The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 8, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Leadership Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Military Doctrine
M4A3E2(76)W    6/20/2003 5:07:16 PM
I love this subject almost as much as physics.

I would like to start with soviet cold war doctrine. I think it is the easiest to understand. I will go so far as to say, it?s brilliant in its simplicity.

Who wants to go first?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
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

joe6pack    RE:Soviet Military Doctrine & Tactics re: Polyarmus   12/27/2003 10:38:58 PM
1) "western airforces were concentrated on couple of airbases, that could have been attacked at the beging of the war with possibly devastating outcome" Not true, the bulk of the american airforce is stationed within the U.S. and would have been rapidly deployed where needed. In general, NATO airbases are pretty numerous and dispersed. The chances of them being knocked out early by surprise missile attacks is slim. I'm pretty certain that the NATO advantage in equipment (quality) and training of pilots, plus the airborne command and control abilities would have eventually gained air superiority. The real question here is how long would it take.... and would it be too late by then. 2) I agree - However, the entite NATO fleet which was superior in numbers and quality and was specificly designed to defeat that threat. That being said though... If the Russians managed to successfully attack a few convoys.. that may have been sufficient for a land based victory. 3) Not really, but its the same reason we don't spend a lot of time talking about all the other NATO countries.. IF the Warsaw Pact and NATO had fought it out in the 80's victory or defeat would rest primarly on the Russian Army on the Pact side and the German, American and British Armies on NATO side - all the others on both sides would have contributed, perhaps even greatly, to the fight... However, you remove any of the "key" players and its likely the outcome would be vastly different for that side. 4) Actually I agree with you there. WP only had to head West as fast as they could. NATO would be faced with civillians fleeing West and reinforcements and supplys moving East. I don't think either side truly appreceated what a logistical nightmare this would be. Both sides would have to wory about breaks in the line allowing armored forces to ravage their supply lines. Even at the best outcome for either side in the air war.. the first few days would be heavily contested.. and we all know what airpower can do to massive convoys (see highway of death - GW1)
 
Quote    Reply

polyarmus    RE:Soviet Military Doctrine & Tactics re: Polyarmus   12/27/2003 11:11:53 PM
the airbases true is that bulk of US airforce is dislocated in US - but you have to move tham and that takes some time + you have to have where to move them. I have checked list of airbases of USAFE on www.globalsecurity.com and its something like 30+ that is not much at all and lot of them are bases of Royal Airforce so you get to airforces in one blow. and if (of course its if but anyway) Soviets were able to attack first (Soviet doctrine heavily accented suprise attack) then I'm sure they would commit quite a lot to take out these airbases.
 
Quote    Reply

polyarmus    RE:Soviet Military Doctrine & Tactics re: Polyarmus   12/27/2003 11:17:52 PM
other countries - the point is, that other NATO countries like Spain, Italy and so on would been realy important in this conflict. countries importent for decision in land battle were Germany, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands and France on Nato side and Poland, Eastern Germany and Czech on WP side becouse these are on the front. For example Poland was supposed to take out Denmark and Czech or Czechoslovak army was supposed to be leading element in direction somewhere to southern France (but I realy doubt we would have been able to get at least in the middle of Germany, not mention France...)
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack    RE:Soviet Military Doctrine & Tactics re: Polyarmus   12/28/2003 9:11:29 AM
"I have checked list of airbases of USAFE on www.globalsecurity.com and its something like 30+" Thats after nearly two decades of major base closures.. In the 80's the bases were more numerous. Also as mentioned there are a whole lot of NATO countries. Each with a fair amount of airbases. You are also discounting American Naval aviation, which is considerable. I believe, France (in theory) was supposed to be responsible for holding the rear areas and if needed starting a second line of defense. I think as mentioned in earlier posts - The U.S. and U.K. were part of CENTAG, which covered terrain that was less freindly to rapid armor warfare. However, the U.S. and Britian also had heavily armored formations. "Czechoslovak army was supposed to be leading element in direction somewhere to southern France" If the Czechs were leading the charge into CENTAG for France you are probably right, they would not get far. NORTHAG with the Denmark and Belgium is also important because its the best area for armored advance and those two countries were probably in the worst position to defend that area. There are so many "what ifs" that I don't think anyone is really in a position to say how it would actually have turned out. You mention Poland, Eastern Germany, Czechs, etc.. How relaible were these troops to the WP? If you think about this hypothetical conflict taking place in the mid 80's - those countries ties to Russia were really becoming weak. How willing would east Germany have been to fight with the knowledge that if things started to go well for Pact forces, the use of nuclear weapons on German soil would become ever more probable. However, on that same note. France's loyalty to NATO has always been somewhat in doubt (at least by me) I thinks its possible that Russia could have kept France out the war with diplomatic threats... Theres also Turkey, that has a huge military (if not the most advanced) How likely would they be to strike at Russia from the South if Germany was attacked? I think it comes down to this - If the WP achieved surprise and its initial attacks caused more damage than anticipated and the PACT commanders were able to control the advance and stick to the plan.. and the war stayed conventional.. I beleive the Warsaw Pact would have won. I think in most other events it would have been a close thing either way... too many intangibles to say for sure. However, if it came down to one side or the other decisively winning... I'm certain tactical nulcear weapons would have come into play. Loosing Europe would have been completely unaceptable to the U.S. and U.K. and probably France.. Thatcher and Reagan would most definetly given the go ahead. I'm sure the Russians would have felt the same way if they were being pushed back into Pact territory and or if some of the PACT countries started to break away.. At this point it would no longer be about tactics and doctrine - but if both sides could stop themselves from sliding down the slope of an all out nuclear exchange..
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:does the attacker have the advantage   12/31/2003 4:50:58 PM
Actually, if you look at Kursk, or the Bulge, which are two good examples, it is pretty clear that the Germans did not lose because the defenders had the advantage. Kursk - If the Soviets had simply fought a static defense the Germans would have won the field tactically. If you want a good analysis of this battle, read von Mellenthin's "Panzer Battles". The Soviets won because they fought a defensive battle of manuever. The Bulge - The Germans had inadequate supply and their operational controls assumed impossible rates of advance. Thus when the 101st Airborne got to Bastogne first the Germans were screwed. But the battle was won by Patton's counter attack, not defenders in holes in the ground. If the Americans had stood on a purely static defense they would have lost tactically speaking, although the German attack couldn't possibly have changed the course of the war. The idea that the defense has the advantage comes from WWI. After 1915 the Allied strategy was essentially static defense and a war of attrition. If this would really work in modern (let's say post 1935) conditions then France would have won in 1940 and Germany would have won in 1944, Iraq would have won in 1991 and so forth. Look at modern conflicts and you will see that the side that stands on the strategic defensive invariably loses UNLESS they can switch to at least an operational offensive posture, preferably a strategic offensive.
 
Quote    Reply

polyarmus    RE:does the attacker have the advantage   1/4/2004 5:05:21 PM
Before WW2 Czechoslovakia was building probably the best defence system in the world (arguably better than Maginot line) but still no one ever thought it can win the war. It was just another way how to slow down the attacker in waiting for our allies :-( to come. The defender can only hope to win the war of attrition or for some "out of the conflict" solution (like in Czechoslovak example).
 
Quote    Reply

polyarmus    RE:does the attacker have the advantage   1/4/2004 5:11:20 PM
And another point. Imagine two similair forces, say each 1000 men, fighting on 1 km wide front. One force is purely defensive (and static), the other is going to attack. The defender can virtualy put one man on metr of the front. The deffender can commit all the forces on one spot and easily break through. Of course this is oversimplified and you have to take in acount type of weaponry and possible maneuvrable force on the side of the deffender and so on. But one point is I think clear. The attecker has on BIG advantage. He can choose the place, time and mean of attack. And that realy is BIG advantage.
 
Quote    Reply

trooper    RE:Soviet Military Doctrine & Tactics re: Polyarmus   2/8/2004 3:11:25 PM
If I could just narrow the focus and ask what way would an armoured battle in Germany between NATO and WP in the 1970's developed? Where would the soviets have chosen to attack? How fast would the have moved and howfar would the get? (take it that it would not have gone nuclear)
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    Soviet/NATO conflict circa 1975   2/8/2004 11:01:28 PM
If the Soviets had invaded West Germany in 1975, or thereabouts, it would have been a NATO disaster most likely. The US Army was a shambles after Vietnam. The conversion to an all volunteer force and the reforms being made had not yet had a chance to fix the morale, drug and training problems. Many American NCO's were 90 day wonders who had decided to stay in the Army because they couldn't compete as well in the civilian world. The US Army's equipment was outclassed by Soviet first line equipment at the time. The new equipment and changes in the US military would not start coming online until 1980, roughly. Trust me on this, I was a young private in 1976 and I was pretty convinced the Soviets were going to roll right over us if the balloon went up. There really was only one choice for their campaign. One army would engage and hold the American VII Corps in Bavaria. The intent here would be to hold them so they couldn't disengage and reinforce the V Corps in central germany. The 8th Guards would attack through Fulda and drive for the Rhine with a final objective of Frankfurt. Two armies would attack through the north german plain with final objectives in Belgium and Holland. The northernmost army would have tough fighting against BAOR and the German units it faced. But the southernmost army in northern Germany would probably roll over the Belgians and Dutch, splitting the NATO forces along the NORTHAG/CENTAG seam. This army would drive deep in accordance with Soviet doctrine, threatening to surround and defeat NORTHAG if they didn't withdraw. Quite possibly, given the weak state of the US Army, 8th Guards, which was equipped with T-64's, would also achieve a breakthrough against CENTAG at Fulda. If this occurred the entire front would be ruptured. However, Once the Soviets achieved breakthrough in the north (and they only had to have a breakthrough there), USAREUR CINC would probably request nuclear weapons release. BAOR would probably be requesting the same thing from the British government. At this point the battlefield would probably go nuclear, followed by a strategic exchange that might or might not have gotten out of control. For an excellent analysis of what would have happened I can recommend two books, both written by men who should know: 1. "The Third World War", Sir John Hackett 2. "Red Army", Ralph Peters Anyhow, I think that the USSR, led by very conservative men who managed to survive Stalin and the incredible infighting of the Communist Party after Stalin's death, was not about to risk a nuclear war. They didn't really want western europe at this point anyhow. They wanted the middle east, or parts of it anyhow. It's instructive about Soviet intentions and strategy to note that the only time they increased troop strength in the Group of Soviet Forces, Germany (GSFG) is when the US and UK reduced their forces in Germany. Now, if we really consider things, I would posit that the real reason for this is that the Soviets wanted to ensure that Germany could not again threaten or invade them. Twice was enough, thank you very much. It's hard to see this from today's perspective, or even from the Western perspective then, but much of the Soviet military decision making was because of their own perceived weaknesses seen from the inside. Russia has been at odds, or war, with the west several times in the past 200 years. Three times they either were seriously threatened or defeated by the west (1812, 1914-1917, 1941-1945). Because of the, at the time misunderstood, conflicts with China and the fracturing of the COMINTERN, the USSR felt strongly that they were more or less encircled by enemies: NATO to the west, China to the southeast, and Islam to the south. Where ever the USSR's marshalls looked they found too many enemies and not enough force to deal with it. And ultimately their economy could not withstand the demands placed on it to face these threats, both real and perceived.
 
Quote    Reply

macawman    RE:Soviet/NATO conflict circa 1975   2/8/2004 11:37:16 PM
WOW, very succient with good strategic insight of what the Soviets perceived as their major threat to Mother Russia. I also agree with you about the state of the US Army during the 70's. See the Gen. Sly Meyer report to Congress on the subject. I think the US is unneccesarly pushing Russia's 'Motherland' button by the purposed placing US major supply/training bases on their border in former WP countries. But we do need to get our combat arms divisions out of Germany. (The 1st Armd Div is not going back) Our combat training is being smothered by all the restrictions there.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy