quote:

I think people generally fight harder when their land is invaded as would anyone. You do have to remember that while NATO ground forces were not superior to that of their russian counterparts they had specifically designed the Apache and and a-10 warthog to deal with soviet armour so that the troops 'could mop up what was left as they assumed their better trained and equipped troops could handle superior numbered soviet troops

What also must be rememberede was that we did have some expereince of human wave tactics from Korea.

Also, as you mention specfic conventional weapon systems were designed to aid the troops in the front line.

More importantly, even in the eighties, Soviet forces were highly controlled and a great deal of work was done to tey and disrupt the Soviet C3I structure.

Morse,

Have you read Armageddon? I don't mean this as a personal slight in any way, and I don't mean to patronise you either, because it is obvious you gave a great breadth of knowledge (and experience by the sounds of it) of military matters and history. I just feel that the points I am making rather rely on others having read it to an extent, or have at least an in depth knowledge of the material. Which is probably my mistake.

The reason I started this thread was that I was quite struck by how remarkable and resilient the German and Soviet War machines were, in comparison to those of the British and Americans. The Red Army is particularly impressive. It started WW2 emaciated by Stalin's purges, underfunding and resourcing, military incompentence, and a ferocious German attack. But it learns from its mistakes over time, and by the end of the war it is at its peak of efficiency.

The stark contrast is with that of the armies of America and Britain. You would have especially thought the British Army would have inproved against the Germans given the length of time they had been fighting. But neither the Brits or the Yanks, by the end of the war, had any enthusiasm in going forward (and perhaps getting killed). Germany fought to the end because it was on the defensive. The Soviet Union lost enormous casualties right up until the end of the war.

The point made about the later NATO armies is fair enough, but if the Warsaw Pact were to make an attack on the west, it would probably have been earlier. By the time planes like the A10 were in service, the Soviet Union was stagnating and the economy was well on its way into internal collapse. Perhaps my example is better suited to the early period of the Cold War.

The other reason I am perhaps seen to write off the West's technological advantage in some areas to the Warsaw Pact is that the of course the German Army in WW2 was the most sophisticated fighting machine in the world at that time, with some of the best equipment. They were still overcome by the Soviet Union.

I will be checking out those books you mentioned. I'll tell you if I get the hardback. Did the photographer catch your good side?

Donaljod

With the Soviets it is well worth bearing in mind that lend-lease acted as a tremendous force multiplier. Zhukov said that the Russians were dependent on US trucks to tow their artillery, and propellent for their shells.
From the BBC site;

"The Soviet Union did not turn the tide on the Eastern Front on its own. Though for decades Soviet historians played down the role of American and British Lend-Lease aid, its real significance has now been acknowledged. From 1942 a flow of food and raw materials and engineering equipment sustained the Soviet war effort.

There was enough food in the end to ensure a square meal for every Soviet soldier; most of the Soviet rail network was supplied with locomotives, wagons and rails made in the USA; one million miles of telephone wire, 14 million pairs of boots, 363, 000 trucks, all helped to keep the Red Army fighting with growing efficiency. Without Allied aid, Stalin later admitted, 'we would not have been able to cope'."

Also what made the Soviets effective in brute combat terms was the discipline which resulted in instant death if there was any wavering. Also, crucially I feel, the Russians were out for revenge - for all they had suffered. This was not a motive that would have applied to an attack on NATO forces.

British and American troops were not defending or revenging their country, so that's a big difference. If they had to fight to defend their own territory then the armies of both countries would have fought ferociously.

The German army tactically and in its possession of so many fine weapons remained in a class of its own - and it is fair comment that it was only brought down by sheer weight of numbers.

And of course Hitler's strategic "genius". Has anyone read that excellent work "Lost Victories" by Field Marshall Erich von Manstein? Perhaps the German army could have got a stalemate in the east if the decision making had been left to its own commanders.
As Manstein makes clear Hitler, especially at Stalingrad, violated all sound military principles - and he continued to do so, primarily by thinking he could sustitute force of will and sheer brute force for material resources and the military art.

That the German army lasted so long in the east is a tribute to its immense and extraordinary fighting power - hobbled as it was by Hitler.

Manstein said of Stalingrad; "the risk undertaken by the Supreme Command in the late autumn of 1942, however should never have consisted in tying down the most hard-hitting forces of Army Group B over a long period in which it was content to leave the Don Front covered by such an easily deastructible screen".

This was a crass error and Hitler made mistakes nearly as disasterous in trying to stake out other territory which could not be held. But Hitler believed in brute force whereas Manstein and other generals saw the military art as a fencing match in which it was sometimes necessary to take a step back before delivering a thrust.

By using more flexible tactics, the superior staff work of the German officer corps and the fighting power of the army he hoped to inflict such damage on the Soviets during 1943 that they would give up and go for a seperate peace. Above all he wanted to use the hitting power of the Panzer divisions in swift mobile operations, rather than Hitler's crazy not a step back.

Given that the Germans inflicted savage losses as it was, it may be that this could have been successful.

But it is fair to say that it was american industrial might that effectively won the war where else in the world did you have a sherman M4 rolling off the production line every minute?
That is why allied military vehicles were not up to the standard of their axis counterpart (germany) as they relied on their numbers to succeed

“I just feel that the points I am making rather rely on others having read it to an extent, or have at least an in depth knowledge of the material. Which is probably my mistake.”

I have to admit that I have not read the book in question, it’s in a pile marked “To be read” sitting on my desk. In saying that, it is worth remembering that there have been many books written on the same subject area

However, your original question was:

[/QUOTE]““Let's pretend for a second there were no nuclear weapons. What sets me thinking is if the Cold War went hot, would NATO have stood much of a chance in Europe? Can a democracy stand against a comparatively sized totalitarian regime?”[/QUOTE]“

That is after all a hypothetical question, which is very difficult for anyone to give a correct answer to because it involves too many variables.

If however, we are looking at how the military doctrines of the major combatants changed then that is a very different area of thought.

The re-birth of the Soviet Armed forces after the defeats inflicted by the Germans is quite amazing and no body can deny that. However, a major factor in the recovery was the fact that after the initial successes of the German Blitzkrieg, the Soviets realised that like so many armies in the past, Germany had over extended both her armies and supply trains. This lead to the first tactical defeats. In a similar way the British Forces in the Far East recovered when they realised that the Japanese could be defeated in combat.

In addition was the vast amount of equipment supplied by the lend-Lease agreement. There were also the great efforts of the merchant navy in delivering the equipment.

However, as part of the recovery and more to the point the most important part of the recovery was the massive sea change in the Soviet Military Doctrine, which was predicted in the book “New forms of battle” by Isserson who was an instructor and the General Staff Academy. The book was based upon the experiences of the Soviet army in Poland.

The main point of the book was that that the Soviets should develop a more unrestricted control system and adopt a doctrine based upon movement on the battlefield. Which if you look at the state of play at the end of the war, the Soviets had adopted the ideas.

The unrestricted control meant that officers were given a target and then left to their own devices to achieve the objective. This meant that officers could adapt their plans based upon local conditions.

However once the war was over, the Soviets returned to rigid control. This can be sen in the volunteers who fought in Korea, Vietnam and against Israel.


The Germans also used that form of control during the early part of the war. Both Rommel and Guderien were both masters of operating under such control and partially explains why they were so successful.

As the war turned bad on the Germans, Hitler took a more detailed control of operations, which restricted peoples options for action this coupled with fatal results if the orders are not obeyed, meant that on many occasions Germans were defeated.

As for the excessive discipline, this could actually be taken as a sign of weakness as it would indicate that the troops were neither motivated nor self disciplined.

As for the Germans, their resort to excessive discipline was the result of the breakdown of cohesion within the ranks as the war went against them.

The Germans did have some fantastic weapons, which they used very effectively, however, if you look at the state of the German economy and how chaotic it was as a result of the blockade and the bombing campaign then there would never e enough weapons or the manpower to use.

If you look at the incident where German scientists and technicians had to be released from military by a fuehrer order. There are other incidents when workers were diverted from aircraft production to tank production.

Is it not coceivable that the British and Americans allowed the Soviet army to expend itself against the Germans in the final weeks of the war and were deliberately cautious ?

In the last months of the war once victory was assured the battle lines for the coming Cold War were already being drawn.

Further, the Soviet troops were seriously in the mood for payback after having being invaded and the German troops were fighting to save their homeland.

As these situations were clearly not like for like I find it very hard to answer the original question based on the context of the end of WW2

quote:

Originally posted by Austin705:
Is it not coceivable that the British and Americans allowed the Soviet army to expend itself against the Germans in the final weeks of the war and were deliberately cautious ?

because of the agreements made at Yalta, Potsdam and other summits Allied forces had to hold back to allow the Soviets to take up their correct positions.


[QUOTE]In the last months of the war once victory was assured the battle lines for the coming Cold War were already being drawn.[QUOTE]

That is quite true. Nixon said that WW3 started the day after WW2 ended.

Try reading Tom Clancy:Red Storm Rising
A very good military account of a Sov attack on the West.A good read including a far sighted use of Stealth as a first strike weapon....probably my favourite holiday book....Ive ruined 3 copies on the beach so far

quote:

Originally posted by Owain Glyndwr:
Try reading Tom Clancy:Red Storm Rising
A very good military account of a Sov attack on the West.A good read including a far sighted use of Stealth as a first strike weapon....probably my favourite holiday book....Ive ruined 3 copies on the beach so far

I agree ! (Only 2 copies ruined !)

back to the question.

NO, I beilive that with out the neculear deterant and then MAD the USSR would have had odd's in there favour,however the question to me is the extent of there victory. Although Russia had vast numbers of people, there are factors against the USSR.

ONE; as has been pointed out earlier by Austin705 the Soviet's were fighting for there freedom so would Europe, which means vast concriptiopn and people fighting tooth and nail.
TWO; a dual front with out a doubt the NATO powers would have opened a second front against the USSR i reacon either tUrkey, or through Finland.
THREE it must be thoerised that as the USSR moved into more western Europe, France, Spain, and even if they got to Britain there would be huge milliantant groups against them not to mention Finland as a huge enemy, it would of been ard to maintain the momenton.
FOUR; Stalin, the man was paraniod, and would most probably jepdised the mission and the smooth running of the military campiagn.

but i would put forth that the USSR would have most likly taken the continent, Britain would be hard like Nazi Germany the USSR did not really have a great Navy, and the Channel may have provided a buffer although Britain would most probably been bombed to subm,ission and placed either as a protecterait or forced to surrender until such time that a full invasion could take place, THe USA would not have been touched it is to far away and very safe where it is and so Europe would have fallen, add to that China would most likly have then been dominated by the USSR duie to the amount of power it had, the middle east would either be communist or have communist friendly regimes which is another pocibility of for the UK, and most of the old world as it is deemed would be either Communist or pro communist.