 |
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimmytrick
Interesting assertion. Can you point out some source material to substantiate that the Soviets would have seriouslyembraced such a conflict? What would the motivation have been? |
In 1948 Stalin mobilized the Soviet armed forcesbefore initiating the Berlin blockade. A very sizeable chunk of the Red Army was deployed not only to East Germany, but also to areas along the western borders of Checkslovakia and Hungary. Reserves were called up. The force he deployed was several times the size of the remaining Allied armies in western Europe, a force way beyond the size needed to conduct a defense.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
DS:
You make some good points, however, one thing I want to point out:
quote:
In terms of conventional weapons the USSR and its Warsaw Pact allies held a vast commanding lead in Europe from the end of WW2 until the end of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. In terms of quality Russian tanks were better than Allied tanks at the end of WW2. |
This is certainly true, but I don't think it tells the whole story. Instead of comparing US and Soviet tanks on an individual basis, I think it makes more sense to compare them on a unit-by-unit basis. Now, obviously the US and Soviet Union never fought, however, the US and Germany did.
German tanks were, on an individual basis, significantly better than the M4 Sherman (well, any German model from the Panzer IVH on up). However, if you look at the performance of Panzer divisions vs. US Armored Divisions, that qualitative advantage did not translate into victory on the battlefield. Panzer divisions were smaller, politically constrained in some ways, and did not receive enough supplies.
I think the same would have been true for Soviet armored divisions. Certainly, Soviet divisions were smaller than American divisions. Soviet divisions would have been politically constrained as to their operations (and, for that matter, their doctrine was inferior to US doctrine anyway). I also find it highly likely that the US would have enjoyed a logistical advantage - first, they would have been on the defensive, and secondly, I think that NATO would have enjoyed superiority in the air, and would have been able to interdict Soviet supplies. The Soviet Navy could have tried to interdict US convoys, naturally, but I'm not sure that this would have been successful, and in any case, the US had a great deal of pre-positioned supplies and equipment in Europe.
US troops would also have enjoyed better training, and would have benefitted from superior intelligence.
So, yes, Soviet tanks were individually superior, at least until the 1980s, but I don't think that this individual superiority would have given them victory, any more than it gave the Germans victory.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
Don't forget country music
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
Nuclear weapons prevented the U.S. and U.S.S.R, from going to war but do you think it will stop Pakistan and India from going at it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
DS:
You make some good points, however, one thing I want to point out:
German tanks were, on an individual basis, significantly better than the M4 Sherman (well, any German model from the Panzer IVH on up). However, if you look at the performance of Panzer divisions vs. US Armored Divisions, that qualitative advantage did not translate into victory on the battlefield. Panzer divisions were smaller, politically constrained in some ways, and did not receive enough supplies. |
By 1944 the Allies had such overwhelming control of the air that it was rare for more than 30% of the motorized equipment of a German division to make it to the western front. I've often said that the tanks that won the war in the west were the P-51 and the P-48!quote:
I think the same would have been true for Soviet armored divisions. Certainly, Soviet divisions were smaller than American divisions. |
The Russiand often used corps like divisions.quote:
Soviet divisions would have been politically constrained as to their operations (and, for that matter, their doctrine was inferior to US doctrine anyway). I also find it highly likely that the US would have enjoyed a logistical advantage - first, they would have been on the defensive, and secondly, I think that NATO would have enjoyed superiority in the air, and would have been able to interdict Soviet supplies. |
In 1948 US planes were still superior to Russian planes, but the Russians had huge numbers of fighters in the west. In 1949 the new Russian MiGs were clearly superior to American jets. When piloted by Russian volunteers in Korea they usually bested Americans, but Chinese and North Korean pilots weren't as proficient. quote:
The Soviet Navy could have tried to interdict US convoys, naturally, but I'm not sure that this would have been successful, and in any case, the US had a great deal of pre-positioned supplies and equipment in Europe. |
The US didn't have that much pre-postioned equipment in Europe after the boys went home until the 1970s when the US had to begin to consider that the Soviet nuclear forces were finally nearing parity. quote:
US troops would also have enjoyed better training, and would have benefitted from superior intelligence. |
In 1948 the Soviet Union had humongous numbers of veterans. quote:
So, yes, Soviet tanks were individually superior, at least until the 1980s, but I don't think that this individual superiority would have given them victory, any more than it gave the Germans victory. |
You mean like overwhelming numerical superiority, such as the Soviets had on the eastern front from 1943-1945, might have swayed the decision?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ErikM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
German tanks were, on an individual basis, significantly better than the M4 Sherman (well, any German model from the Panzer IVH on up). However, if you look at the performance of Panzer divisions vs. US Armored Divisions, that qualitative advantage did not translate into victory on the battlefield. Panzer divisions were smaller, politically constrained in some ways, and did not receive enough supplies.
|
Well, Allied tanks outnumbering Germans 10:1 was probably helpful, too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pax Africanus
Don't forget country music |
Huh? Are you talking to me? Are you talking to me? I'm more of a classical music freak than Boris Gudinov! That's the truth. You can't handle the truth!
Hey, what ever happened to Boris? Not Oncle Boris, I mean the real Boris. I haven't seen anything posted by him in a while.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
DS:
quote:
You mean like overwhelming numerical superiority, such as the Soviets had on the eastern front from 1943-1945, might have swayed the decision? |
Sure, but I'm talking about the Western Front, where the numerical superiority was not as great.
quote:
In 1948 the Soviet Union had humongous numbers of veterans. |
True, but they also had so many casualties from WW2 that they were no more capable of fighting a major war than France was after WW1.
As for your other points, I think that it really depends upon what year or timeframe you want to talk about.
I think that it's also the case that without nuclear weapons, the US would have maintained a much larger conventional military. Sure, Truman (and Eisenhower) were interested in cutting back, but they only cut back so far because they had the nuclear card to play, especially Eisenhower with his doctrine of massive retaliation. So, without these nuclear weapons, we're also looking at a much larger US conventional military.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
The taxes required to amtch the Soviets tank for tank and plane for plane would have been so high as to virtually guarentee a Libertarian victory at the ballot box. |
The US didn't need to match the Soviets tank for tank and man for man. NATO, as a whole, had a much greater industrial and economic potential (and thus a much higher warmaking potential) than the Soviet Union had. Without nuclear weapons, I find it likely that NATO as a whole would have maintained larger conventional militaries, ESPECIALLY the US and Germany (and I also think German re-armament would have been quicker, if the need became apparent).
Further, even if we are assuming US vs. SU, the US still didn't need to match the Soviets on a one-for-one basis. The US would have been on the defensive, which means that it did not need exact numerical parity in order to emerge victorious. I would also argue that throughout the Cold War, US tactical doctrine remained superior to Soviet doctrine to such a degree that Soviet numbers might not have been as imposing as they appeared on paper. The US would also have possessed other "force multipliers", such as superior training and vastly superior NCOs - in the Red Army, NCOs were largely conscripts, serving IIRC 2 year terms of service, the same as other draftees, while the US NCO corps was much more professional and served for much longer periods of time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
The US didn't need to match the Soviets tank for tank and man for man. NATO, as a whole, had a much greater industrial and economic potential (and thus a much higher warmaking potential) than the Soviet Union had. Without nuclear weapons, I find it likely that NATO as a whole would have maintained larger conventional militaries, ESPECIALLY the US and Germany (and I also think German re-armament would have been quicker, if the need became apparent).
Further, even if we are assuming US vs. SU, the US still didn't need to match the Soviets on a one-for-one basis. The US would have been on the defensive, which means that it did not need exact numerical parity in order to emerge victorious. I would also argue that throughout the Cold War, US tactical doctrine remained superior to Soviet doctrine to such a degree that Soviet numbers might not have been as imposing as they appeared on paper. The US would also have possessed other "force multipliers", such as superior training and vastly superior NCOs - in the Red Army, NCOs were largely conscripts, serving IIRC 2 year terms of service, the same as other draftees, while the US NCO corps was much more professional and served for much longer periods of time. |
The problem with your analysis is that numbers are much more comforting than less tangible things like superior training and defensive emplacements. Congress would have struggled a great deal with the desire to acheive numerical parity in every detail. Remember also that until 1972 most US troops were conscripts too, and in the 1960s troop quality suffered a great deal. Furthermore, after the well know debacel of the Maginot line the NATO powers would not have been satisfied with a static defensive policy, nor would many have been very comfortable with a more extensive German rearmnament.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
The problem with your analysis is that numbers are much more comforting than less tangible things like superior training and defensive emplacements. Congress would have struggled a great deal with the desire to acheive numerical parity in every detail. |
Yes, but as you yourself point out, numerical parity would have been politically impossible. What would NOT have been impossible, though, would have been something approaching numerical parity for NATO as a whole. Historically, actually, the NATO alliance as a whole has had more military manpower than the Warsaw Pact - obviously, though, much of it was not stationed at the decisive point, in Germany.
Another major problem with the numbers game was the pull out of the French. Without nuclear weapons - that is, without having the ability to independently deter aggression - would France necessarily have effectively pulled out of NATO? I think it might have been less likely. If French divisions had been added to the NATO OrBat in Germany, the numerical situation would have been somewhat alleviated, especially when additional US forces would have been added.
Could Great Britain have provided more ground forces? Personally, I doubt they could have done much more, although perhaps the BAOR could have been somewhat strengthened. The same can be said for Belgium, the Netherlands, and Denmark. I can't really see Italy providing major ground forces in Germany, or, for that matter, any of the "southern flank" NATO nations (if they existed at all, which depends on the year in question).
The biggest opportunity for military expansion, I'll say again, would have been Germany. Had NATO not had nuclear protection from the United States, and if the only counter to the conventional forces of the Warsaw Pact were conventional forces of their own, then I really can't see NATO nations opposing a bit more German military power. Naturally, Germany wouldn't have built a 2 million man army, or anything of the sort, but a modest increase wouldn't have been out of the question, IMHO.
quote:
Remember also that until 1972 most US troops were conscripts too, and in the 1960s troop quality suffered a great deal. |
Very true, yet the quality of US troops, and the quality of their training, was still greater than that of the Soviet Union, and again, the US NCO corps was vastly superior. Further, much of the decline in troop quality was the result of Vietnam (same with the modernity of US equipment, at least for forces stationed in Vietnam). Would Vietnam have happened in our non-nuclear world? Who knows.
quote:
Furthermore, after the well know debacel of the Maginot line the NATO powers would not have been satisfied with a static defensive policy |
Naturally, but the Maginot Line failed primarily because the Germans were vastly superior to the French in terms of concentrated mobility and tactical air power. I see no reason why NATO would NOT have concentrated armored and mechanized divisions in reserve, and I see no reason why NATO would have fought it out to the death on the East/West German border.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Naturally, but the Maginot Line failed primarily because the Germans were vastly superior to the French in terms of concentrated mobility and tactical air power. I see no reason why NATO would NOT have concentrated armored and mechanized divisions in reserve, and I see no reason why NATO would have fought it out to the death on the East/West German border. |
Damn... and there was me thinking that the Maginot Line failed because the Germans just bypassed it, by going through the undefended gap (the Ardennes forest.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Damn... and there was me thinking that the Maginot Line failed because the Germans just bypassed it, by going through the undefended gap (the Ardennes forest.) |
Isn't that what I said?
If the French had concentrated their mobile forces, and had significant tactical air power, the German breakthrough probably would not have defeated France. On the other hand, if the Germans did not concentrate their mobile forces, and/or if they did not effectively use their tactical air power, it's quite likely they never would have even forced a decisive breakthrough at all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
The French were relying on the Maginot Line, simply put, and concentrated the vast majority of their men there (and used it as a major supply and storage center.) They had no good defense when flanked.
The French didn't consider that an army could effectively traverse the Ardennes. If they had then they would have continued the Maginot Line through this area.
They considered that a static defense was sufficient... it wasn't that their forces were necessarily inferior (well, excluding the fact that they were French for a moment)... they just never attempted to engage the Germans.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
I think that in order for communism to work it has to have every resouce available so eventually they would have had to conquer the world or fall apart. Which they did.
And capitalists have new new markets so these ideologies would eventually have came into conflict if not for Nukes.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-03-2004 04:58
|