What is your opinion on the Soviet's military capabilities

Might have worked but different than you'd expect

For one, russians would have probably been able to continue the war after an all-out nuclear exchange. Their shit was cheap, plentiful and they could reasonably expect to conquer europe in a post-apocalyptic world. Down to your regular armored car they were fallout-proofed and fitted with air filters and what not.

In terms of sheer military capability the US was always on top of them at any point but the nukes would hurt them more.

File: images.jpg (6KB, 299x169px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 299x169px

It's a very vague question desu. The Cold War stretched over 40 years, and the militaries on both sides underwent some drastic shifts in capability and doctrine over that time. My area of knowledge really only encompasses the naval aspect of the conflict, but I personally feel the Soviet Navy was pretty lacking for a great deal of the Cold War. I feel their ability to contest the North Atlantic and cut the movement of supplies and reinforcements to Europe was insufficient, and without those convoys being stopped, their plans of 7 days to the Rhine didn't have a popsicle's chance in hell.

Pretty much inferior at most fields, but had strength in numbers. But still any open conflict between PACT and NATO would've been a bloodbath on both sides.

Fucking everybody involved on all sides was really, really glad that it never happened. That should tell you all you need to know.

>>34314747
7 days means they're there before anything substantial can even be shipped across the Atlantic and then organised enough to be sent into combat.

>>34313700
Nothing to be trifled with, and I'd say the Soviets had outright conventional superiority from the 70s to the early 80s. Though NATO of course closed this gap before outright eclipsing the Soviets at the end of the Cold War it's hard to imagine a situation that doesn't lead to inevitable nuclear escalation if it doesn't begin with nukes in the first place.

>>34313700

From the early 1970's to the introduction of the F-1* series of aircraft, the Soviet Union would've gained aerial superiourity in Europe and win a conventional war.

>>34313700
A friend of mine was 1st Bn, 75th Ranger Regiment. Served in Nicaragua, Panama, and Iraq. I loved talking to him about his time in, and he told me about this plan the US Military had in case of invasion from the Soviets:

"We were always in alert in case that happened. We would have been up in Washington (don't remember where) and our primary objective would have been to slow down their advance and fall back. That's all we could have done, because we would have been overrun."

Now this isn't saying that the Soviets were fucking top dog at the time, mainly because I don't know. I'm not very knowledgable in the differences of military might between the two super powers. However I thought this piece of conversation would be related to the thread.

>>34313700
>What is your opinion on the Soviet's military capabilities during the cold war?
Pretty much superior to American until the 4th gen of jet fighters. The soviet's had a huge edge in armour, SAMs, and ATGMs. The americans have Pattons and M113s to the soviet's T-72 and BMPs? Not even a contest. Air forces were in rough parity, Phantom vs. Foxbat was a close battle, and without any kind of air superiority, contesting superior soviet technology on the ground, the soviets would have won a land war in europe.

>>34314870
>inferior at most fields
Complete bullshit.

>>34315072
>Phantom vs. Foxbat was a close battle
wat
Foxbat is a flying SAM site with little to no frontline value other than the reconnaissance versions.

F-4 vs Mig-21/23 on the other hand would have been a close match considering the Migs would most likely have outnumbered the F-4s and other NATO fighters 2-1 in many cases. (Even more in some areas)

>>34313738
>In terms of sheer military capability the US was always on top of them at any point but the nukes would hurt them more.
The USSR always had conventional superiority, the US couldn't hope to win a conventional war in the same style as ww2.

Naval supremacy means very little when all of Europe has already fallen before you've properly mobilized, good luck launching another D-Day against something that isn't a rear front composed of outnumbered and underequipped garrison forces.

American nuclear doctrine was the equalizer, which in turn let superior American economy and technology become a factor.

Without nukes the USSR would have pushed whatever forces were in Europe into the sea before mainland America could react, and the only avaliable airbases from which to operate would be british ones. The war would have been lost then and there.

With nukes Germany would be turned into a literal wasteland to stop the soviets from overwhelming Europe, which would allow the US to reinforce and dig in, and utilize their superior economy and technology to fight a war of attrition. Particularly important is the fact that the USSR is vulnerable to bombing by air if the US keeps a foohold in Europe, while it would be almost impossible for them to strike back at the US mainland.

Czechs and Hungarians would have openly revolted the minute the soviets told them to go to war.

Romania and Bulgaria would have been irrelevant.

It would have been the soviets, Poland, and east Germany.

File: Ui1F2MB.jpg (67KB, 681x475px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 681x475px

>>34313700
>Whats your opinion on the current Russian military capabilities?

Different question, same answer. Its shit.

File: 412185.jpg (3MB, 2858x2143px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2858x2143px

>>34315072
I'm afraid your appraisal of the cold war is wrong, Anon. While the T-72 may APPEAR to be a better tank it isn't, when you compare the FCS of the 72 to the M60 you start to notice how behind the curve the soviets really are. Soviet tank guns have and always will be dogshit when compared to western guns, and I am skeptical of the reliability of the autoloaders in GEN 1 T-72s right off the production line. There is a seven year gap where the soviets MIGHT have been able to claim armored superiority before the Abrams was rolled out. What you forget is that the TOW exists and that america mounted it on fucking everything, from M113s to helicopters, the soviets have never come close to matching us when it comes to ATGMs and I can fucking school you if you want on this. The BMP-1 being an effective combat vehicle is laughable when you consider that America has the M2 and lots of them. Another Anon has called bullshit on your F4 versus Foxbat comparison so I wont touch it. You are wrong, Anon.

>>34315016
I don't know why he is saying that, because the Soviets would have never ever ever invaded the Continental USA

>>34315911
Did they ever have any unofficial or theoretical ideas about trying to invade? I figured that realistically invading the mainland US would've been an absolute nightmare no matter which way you sliced it but the "what-ifs" were always interesting.
>>34313700
Nothing to scoff at, people readily underestimate the Soviets Cold War conventional capabilities. They probably had an absolute edge in the 70's that petered out by the mid-late 80's when we started modernizing the shit out of our military. A lot would depend on the ability of the NATO countries to hold their own, and the readiness (and troop numbers) of said countries varied considerably. The Warsaw Pact and the USSR consistently maintained very high numbers of troops throughout the Cold War while many NATO countries slowly cut their militaries down over time.

File: 1495256402426.jpg (259KB, 1277x1077px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1277x1077px

>>34315072
>Phantom vs. Foxbat

One of these is an interceptor and the other a multi role fighter.

File: ss (2015-01-05 at 08.18.13).png (82KB, 641x1389px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 641x1389px

>>34314870
>Pretty much inferior at most fields
>That level of delusion

File: red-dawn.jpg (92KB, 762x1035px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 762x1035px

>>34315911
YOU SHUT YOUR FUCKING MOUTH FAGGOT

>>34316496
You're falling for counter intelligence. CIA-UUUU, You-F

>>34316426
>people readily underestimate the Soviets Cold War conventional capabilities

No they do not. Stop peddling that meme to give your "MUH DISRESPECTED SOVIETS" canard a foundation. What people accurately assessed as being inferior was Soviet technology, even at its relative best with regards to NATO.

>>34316426
Soviets needed high troop numbers in Europe because Warsaw pact was a more tenuous alliance than NATO. Had war broken out, there's a very real possibility that the Soviets would at best, receive minimal support, or at worst, face actual rebellion from several member states.

>>34316573
Not to mention the human element, the historic hilariousness of Russian/Soviet ineptitude in all fields of warfare.

>>34315016
>We were always in alert in case that happened. We would have been up in Washington (don't remember where) and our primary objective would have been to slow down their advance and fall back. That's all we could have done, because we would have been overrun.
Anon, I have bad news about your friend. [spoiler]He's a liar[spoiler].

File: севастополь.png (173KB, 640x1000px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 640x1000px

>>34316607
>hilariousness of Russian/Soviet ineptitude in all fields of warfare.

>>34316640
Dont make me post the pic of that Russian Fleet getting BTFO by Brittish trawlers Borris

>>34316573
I'm vehemently anti-Slavaboo, but to state that a Cold War gone hot would've been a cakewalk is ridiculous. We didn't start churning out most of our really good shit till the late 70's-80's. Our military wasn't in the best state in the 70's and we would've been rather hard-pressed had war broken out.

>>34316640
We were not ready for WW2 when it broke out, furthermore the loss of the Philippines was mainly due to MacArthur being a massive faggot. Our air cover was gone and the Filipino military was underequipped and undertrained.

>>34316640
One happened on the other side of the fucking planet, and most of those forces were Filipino

>>34313700
>Mig 15 : superior to anything else at the time (until late F-86 Sabres which were roughly equivalent)
Mig-21 : fucked the early F-4's in the ass in Vietnam because it had a cannon and was highly maneuverable. F-4 missiles had a less than 16% probability of Kill against a small highly maneuverable opponent (AIM-7D and E being less than 10%), and considering the early F-4 didn't have a cannon they were essentially useless against Mig 21s until the pilots started adding gun pods.

The Russians were ahead for a while there, but it evened out around the 80s

>>34316609
He was my JROTC instructor. And he goes to a lot of Ranger reunions. As a matter of fact he has Ranger stuff all over his truck when I saw him.

Unless that's not what you were talking about of course.

>>34319350
>He was my JROTC instructor.
> As a matter of fact he has Ranger stuff all over his truck when I saw him.

Yeah.....

>>34317193
oh, when will this meme die?

>>34313700
At certain points superior but the gap was growing larger and larger with the US and NATO and by the 70's they were inferior in terms of general air, land and naval parity.

If you're talking a shooting war, the Soviets had a "no first use" nuclear policy, while America did not, which is basically code for the Red Army would have rolled across West Germany and France, and it would have been us to fire the first plutonium shots.
The Red Army at its peak was extremely formidable. We could not have beat them in Europe.

A few poorly disciplined savages with outdated and downgraded Soviet gear is hardly comparable to the 3 million well trained, well organized, well equipped and disciplined soldiers that was the Red Army at its height.
We need to remember how tenuous our position was against the threat of Eurasian communism so we may ensure no country ever again can rise to militarily challenge the United States of America.

>>34319799
which one? Mig-15's being the most advanced fighter at the time when they were first built, or F-4's being woe-fully mis-equipped for the actuality of air combat in Vietnam?

I mean giving an aircraft no cannons and missiles with a <18% probability of Kill (<10% for the AIM-7D and E) isn't exactly preparing it well for combat.

>>34319372
Alright man.

I'm just repeating what he's told me.

>>34316556
Even today that combo would be fearsome

>>34319817
>the Soviets had a "no first use" nuclear policy,

I disagree.

Every single plan they made involved at the very least tactical nukes for rapid breakthroughs and these were organic with every single artillery group.

Their main objective was trying to use maneuver groups to deny the nuclear assets on weakened enemies as fast as possible, and otherwise use tank divisions to steamroll defenses and achieve the same thing on more prepared enemies,

If in avoiding the strategic use of nukes you need to use a few tactical ones to reach the enemy in time and deny them, seems like a good tradeoff.

Every single army group had NBC platoons, every vehicle was NBC prepared and the army was particularly designed to sustain shitty combat in bad logistic situations produced by nuclear area denial at the rear.

If anything soviets would have been the first at dropping the nuke, they were clearly expecting a nuclear enviroment and NATO use of tactical nukes would have been just "fire to the fire".

>>34313700
gonna dump some numbers:
soviet army:
>55,000 tanks, including 4,000 T-80, 10,000 T-72, 9,700 T-64, 11,300 T-62, 19,000 T-54/55, and 1,000 PT-76.
>70,000 armored personnel carriers, including BTR-80, BTR-70, BTR-60, BTR-D, BTR-50, BTR-152, and MT-LB.
>24,000 infantry fighting vehicles, including BMP-1, BMP-2, BMP-3, BMD-1, BMD-2, and BMD-3.
>3,500 BRDM-2 and BRDM-1 reconnaissance vehicles.
>33,000 towed artillery pieces, including 4,379 D-30, 1,175 M-46, 1,700 D-20, 598 2A65, 1,007 2A36, 857 D-1, 1,693 ML-20, 1,200 M-30, 478 B-4 howitzers and D-74, D-48, D-44, T-12, and BS-3 field/anti-tank guns.
>9,000 self-propelled howitzers, including 2,751 2S1, 2,325 2S3, 507 2S5, 347 2S7, 430 2S4, 20 2S19, 108 SpGH DANA, ASU-85, and 2S9.
>8,000 rocket artillery, including BM-21, 818 BM-27, 123 BM-30, 18 BM-24, TOS-1, BM-25, and BM-14 multiple rocket launchers.
Scud, OTR-21 Tochka, OTR-23 Oka, and 9K52 Luna-M tactical ballistic missiles.
>1,350 2K11 Krug, 850 2K12 Kub, 950 9K33 Osa, 430 9K31 Strela-1, 300 Buk missile system, 70 S-300 (missile), 860 9K35 Strela-10, 20 Tor missile system, 130 9K22 Tunguska, ZSU-23-4, and ZSU-57-2 army air defense vehicles.
>12,000 towed anti-aircraft guns, including ZU-23-2, ZPU-1/2/4, 57mm AZP S-60, 25mm 72-K, 61-K, 52-K, and KS-19.
>4,300 helicopters, including 1,420 Mi-24, 600 Mi-2, 1,620 Mi-8, 290 Mi-17, 450 Mi-6, and 50 Mi-26, 6 experimental Mi-28 and 2 Ka-50.

>>34313700
soviet air force:
>160 tu 95
>35 tu 160
>30 Myasishchev M-4
>120 Tupolev Tu-22M
>80 Tupolev Tu-16
>30 Tupolev Tu-22
>90 Su-27 Flanker
>185 MiG-21 Fishbed
>40 MiG-25 Foxbat
>700 MiG-23 Flogger
>540 MiG-29 Fulcrum
>200 MiG-31 Foxhound
>500 MiG-27 Flogger-D
>130 Su-7 Fitter-A
>535 Su-17 Fitter
>630 Su-24 Fencer
>340 Su-25 Frogfoot
>84 tankers
>40 AWACS
>1,015 Reconnaissance and ECM aircraft
>620 transport aircraft

>>34320206
soviets had 2 air forces
Soviet Air Defence Forces:
>210 Su-27 Flanker
>850 MiG-23 Flogger
>350 MiG-25 Foxbat
>360 MiG-31 Foxhound
>500 Su-15 Flagon
>90 Yak-28 Firebar
>50 Tu-128 Fiddler

>1,400 S-25 Berkut
>2,400 Lavochkin S-75 Dvina
>1,000 Isayev S-125 Neva
>1,950 Almaz S-200 Angara
>1,700 Almaz S-300

>>34320221
soviet navy:
>63 ballistic missile submarines
>72 cruise missile submarines
>64 nuclear attack submarines
>63 conventional attack submarines
>7 aircraft carriers / helicopter carriers
>3 battlecruisers
>30 cruisers
>45 destroyers
>113 frigates
>124 corvettes
>35 amphibious warfare ships

>>34320230
soviet naval aviation:
>125 Tupolev Tu-16
>15 Tupolev Tu-22
>95 Sukhoi Su-17
>100 Sukhoi Su-24
>80 Yakovlev Yak-38
>50 Tupolev Tu-142
>40 Ilyushin Il-38
>90 Beriev Be-12
>118 Mil Mi-14
>113 Kamov Ka-25
>106 Kamov Ka-27

>>34320179
>>34320206
>>34320221
>>34320230
>>34320243

What about the VdV?

I would expect them to deploy and seize airports deep in Germany or France(depending on the initial scale of the conflict) even before the tanks start crossing the borders.

Like they were supposed to be different from NATO airborne operations since they deployed more numbers and were totally mechanized giving them more tactical mobility(and probably strategical if SHTF for them and still had fuel)

But I think that they also deployed 2s1 along pt-76, along konkurs mounted on BRDMs and I would be interested in knowing if along that they
And more interstingly, did they had Mi-24 along for the ride?

I know they are pretty vulnerable to air superiority but as far as I understood soviet would try to keep air superiority even if that meant heavy air losses, so the real threat are SPAAGs(flakpanzer gepards) and MANPADS.

>>34314870
you might be able to say that in the 80s onward but 50s-60s the reds had our number.

>>34320372
Ok, im pretty sure this includes that one time Israel shat all over the airforce of three countries during the six day war.

Somebody post that one account of that Czech drill that the soldiers and staff though was the real thing.

>fully half the equipment was nonfunctional or outright missing
>entire platoons fucking off to avoid dying for the regime
>nobody knew what the fuck to do or where to go
>these guys were supposed to advance as far as possible and hold off 80% of NATO for three days

>WARPAC
>capable of winning
>at any point of the cold war
"No."

File: Russian_Air_Force_MiG-25.jpg (368KB, 1023x681px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 1023x681px

>>34315072

>Phantom vs. Foxbat was a close battle

F-4 Phantom - introduced in 1960
MiG-25 Foxbat - introduced in 1970

The Foxbat is clearly superior but it arrived a full decade late. By then, the US was already working on the F-15 Eagle, which was introduced in 1976.

>>34315814
>marginally lower quality is relevant to a numerical advantage exceeding the classical 3:1 threshold

please fuck off

>>34319817
Leaked Russian plans disclose frequent use of nuclear weapons to assist movement of their conventional forces. Some polish military leader also became a double agent after seeing similar planning.

>>34319817

>the Soviets had a "no first use" nuclear policy

This only applied to things like strategic bombers and ICBM's. They were much more "liberal" with regards to things like tactical nuclear systems.

>>34320179
>>34320206
>>34320221
>>34320230

What year are these numbers for?
>>34320243

File: 1497865487869.jpg (179KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 720x720px

>>34319799
Read a book, you delusional americlap

>Denying that the soviet migs in 'nam didn't have an advantage over US planes in a dogfight
Next thing you're going to tell me is that you won the vietnam war lad

>>34320798
1990

>>34320810

>Dog-fighting is relevant

>>34320810
>forced the North to surrender
>not winning

>>34319896
Nah, anything less than a T-72b1 today is just begging to get fucked by some nigga with an RPG.

File: 140429-baker-saigon-tease.jpg (1MB, 2560x1707px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1707px

>>34320856
Sorry what was that?
I can't hear you over the collapsing American puppet regime

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Saigon

File: EvZj_PpSyXw.jpg (92KB, 740x822px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 740x822px

>>34314952
There was a joke in the 80s French army :
198x, Champs Elysées, Paris. Two Soviet colonels are congratulating each other for the fast victory in Europe, sipping on captured wine, when one suddenly stops, and asks the other with a scared expression on his face :
"I just forgot something... did we win the air battle?"

With more seriousness, WarPac would have stomped the shit out of NATO in Europe, even with China as an enemy, in both nuclear and non nuclear scenarios.

Then it would have been a stalemate because there's no way the Soviet navy could beat the US one and reach the American mainland. So, if the massive strategic nuclear exchange hasn't happened yet, it happens now.

>>34315720
>Bulgaria irrelevant
>Poland following the USSR
what the fuck? Poland and Romania were the weak spots of the Pact, which would have revolted in a heartbeat. Czechoslovakia, mixed. Bulgaria on the other hand had a relatively small but very competent army, at the gates of the Bosphorus, and if would have engaged in a fierce battle with Greece and Turkey along with the USSR to get control over the straits.

Two interesting unknown values are the behavior of China and Yugoslavia. They could have as well stayed neutral, or fought for any of the sides, depending on the behavior of both blocks.

>>34316556
True, these could be used to smack the shit out of any developing country, or even some European states.

>>34320630
FFS, the Foxbat was designed to be a better fighter than the B-52. That's all. Try with the MiG-23 Flogger instead.

>>34320829
>implying it wasn't

>>34320879

It really wasn't.

>>34320907
Definitely was in the 60s at the beginning of guided missles mate. I'd produce a counter argument but that's simply incorrect

Why do you think they put gunpods on US jets that weren't equipped for them from design? Because guided misses weren't reliable in a life or death situation there

>>34320829
Time to read about the air war in vietnam, friendo.

This is exactly the thinking that the US went in to the war with "no one dog fights any more - don't need cannons, missiles will kill everything"
How wrong they were.

>>34320856
>forced the North to surrender
If by surrendering you mean taking over all of southern Vietnam then yes, I suppose you could call that surrender. "Surrender" after winning the war completely and driving the US from your soil.

>>34320907
You should read about the early F-4 phantom they started the Vietnam war with. No cannons and missiles with less than 16% Probability of Kill.
Even Mig-21s with their cannons only could shit on early phantoms. Crews had to start adding their own gun pods out of necessity.

Watch some documentaries on phantom pilots - they complain they had been given an aircraft that didn't work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62fIyD5ag_c

Dogfighting was very much a thing in Vietnam - to the initial surprise of the US pilots and staff. no one was prepared for it.

>>34321223

That only happened because of poor training of fighter pilots at the time. The USAF considered itself a bomber force and training for fighter pilots was essentially a non-priority. Once pilots learned to use the missiles properly, those issues disappeared.

>>34321253
>Once pilots learned to use the missiles properly, those issues disappeared.
They really didn't It wasn't a problem of "learning to use the missiles properly" The missiles had mechanical problems that no amount of "correct usage" could overcome.
The climate exacerbated these problems and so we see some very poor performance of AIM-7 and AIM-9 missiles in Vietnam.

This was still a teething period for AA missiles, so it's nothing to be ashamed about, Soviet AA missiles were just as bad.

Pilots describe launching a missile, it falls straight to earth without even igniting. They launch another, it ignites, but fails to track the target. They launch another, it also fails to track. They launch another, it doesn't even come off the rail. And there we go - all 4 AIM-9 missiles from an F-4 fail and the enemy is too close to use an AIM-7. What do you do then when you have no cannon?

Also the missiles were mostly designed to take out bombers that weren't maneuvering. They had trouble with highly maneuverable fighters like the Mig-21.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-7_Sparrow#Sparrow_III
>Of the 612 AIM-7D/E/E-2 missiles fired, 97 (or 15.8%) hit their targets, resulting in 56 (or 9.2%) kills. Two kills were obtained beyond visual range

That's not a very effective missile. the AIM-9s were only marginally better. (16% Pk for early AIM-9) Not a lot to do with pilot training, although it didn't help that they had literally no dissimilar combat training - all their "dogfighting" was done with other F-4's and not on missions time (so essentially done on the sly)

The missiles did improve slightly as the war went on, but they still had atrocious Pks

>>34321223
>Crews had to start adding their own gun pods out of necessity.
No, they didn't. The USAF decided they wanted guns, but the USN never added guns and just actually trained their Phantom pilots for fighter combat and ended up with better exchange ratios than the USAF.

>>34321253
And here's the AIM-9:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder#Vietnam_War_service_1965.E2.80.931973
>In total 452 Sidewinders were fired during the Vietnam War, resulting in a kill probability of 0.18.

>>34321200
>Time to read about the air war in vietnam, friendo.

oh boy
>don't need cannons, missiles will kill everything"

and missiles did kill everything even with all constrains of immature tech and doctrine deficiencies, i think you may be reading pop-history at best

>>34321309
>No, they didn't
They did. Watch some documentaries or read a book. Crews added Vulcan gun pods underneath that weren't even tied into the radar of the aircraft. Later the USAF decided this was a good idea based on the results.

I didn't know that about the Navy not using the models with guns (they did have gun pods briefly), but they did have better training for a while there so could make sense. What's your source on that anyway?

>>34321223
That was more due to atrocious doctrine and training more than anything else, some of which can be attributed to the tactical/aviation genius Boyd.

>>34321330
>missiles did kill everything
Not with Pks of less than 10% and 18%. They may have killed a few things, but a whole shit ton of US aircraft were also shot down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War#USAF_fixed-wing

>>34321359
Once again, the doctrine and training can't make up for a missile that simply falls off the rails, or fails to track, or is easily defeated by a highly maneuverable fighter. It wasn't really the blame of the doctrine and training (although it didn't help), but more just a teething period of AA missiles.

>>34320860
It's not about armor or caliber. It's about mobility. Gecko was first AA system with all it's components on one chassis. All this stuff provided Soviets incredible and unseen capabilities within the confines of Deep Battle doctrine.

>>34320292
vdv had 6 airborne divisons and 13 air assault brigades in 1989 i guess there gear is counted in numbers above
irrc vdv didnt deploy pt-76 it was deployed by naval inf. but i might be wrong
and yes i guess they had mi 24s in air assault brigades
hope this helps

File: USSR motor rifle rgm 1979.png (356KB, 1468x1970px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 1468x1970px

Just count amount of cannons and ATGMs and compare it to US one on M113.

File: ss (2015-03-10 at 10.39.23).png (187KB, 727x1741px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 727x1741px

>>34321424
And all of that BMP-1 were capable to kill an M60 in one hit.

>>34321253
>learning to use a missile properly
>getting a lock and pressing the fire button
Do you realise how dumb that statement is

>>34321368
You realize that the USA only lost 250 planes to air-to-air combat in Vietnam out of roughly 10,000 total air losses? F-4s weren't great against MiGs, but lets face it, the MiGs weren't exactly great against the F-4s either.

>>34321549
That's wrong though. There is plenty of technique involved in increasing kill percentage, especially during that era. You still have to maneuver into the right range and the target has to be at a good aspect.

All radar missiles were semi-active which means you have to maintain lock the entire time, unlike now where you can split S and run once the missile takes over. Even now missile shots aren't guaranteed hits.

File: 05onfire1_xp-facebookJumbo[1].jpg (202KB, 1050x549px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1050x549px

>>34321675
>10,000 total air losses

>>34321675
if the usa lost 10000 airplanes in vietnam against some illiterate peasants why do you think it can win a war against russia
thats why i hate trump supporters

>>34321464
With the AT-3, and that's not news we knew about that ever since the Egyptians used them to wreck havoc on Israeli armored formations.

>>34321890
Note that the 10,000 number includes helicopters. Fixed wing losses were
>2,251 USAF
>530 USN
>193 USMC

In terms of fixed-wing losses per sortie, the USAF actually did a lot better than the raw numbers make it look. They had a loss rate of just 0.4 per 1,000 sorties, compared to 2 per 1,000 sorties in Korea and
9.7 in WW2.

The overwhelming majority of losses - helicopters - was due to some pretty obvious factors
>flying low and slow, making them vulnerable to ground fire
>helicopters even today are death traps
>missions more often than not had helicopters flying into situations as dangerous as Wild Weasels

>>34315666
>Without nukes the USSR would have pushed whatever forces were in Europe into the sea before mainland America could react, and the only avaliable airbases from which to operate would be british ones. The war would have been lost then and there.

There's no way the USSR could be at the end of the Iberian Peninsula before the US could react. Assuming no resistance the Soviet army would have to move at an average of 20 miles per hour to get to the Iberian Peninsula before the US could deploy a division sized force in about a week. For comparison the Wehrmacht moved at about .8 miles per hours on average in France in 1940.

Keep in mind the resistance that would be put up by the various European countries and US forces already in Europe.

>>34322023
Vietnam was over 50 years ago, do you really think we haven't changed how we do shit in the time since? Why weren't Saddam's illiterate soldiers able to knock thousands of our planes out of the sky despite having a technologically more advanced AA system than the PAVN did?

File: Sovietdoctrine.png (187KB, 535x636px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 535x636px

>>34322219

The soviets for starters didn't mind losing units if that meant that the momentum of the offensive could be kept and creates a total breakdown of enemy defenses.

The first echelons would mass(in nuclear scenarios not so much but still) in the weaker parts of the defenses and penetrate at full speed, and keep going while some division(I'm saying this out of logic, for the soviets, tactical things starts at the division level so logically this would be unit level that would deal with defenses face to face) eliminates the fortifications from every possible direction, always using the maximum firepower from every possible branch and without much regard for human life .

The first echelon would continue forward trying not to destroy the defenses but the enemy reserves and once they got them they would move into the strategic assets those defenses were protecting and seize them.

If there are loses or the fortification holds for too much the second echelon units come in and make sure that momentum is conserved at all times(if the first echelon has destroyed the fortifications as expected the second echelon supports the penetration of the first)

So, I would bet that taking into account the focus on movement, concentrated firepower, acceptable loses and totally mechaniced units prepared to don't be stopped by even NBC conditions... I would say that at least their own numbers of 30km a day aren't so ludicrous as they seem.

Another thing would be if by the end of the week they would have the numbers to keep the offensive, they did acknowledge the need for conservation of forces but as far as I have seen its not really something they focus a lot.

It looks like the perfect army for officers; their units don't take positions, they paint maps, if the objective is worth it your life loses value accordingly, support has to always very high in the chain of command, combat actions have to be documented and archived and everything has to be coded

What was the general stance of the forces stationed in west Germany?

They knew that they were going to be steamrolled, much like the other half of Berlin but it would only take time, so they should had plans for diverting their forces into guerrilla warfare.

But they had US, German and British forces on 24/7 and a lot of tanks and helicopters, were they intending to do guerrilla warfare with such assets? Because retreating them couldn't be an option...

>>34322435
>30km a day aren't so ludicrous as they seem.

They would need to do it at 30km an hour not 30 km a day

30 km a day gets you 600 km before the US can effectively deploy armor

>>34322537
>>34322435

>30 km a day gets you 600 km before the US can effectively deploy armor

I'm a big fucking idiot

correction 30 km a day gets you 150 km before the US can effectively deploy armor

>>34321345
What books cover Air Force mounting gun pods on F-4's in an air-to-air setting? I've read plenty of stories about centerlined 20mm pods being used as part of CAS/interdiction, but never air-to-air.

>>34322598

Its more like 30 km a day with oposition and 50km a day without(so in breakthroughts they would rapidly move from 30 to 50).

We never saw how the war played out, but 50km without oposition seems very optimistic, Europe beyond Germany starts becoming more and more mountainous, sabotages, commando attacks, logistical strains, simple heavy bombardment...

You seem to give the US 5 days before deploying armor, but in 5 days the only sure thing is that Germany would be in ruins and the soviets would be in their way to Cologne and advancing to the Rhine while the coast would have been probably secured with a hellforce of land based moskits and supported by a Languishing air force(since they know they can't hold the sea) so the logical step would be making France a staging area to achieve mass.

So it would seem that any real clash between the US and the soviets would happen at the border with France to mount a counter offensive with equally massed forces.

Also it makes sense to stop at France for the soviets, France had a basic policy of total nuclear retaliation at the slight sight of radiation, so you would have to either accept strategic thermonuclear war, a conventional war that in the best case would end in a stalemate or some kind of magical trick that would make nuclear weapons in France disappear(along with the ones the US would bring of course).

At that point, no one would probably recognize the conflict anymore.

>>34322602

Revolt of the Majors, although it is more like an essay than a book. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf

File: havok.webm (2MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x480px

>>34322167
>>helicopters even today are death traps

>>34319817
The main Soviet tactic would have been breakthroughs with the use of tactical nukes followed by armor/mechanized infantry rolling through.
Hell, they even had plans for nuking large parts of Denmark and southern Sweden to secure the inlet to the Baltic sea.
The Soviet "no first use" policy was about strategic nukes.

>>34323196

well the ka-50 has an ejection system for pilot and copilot.

>>34321464
Provided it haven't already combusted from a stray .50 API round

>>34323196
Look at crash rates for helicopters compared to aircraft. Part of the reason there was such a shitstorm over the Osprey's accidents was that everyone was comparing it to fixed wing instead of rotary wing. If you look at it compared to rotary wing crash statistics, then the only thing better at killing marines than Ospreys are Black Hawks and Hueys.

File: 25c864d48c381480a824a4cb9f25-grande.jpg (50KB, 468x300px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 468x300px

>>34314914
Point taken, but WarPac forces would have found an advance into Western Europe a miserable experience, and the planned timetable would have been shitcanned early on: We love to imagine hordes of tanks and motor rifle battalions rolling over NATO speedbumps, but in reality, fighting such big units through a layered anti-tank defence on the varied terrain of west Germany would have been a miserable experience for the Soviets. It would have been a case of an elastic defense letting the WarPac category A units bleed themselves white while reinforcements were shuttled over, and airlifted troops fell in on pre-stored equipment already present in Western Europe. Once they came into the fray, I'd imagine it would have gone to shit for the Soviets.

But that's more an Eighties scenario. Before that, it was anyone's game really: 70's NATO was warming to the idea of fighting off WarPac with conventional means but lacked the numbers due to economic and political factors. Pre-70s, NATO was weaker conventionally, but imagined that any WarPac advance would be dealt with by judicious application of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons (early NATO plans for a Soviet invasion involved bombing the shit out of Poland to cut the flow of Soviet follow on forces). NATO's early mindset was basically pasting over its major conventional shortcomings with large amounts of nukes.

And we have the issue of how good Soviet forces actually were: Despite its enormous funds, Soviet military was afflicted by numerous issues which they were never really able to solve. I feel NATO planners and analysts had an issue with seriously overestimating the quality of Russian forces.

>>34324142

But if they layer their defenses and make them more mobile the answer from warpact would be making operational maneuver groups along their axis of advance to overcome them in their own game.

And even so, warpact units are suposed to take advantage of numbers to quickly close in with any threat as fast as posible to overwhelm it, the range advantage of ATGMs is nullified and while they will make the soviets suffer from attrition they will surely take big loses too that they can't afford so well. Also, if I remember correctly tandem warheads weren't widely implemented not even in 1989, and seeing that reactive armor has been very usefull with TOWs in Ukraine(against kontack-5 ERA) tank survivavility would have been higher than it might seem.

People on BRDM and BMP wouldn't be so lucky, but again, Ukraine experience show us that by simply dividing platoons between several BMPs overall survivavilty is increased.

And yes, I agree that they had issues(early T-80 shitfest is the first one that comes to my mind) but its better to assume that the enemy is capable of doing what he says he is capable(under some logical constraints) than finding out that some problems weren't so problematic at all and others could be fixed or adapted once they get their shit together.

>>34322874
This is great, thanks for this. Very interesting read.

>>34322420
cmon sandniggers dont count
what counts is russia and china and we all know us can do shit about that

File: this is you.jpg (666KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

666KB, 1280x1024px

>>34314952
On paper sure, that is until you factor in how a lot of their army would defect and mutiny, or how the army that remained loyal would be stuck with their thumbs up their ass once their centralized command was obliterated.

>>34320738
>marginally
>completely disregarding quality of training, tactics, morale, and C&C

Please kill yourself moron.

>>34315814
the t-72 and t-64 where not to be underestimated even the export version caused significant problems in the 80's for the Israelis. the famous dolly armor was a headache until the advent of more advanced kinetic penetrater and Abrams. trure the FCS was superior and crew training as well

>>34315666
>good luck launching another D-Day against something that isn't a rear front composed of outnumbered and underequipped garrison forces.

Even if that were true (protip: it's not) NATO wouldn't even need to invade Europe once it was taken over by the soviets. The soviets couldn't even pacify a tiny third world shit hole filled with illiterate goat fuckers, the fuck makes you think they would have fared any better against a more numerous, more intelligent, and better trained european population?

>>34325972
The Israelis were shit and have never been at the same level as NATO. Israel was basically Poland tier with western equipment. Using them as a benchmark for anything is asinine.

>>34325983
>The soviets couldn't even pacify a tiny third world shit hole filled with illiterate goat fuckers
As well as NATO.
>the fuck makes you think they would have fared any better against a more numerous, more intelligent, and better trained european population?
Do US or USSR perform any COIN actions in Germany after WW2?

>>34313738
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Some questions about the Red Army for those of you in the know:

1. Was it stronger than the American + British forces worldwide at the end of World War II? I know Operation Unthinkable reached the conclusion that fighting the Soviets would have been a losing proposition when comparing just the forces in Europe.

2. At what point does the United States overtake the Soviet Union in military strength and why?

3. Many conventional sources say that the missile gap that Kennedy campaigned on was not supported by the realities of Soviet capabilities. Is this true? If so, is it because they funneled less money into the development of things like ICBMs compared to the United States, or was it just that their technical expertise was not on the same level (I find the latter doubtful given that they won the space race).

4.) In terms of overall capabilities, what were the respective advantages of the Warsaw Pact/NATO during the height of the Cold War (late 60s, early 70s) when it comes to things like armor, infantry, navy, air force, missiles, etc?