's military philosophy was mostly defensive, though I think they could have easily overrun Europe if they wanted to. Iraq made our military look far better than it really was. Iraq had outdated export models of Soviet equipement that were inferior to real Soviet military hardware. If the U.S. has complete air superiority, what their military can do is impressive. But if they don't have this such as in a war with the Soviet Union, it is going to be much more costly. The Soviet Union's strategy and tactics are equal or superior to Western strategy and tactics.
So would the USSR have overrun the whole of Europe or just continental Europe? I mean would the UK have been taken? I would the GIUK gap have been defeated? What would have happen the British forces in Germany, would they have been totally destroyed and their equipment taken?
1. I think they were fairly even in quality of gear and trained soldiers. There weren't problems with training in Warsaw Pact countries until after the breakup of the Soviet Union. T-72s in Iraq were export models that used inferior ammunition and optics compared to the real thing.
They could have attempted to invade England, but I don't know if they would have thought it was worth the cost. I think they'd have had a higher chance of succeeding than Germany in WW2, even though the Soviet military was never really built for a sea invasion. There is no chance of a Normandy or Italian like invasion by NATO, if continental Europe was taken by the Soviets.
But pilots don't win wars, boots on the ground win wars. Infantrymen, Tanks and Artillery win wars. Sure aircraft help, but no war was ever won by "air power". And the vast majority of the Soviet ground forces never heard a shot in anger between WWII and Afghanistan. And most of what they did have were occupations, against a largely unarmed populace. Interesting shot, Tu-95 next to B-52. Tu-95: Max speed: 920 km/h Max Payload: 15,000 kg Max Range: 15,000 km B-52: Max speed: 1,047 km/h Max Payload: 31,500 kg Max Range: 16,232 km So kindly tell me again how they both have "similar specifications". The 52 has greater range, greater speed, and over twice the bomb load of the 95. That is not similar at all. And yes, I know the 160 was similar to the B1 oldjar. Did I not say it was in many ways ahead of it's time? I have not said that any of the Soviet bombers were junk, nor that they could not fulfill their missions. However, they did not have enough of their best ones, and their most common ones were not well suited for the missions they would have had to perform in a European war. Part of the problem comes im trying to make judgements in all of this is when the combat would be. Earlier, and you have the US with M60 tanks. Later, and they have the M1. Midpoint, and you have lots of Pershing ballistic missiles in play. I am mostly trying to place my estimates in the early 1980's, since that is when most people seem to think such a war was most likely to occur. And I am also leaving out quite a few things as well, since there is no firm date. Mostly, I am going off of generalities like basic equipment, training and tactics. Yet people keep trying to bust my balls on meaningless pokes on equipment, completely missing the most important parts.
Let me open up the discussion about Soviet combat training. Again- as I recall most of their troops were 2 year conscripts- and as I think Mushroom pointed out- they didn't have professional Non-com corp. And this brings me to Afghanistan- wasn't one of the things that was fairly apparent in that war was the low level of training of the troops(not necessarily pilots)? I am no expert but it seems to me that Afghanistan would be the place to see what shape the Soviets were in for combat.
It's the UK, not England. I think there is a good chance that the USSR could have taken the UK, if they can break the GIUK gap and cut Britain off from the US using their submarine fleet. However I also think if they failed to take Britain, I could lead to a Anglo-American amphibious invasion of continental Europe like D-day.
It is much more then that. Te Soviets trying to take over Europe would have been much harder then Germany trying the same thing in WWII. For starters, they would not have had an allied Italy to assist and help secure the southern border. They also would not have had a neutral but friendly Spain and Portugal holding down the south-western border. They also would not have had a friendly Norway on their flank. Look at the size of Europe West of the "Iron Curtain", and it should be obvious that trying to swallow up all of that territory becomes and absolute nightmare, both militarily and logistically. To much territory that is hostile, not enough that is friendly. Look at the amount of time it took them to push from Moscow to Berlin, and I am amazed that anybody actually expects them to occupy Europe within a few months. Italy alone would have been a major operation, being cut off as it is by mountains. Greece is no better. And Turkey on their Southern flank, perfectly poised to drive in and cut off a big chunk out of their logistics routes.
I think the same thing would happen. There is no way NATO could have held the Soviet Union back, so they would resort to nuclear weapons first. There are winners in a nuclear war, but it would be very costly. I think the Soviet Union had better preparations for nuclear war while Western nations would be less prepared. Even though the Soviet Union could have easily won a war in Europe, they didn't use their military for offensive purposes as much as other nations do. It doesn't really make sense that they built up their military that much during the Cold War. I think they just overcompensated from an Operation Barbarossa type invasion happening again.
Lets not forget how reliable their 'allies' were too- Poland, East Germany, Hungary- the Soviets not only had to conquer Europe- but they needed to keep troops ready to quash any attempts of revolt by their putative allies.
Your not one of those people are you? The people who thinks the USSR was good a peaceful until the big bad west started invading Korea.
The threat from the USSR to the UK was their submarines attacking North Sea oil rig and cutting the UK fuel supply, so we had about 30 submarines at the time. If the USSR destroyed North Sea rig and the power started going out, riots and marshal law to keep the peace. Then the USSR's initial attack goes well, the British army in Germany is destroyed and the RAF take heavy losses. The allies can't counter until southern France, middle of Italy and Greece and it looks like the USSR is going to win, there could have been a attemped leftwing coup against Thatcher by the trade unions and some within the Labour and Liberal parties, maybe even some Conservatives. I know it may sound stupid today, but it was a real possiblity in the early 80's with the power the unions had. The coup would have failed because the Monarchy would step in and stopped it, but it would mean the UK basically being unable to do anything for a number of weeks even months.
Those countries might not be occupied that fast, but I think it would only take a couple of weeks for everybody to realize which side has lost the war, which would be NATO.
Soviet military actually took part in combat before Afghanistan. That was all I was saying. I just can't understand what are you arguing with! Dude...do not dissapoint. Don't you know word "perspective"? An-124 on the background is enormous but looks smaller due to it. Similar enough. I understand your intension, but 16 000 is not so bigger than 15 000, same for 52 100 km/h higher speed. Both 95 and 52 would be used as cruise missile platforms, both, if i am not mistaking, can carry about 16 of them. Of course 52 have an edge in bomb payload....which is useless in case you are not willing to send them and the crews to suicide bombing runs with no chances to reach their target at all.So....in your face. They performing identical in the missions they would be used, with you agree or not. Got smth in your proof? Last time I checked Tu-22 were fulfitting their objectives. Or, wait, I forgot. Subsonic B-52 will have much greater surviveability, than Tu-22 moving twice of it's speed or 20 meters above the earth. [video=youtube;z-MHEiOUK6c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-MHEiOUK6c[/video] Um, didn't I said i wasn't refering to you in this part? Was just fine, if you check combat losses of USSR in Afghanistan and USA in Vietnam. Besides, I think conscription is way better than so-called professional military in case of major war. Allows to have huge reserve. USSR, for one, have it the size of 30 million people.
Why then did the early production model have in-flight refueling capability, which gave it the range to strike targets in US? It only became a 'eurostrategic' bomber after SALT 2 required removal of the refueling probe.
Even if there is a good chance that the Soviet Union couldn't invade the UK, a D-day invasion would be impossible if the USSR had control of continental Europe. The D-day invasion was only possible because of the Soviets in the Eastern front, and they started offensives in the east to divert more German troops there.
