AH Question: Combat Potential of NATO/Warsaw Pact forces?

[Arnold d.c]

I've recently been reading some of Warsaw Pact's assessment of NATO forces and one thing that caught my eye is this. Essentially, the Soviets created a model to compare the combat potential of NATO and Warsaw Pact equipment. There are some peculiar conclusions - like the M60A2 being treated as a serious powerhouse than the joke it really was. At pages 11-12, the document presents the combat potential of NATO and Warsaw Pact units. Some conclusions I understood (US and especially FRG divisions being rated higher than the Dutch, Belgian and Danish units), but I certainly did not understand others.

One thing that stood out is how the BAOR is regarded to be a weak formation. Apparently, a UK armoured division (their best rated formation) was inferior to a Danish or Dutch Mechanized Division. Another document even calls the BAOR an embarrassment for NATO. Is there any reading material on why the Soviets thought this way? Is there any basis for the poor rating? Same goes for the French. They are seen as "poorly organized, trained and equipped, and the tactical air defense forces are described as very poor." The criticism of organization is perhaps a reference to French Army's decision to organize divisions to be a much smaller formation than most armies. But I have to ask if the criticisms of training and equipment have an basis.

Another thing I noticed is that Polish divisions were rated to as being considerably worse than GDR or Czech units. I never really believed in the whole "Polish or WP ally rebellion" tropes I see in some WW3 novels. But I have to ask why the Polish army is rated so lowly? Were they poorly organized or trained?

 

[David Flin]

You'll have to specify when this is for. The quality of forces vary over time.

For example, the US Army of 1976 was laughably incompetent. The US Army of 1986 was rather better.

The BAOR was, during my time (1959-1982) generally composed of units who weren't needed elsewhere, or resting from deployments, or where they had a lot of new recruits who needed bedding in and Germany was seen as somewhere this could be done - relatively safe, where blunders in exercises weren't crucial, but strange enough to count as serious training. The real units were busy in places like Northern Ireland, Malaysia, and so on where mistakes carried a higher price tag. (Mind you, bear in mind that I am an ex Royal Marine, and so do not have an objective view on the BAOR).

The French Army, in my experience, was many things, but poorly trained was not one of them. Again, a lot will depend on when one is talking about.

As for the Soviet Army itself, well, I did have a lengthy conversation once in 1972 with a Soviet officer in North Norway/North USSR (we weren't entirely sure which side of the border we were on. Curiously, he spoke very good English, but with the slight problem that he had learnt his English in Newcastle, and had a broad Geordie accent. I couldn't understand a word of his English, so we talked in French, being the only common language we had that we could understand. I digress). He explained that he had been posted to the snowy wastes up in the Arctic, where the locals (on both sides of the border) could generally ski before they could walk. He himself was from that well known skiing resort of Sevastopol, known for its vistas of snow stretching as far as the eye can see. This, he said, was Soviet organisation. Being as how I was an East End boy from London, whose experience with snow was making the occasional snowman, I could understand him.

But then, given as how there were plans on both sides to deal with a Soviet tank thrust around the northern cape, and given that just outside Elvense in Arctic Norway, there is a place where the gap between sea on one side and sheer mountains on the other is just over one tank wide, the plans owed more to people looking at a school atlas than actually walking the ground in question. I don't have a high opinion of military planners.

 

[Ramontxo]

That was the time of your one man invasion of the Soviet Union?

 

[Arnold d.c]

For example, the US Army of 1976 was laughably incompetent.

It seems like the document was made in 1977 so it seems like the Soviets still regarded US forces highly? Or were they perhaps unaware of the post-Vietnam malaise afflicting the US army at the time. It is also possible that the Soviets are calculating the combat potential based on the equipment rather than the men actually using it.

 

[Monk78]

Mig23M is 4.0 and F4E is only 4.1 ??

 

[David Flin]

That was the time of your one man invasion of the Soviet Union?

Yes, winter 1972.

Gentle Reader, I had been sent to learn how to ski with the Norwegians up there. They were very good skiers. I, however, was (and still am) an East End Boy, and my experience with snow was rather limited.

We went out, skied for a while. Then we saw some people in the distance who were also skiing (about as well as I was).

"This is where we turn back," said my Norwegian tutor. "Those are Russian soldiers."

Loosely translated, my reply was to the effect of what were Russian soldiers doing in Norway.

"No, we are twenty miles inside Russia. We always do this, see how far we get into Russia before we are spotted. It is no problem. We ski much better than they do."

I considered this for a moment.

"You ski better than them. What about me?"

"Perhaps this is a good time to learn quickly."

And that, gentle reader, is how I single-handedly (more or less) invaded the Soviet Union and nearly started WW3.

But haven't we all done this as some stage?

 

[CV12Hornet]

Regarding BAOR competence:

I recall reading about joint exercises held between the Swedes and the Brits in the 1970s. The results were, apparently, quite embarrassing for the British and the Swedes were not impressed.

 

[marathag]

Curiously, he spoke very good English, but with the slight problem that he had learnt his English in Newcastle, and had a broad Geordie accent. I couldn't understand a word of his English, so we talked in French, being the only common language we had that we could understand. I digress

many years ago, I had the similar problem with the accent. Glaswegian vs my Upper Midwestern.
So yeah, was _Trainspotting_ meets _Fargo_
We spoke German of all things.

 

[Ramontxo]

Yes, winter 1972.

Gentle Reader, I had been sent to learn how to ski with the Norwegians up there. They were very good skiers. I, however, was (and still am) an East End Boy, and my experience with snow was rather limited.

We went out, skied for a while. Then we saw some people in the distance who were also skiing (about as well as I was).

"This is where we turn back," said my Norwegian tutor. "Those are Russian soldiers."

Loosely translated, my reply was to the effect of what were Russian soldiers doing in Norway.

"No, we are twenty miles inside Russia. We always do this, see how far we get into Russia before we are spotted. It is no problem. We ski much better than they do."

I considered this for a moment.

"You ski better than them. What about me?"

"Perhaps this is a good time to learn quickly."

And that, gentle reader, is how I single-handedly (more or less) invaded the Soviet Union and nearly started WW3.

But haven't we all done this as some stage?

Yes thank you very much for your work and helping me, and everybody else, to understand.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

I've seen it speculated that the reason for the M60A2 outscoring M60A3 was that the Soviets lacked information on the A3's sensor and FCS improvements (indeed, in 77 I'm not sure they were planned yet) and the problems with the Shillelagh, so from their point of view they had reason to believe that the A2 was both better-protected (due to the turret design) and better-armed (due to larger HE rounds and long range of guided missiles).

The scores in that document are of ultimately based on whatever information the Soviets had in 1977 so it's not especially authoritative, just interesting as a contemporary professional point of view.

 

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Right, I'm doing this from memory so apologies if the first quote is off.

1) Apparently the Soviets impressed, surprised or both in regards to the UK's performance in the retaking of the Falklands reinforced their forces post '82' opposite the UK's with the instruction to move around and bottle them up and not actually destroy them in case of the UK's forces delayed the moving of the Soviets into West Germany in the British sector.

2) I drink with a trio of ex Irish Guards in my local. The eldest 'Mick' told me the story on how his 'gaffer' told all of them in the battalion that when the balloon went up, it would be all over in just thirty minutes and brown bread as the Soviets would glass every air base, barracks etc before trying to make a move into West Germany inviting like wise from NATO!

PS: The oldest 'Mick' called Noel has a weird claim to fame which he always tells me when drunk on the old Guinness

. . . he actually had the pleasure of grabbing hold of Princess Diana's arse cheeks in the mid '80's after one of the palaces he was standing guard at was 'attacked' by the SAS posing as Provo's. The silly bint was arguing the toss about getting into the Daimler limo to escape the attack and Noel shoved her in the arse and pushed her into the back of the limo!

 

[Hcira1]

Yes, winter 1972.

Gentle Reader, I had been sent to learn how to ski with the Norwegians up there. They were very good skiers. I, however, was (and still am) an East End Boy, and my experience with snow was rather limited.

We went out, skied for a while. Then we saw some people in the distance who were also skiing (about as well as I was).

"This is where we turn back," said my Norwegian tutor. "Those are Russian soldiers."

Loosely translated, my reply was to the effect of what were Russian soldiers doing in Norway.

"No, we are twenty miles inside Russia. We always do this, see how far we get into Russia before we are spotted. It is no problem. We ski much better than they do."

I considered this for a moment.

"You ski better than them. What about me?"

"Perhaps this is a good time to learn quickly."

And that, gentle reader, is how I single-handedly (more or less) invaded the Soviet Union and nearly started WW3.

But haven't we all done this as some stage?

Is this real? This is too awesome to be real. It should be the intro scene for a Cold War era Bond movie.

 

[Hcira1]

One thing that catches my eye is why do they have the US airborne divisions rated so low?

 

[kmmontandon]

One thing that catches my eye is why do they have the US airborne divisions rated so low?

Light infantry with limited mobility, scarce artillery, and very light anti-tank capabilities. US airborne/air assault divisions would've had no realistic place on a European Cold War battlefield except as a quickly chewed-up emergency defensive fire brigade.

 

[Bougnas]

I've seen it speculated that the reason for the M60A2 outscoring M60A3 was that the Soviets lacked information on the A3's sensor and FCS improvements (indeed, in 77 I'm not sure they were planned yet) and the problems with the Shillelagh, so from their point of view they had reason to believe that the A2 was both better-protected (due to the turret design) and better-armed (due to larger HE rounds and long range of guided missiles).

The scores in that document are of ultimately based on whatever information the Soviets had in 1977 so it's not especially authoritative, just interesting as a contemporary professional point of view.

The ratings are based on some obscure but legit mathematic modelling. In any case, I guess that they expected higher levels of reliability and a better warhead that could penetrate everything they had. In reality the Shillelagh sits at about 450mm of penetration at best (as the 127mm warhead of the TOW was deemed 5% worse than the 152mm warhead for TOW proto and Shillelagh), which is just equal to the 450mm protection rating for Soviet composite tanks so it's not reliably powerful. Still ridiculous ratings next to NATO composite tanks.

A3 FCS was in testing on the M60A1E3 since 1972.

 

[David Flin]

Is this real? This is too awesome to be real. It should be the intro scene for a Cold War era Bond movie.

It's real. It's too comical for fiction.

My life has, so far, been one mishap after another.

 

[gatordad699]

Yes, winter 1972.

Gentle Reader, I had been sent to learn how to ski with the Norwegians up there. They were very good skiers. I, however, was (and still am) an East End Boy, and my experience with snow was rather limited.

We went out, skied for a while. Then we saw some people in the distance who were also skiing (about as well as I was).

"This is where we turn back," said my Norwegian tutor. "Those are Russian soldiers."

Loosely translated, my reply was to the effect of what were Russian soldiers doing in Norway.

"No, we are twenty miles inside Russia. We always do this, see how far we get into Russia before we are spotted. It is no problem. We ski much better than they do."

I considered this for a moment.

"You ski better than them. What about me?"

"Perhaps this is a good time to learn quickly."

And that, gentle reader, is how I single-handedly (more or less) invaded the Soviet Union and nearly started WW3.

But haven't we all done this as some stage?

David,

Some of us can neither confirm nor deny that we were anywhere near Soviet territorial waters at any time during the Cold War.

 

[freivolk]

I've recently been reading some of Warsaw Pact's assessment of NATO forces and one thing that caught my eye is this. Essentially, the Soviets created a model to compare the combat potential of NATO and Warsaw Pact equipment. There are some peculiar conclusions - like the M60A2 being treated as a serious powerhouse than the joke it really was. At pages 11-12, the document presents the combat potential of NATO and Warsaw Pact units. Some conclusions I understood (US and especially FRG divisions being rated higher than the Dutch, Belgian and Danish units), but I certainly did not understand others.

One thing that stood out is how the BAOR is regarded to be a weak formation. Apparently, a UK armoured division (their best rated formation) was inferior to a Danish or Dutch Mechanized Division. Another document even calls the BAOR an embarrassment for NATO. Is there any reading material on why the Soviets thought this way? Is there any basis for the poor rating? Same goes for the French. They are seen as "poorly organized, trained and equipped, and the tactical air defense forces are described as very poor." The criticism of organization is perhaps a reference to French Army's decision to organize divisions to be a much smaller formation than most armies. But I have to ask if the criticisms of training and equipment have an basis.

Another thing I noticed is that Polish divisions were rated to much considerably worse than GDR or Czech units. I never really believed in the whole "Polish or WP ally rebellion" tropes I see in some WW3 novels. But I have to ask why the Polish army is rated so lowly? Were they poorly organized or trained?

Propably the economic crisis in Poland let to a decline in training exercises. I heard in the early 1980th a WP amphibian exercise nearly ended in embarrasment, becuase th epolish ships had no fuel. The East germans borrowed them some in the end.