Military Doctrine

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

StudentofConflict RE:Soviet Military Doctrine & Tactics 12/12/2003 12:47:46 PM

The most important factor in any Soviet invasion of West Germany would have been the quality of NATO's strategic intelligence. The "absolute power" the US displayed in 1991 required many months to assemble and ready. Now, operating from the NATO infrastructure in Germany, it would have been far quicker to deploy the allied forces. But how long did REFORGER take to complete? Would the "bolt-from the blue" scenario, where the Soviets suddenly attacked without warning with the GSFG armies have been able to defeat a NATO taken totally by surprise and unreinforced? We know that Soviet doctrine emphasised surprise at all levels, from tactical to national strategy. We also know that if the Soviets were good at anything, it was lies and concealment ( or Maskirovka).Air-Land battle may not have helped NATO if its soldiers were chilling in barracks around Frankfurt or Munster whilst the T-80s were rolling through the Fulda Gap.

Quote Reply

joe6pack RE:Soviet Military Doctrine & Tactics 12/12/2003 2:04:36 PM

I think post Gulf War we have tend to become pretty smug about "what if" the Warsaw Pact had gone rolling through in 80's.. Some things to consider in that regard: 1) Reforger would likely have been a bust. As pointed out it took months (of unoposed - transport to build up for GW1). We've found that modern warfare is if nothing else FAST. Even if it took only two weeks to move forces from mainland U.S. to Germany, where would the fighting be at that time? Now this might be different IF NATO had seen the attack coming and was in the middle of REFORGER before the fighting started. 2) Its unlikely that NATO would achieve immediate air superiority (if for just sheer numbers of the PACT airforce) Going back to how FAST modern warfare is... How hurt would NATO groundforces be if they had to fight a few days without the air supremacy that we've become accustomed to? 3)Artillery. How hurt would NATO ground forces be in the initial barrage.. Something that western powers have not really been subjected in recent history. (particularly in the quantity and quality the Warsaw Pact could potentially dish out) I think these are all things that NATO commanders were very worried about at the time. I'm sure there were no shortage of war plans that involved using tactical nuclear weapons against soviet formations. Now we have learned "some things". As has been mentioned - It would appear the Soviet Army was nowhere near as profficient as we thought and our technical edge was perhaps a little better than we thought... I think the real question of an 80's NATO vs WARSAW PACT showdown would have been skill vs endurance. Rather than tactics and doctrine (both sides had good ideas on paper) W.P. would have been an issue of skill, their lack of a proffesionals (and perhaps motivation)from the private on up and their polically correct command structure I believe would have seriously hampered them in their doctrine. NATO, I think would have been a question of endurance. Would NATO formations have held together enduring a continual pounding? How badly would they have been hurt by Warsaw Pact units that might have broken through the lines?

Quote Reply

StudentofConflict RE:Soviet Military Doctrine & Tactics 12/13/2003 1:12:14 PM

Another NATO problem would have been the incorrect deployment of NATO forces. The wide plains of Northern Germany, most suitable for a Warsaw Pact armoured offensive, were not held by all of NATOs strongest forces. BAOR were up to the job, and the Germans, even if conscripts, would have been fighting to defend their homes and families, and would have been extra motivated by German memories of Russian atrocities in Eastern Germany in 1945. What about the Belges and Dutch though? Okay, they would have been fighting to protect the approaches to their homelands, but both were conscript forces, and their stupid soldier's trade unions, IMHO, reduced their training standards and readiness. Why were they allowed to go back to their barracks every night on training exercises? Would they send the Russians a note, saying please only attack the British, German and US forces till tomorrow morning? The US forces, despite their oodles of long range firepower were in a lot closer terrain to the south, which would have reduced their ability to exploit their long-range capabilities. Surely the Soviet plan would've involved a diversionary attack against CENTAG, with the intention of pinning them in place, whilst the main weight of their attack would have been against NORTHAG.

Quote Reply

macawman RE:Soviet Military Doctrine & Tactics 12/17/2003 10:18:06 PM

Student: I believe you got it right. The Soviets thru the use of traitors knew our plans for counter-attack. And yes, the Dutch & Belgium Corps were the weakest points in the NATO line. Since we knew this I am sure that NATO Ops planned to counter this situation.

Quote Reply

mike_golf RE:Soviet Military Doctrine & Tactics 12/19/2003 7:36:53 PM

I'm pretty sure, regardless of what we think today, that a war in Germany between NATO and Warsaw Pact would not have been a straight forward victory for NATO. There are the considerations others have brought up, specifically: 1. Russian quantative advantage and technical parity in terms of artillery. 2. For several days NATO would not have air superiority. Command of the air is fairly decisive at the brigade to divisional level of engagement. 3. A strong possibility that Soviet Maskirovka would have allowed for at least operational surprise, potentially even strategic surprise. 4. In the event of #3 REFORGER would take at least 15 days to accomplish and the war could well be over by then. 5. The North German Plain was defended by units that should have been in CENTAG, and vice-versa. 6. Regardless of how politically necessary it was, Forward Defense had the potential to be a massive disaster, as the Wehrmacht found out in 1943-45. Aside from all of that, there are some other issues to consider: 1. The Belgians and Dutch would have presented the clear schwerpunkt for the Soviets, and they likely would have been able to effect a breakthrough against them. 2. American, German and British technology for the ground forces was not as superior to Russian technology then. The T-64/72 generation of tanks had parity with the Leo I, M-60, etc., for example. Soldier quality and training would have made a big difference, but enough to overcome surprise and numbers? 3. As has been proven numerous times since France, 1940 the defense is not the advantage it used to be. With reasonably precise artillery and air, and tanks and infantry employed appropriate the attacker has the advantage. Given all of that it would have been a close run thing. The key to it would be which set of operational planners had the advantage in the decision cycles. If the Soviet optempo was faster than the NATO decision cycles that would be the endgame. And vice versa. The Soviets knew that, thus their field marshalls demand for strategic surprise.

Quote Reply

joe6pack RE:Soviet Military Doctrine & Tactics 12/22/2003 7:56:53 PM

Mike brings up some good points. One of things I've always wondered is if NATO's plans allowed for a more flexible defense. Allowing formations to maneuver and fight a more mobile style of warfare, that I'm sure would play more to NATO's advantage. OR would politics and a German desire to defend their homeland force more of a static defense.. Would Germans obey orders from non German commanders to abandon positions to the soviets.

Quote Reply

Ulenspiegel RE:Soviet Military Doctrine & Tactics 12/23/2003 5:18:30 AM

Back in 1985/86 when I was doing my military service as drafty most of us and many of our officers were under the impression that in case of war we would have only a few days before the whole thing would get nuclear. The dilemma was indeed that an alternative strategy - real manouver warfare instead of forward defense - was politically not feasible in Germany. Ulenspiegel

Quote Reply

StudentofConflict RE:Soviet Military Doctrine & Tactics 12/26/2003 4:52:04 AM

Mike-Golf, I'd have to seriously dispute your statement that attack has an advantage over defence.The WW2 blitzkrieg only worked against enemies that were seriously unprepared (like the Polish, French or 1941 Russians). By 1943, war had returned to the attritional model of WW1. Look at Kursk, the Bulge or Kharkov. Post-1943, battles were won by massively superior numbers and firepower, not daring maneuverist thrusts. Look at the Normandy campaign. The oft-quoted myth of the Wehrmachts tactical superiority can be disputed by the fact they stood on the defence, when even a handful of men with Panzerfausts could hold up an armoured column.Despite the allies advantage in ofensive forces, massive numbers were what won it. Maybe these days with modern comms and PGMs the offensive has an advantage, but we've yet to see two entirely modern forces go at each other.

Quote Reply

joe6pack RE:Soviet Military Doctrine & Tactics 12/26/2003 10:44:52 PM

I think modern forces in the defense have one major worry... If the enemy knows where you are at they can kill you. I think classical static defense in modern warfare is a loosing proposition. Munitions are far more accurate and more powerful. Entire grid squares can be targeted with a high probability of killing everything in it. The failing of the Wermacht, was when they attacked russian strong points instead of bypassing them. Modern Warfare, if you know an enemy is dug in somewhere.. use enough force to fix him in position and then blow the beegesus out of him with arty and air.. leaving your manuever force to rampage behind his lines...

Quote Reply

polyarmus RE:Soviet Military Doctrine & Tactics 12/27/2003 10:15:22 PM

I have couple of points to this topic: 1 - are you so sure that the NATO would be able to get air supremacy? I know - if anywhere had NATO technological advantage, than it was airforce, but: Soviets were definitely avare of this fact; the WP airforces had great advantage in numbers; western airforces were concentrated on couple of airbases, that could have been attacked at the beging of the war with possibly devastating outcome (tactical missiles, air strikes - not only NATO had long range attack aircrafts like Tornado or F-111 - what about Soviet SU-24) 2 - if the war would have been long enough to get additional US troops to europe, than war on sea becomes to be important topic. heavy equipment like tanks can be transfered only by ships and convoys would had hard time on sea full of Soviet subs. 3 - you have completely omited WP forces - Poland, E. Germany, Czech,... of course quility of these armies may be arguable (and mainly their willingness to fight) but still they constitute quite reasonable force 4 - several times you have stated that WP would and in gigantic trafic jam together with colapse of its logistical system - but the same would probably happen in the west. WP had enough aircrafts to creaty big upheavel on western side of German borders + the refugees fleeing from western germany before the Soviets + big number of special forces with directly this goal - to create havoc + the WP armies were probably more used to the state of "disorder" - well sort whole eastern block was one big disorder... and also all equipment was very durable, created especialy with adverse conditions in the battle in mind.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT