The Most Effective Soviet Military

[Wing_Silver]

In a scenario just before the second world war, how might the Soviet Union later develop a more effective military than they possessed OTL over the course of the cold war?

How might this force look in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s?

What changes might effect the air-forces, Navies, and armies and other assets. How might all these forces be equipped?

I am interested in the best forces possible that would meet all or most of the Soviet Unions objectives, defense, deterrence, and power projection requirements, if they remain the same as OTL.

Finally, How would NATO and other cold war adversaries respond?

[Snake Featherston]

If the USSR ITTL does not do its Purges, it develops a massive army with a very modern doctrine and the greatest possible means to achieve it. The Soviets would have very advanced concepts of warfare in all three dimensions, albeit they still suffer the inexperience and gap between a concept and implementing that concept issues. The USSR in this sense would make inaugurating WWII rather more difficult for Hitler in that such a USSR is a rather more credible partner in an anti-Hitler alliance.

However a shorter Axis-Soviet War seeing a more rapid Soviet victory in this model is going to affect rather more than merely a Cold War as we know it. At a certain level there are efficiency levels in any totalitarian army that go past ASB into Crack!TL territory. Totalitarian armies in general will suffer problems of sustaining and initiating direct attacks against determined enemies, regardless of potential resources, though a primary strength of the Soviet military will be its huge manpower pool and ability to generate armies on a mass scale.

[AdA]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

If the USSR ITTL does not do its Purges, it develops a massive army with a very modern doctrine and the greatest possible means to achieve it. The Soviets would have very advanced concepts of warfare in all three dimensions, albeit they still suffer the inexperience and gap between a concept and implementing that concept issues. The USSR in this sense would make inaugurating WWII rather more difficult for Hitler in that such a USSR is a rather more credible partner in an anti-Hitler alliance.

However a shorter Axis-Soviet War seeing a more rapid Soviet victory in this model is going to affect rather more than merely a Cold War as we know it. At a certain level there are efficiency levels in any totalitarian army that go past ASB into Crack!TL territory. Totalitarian armies in general will suffer problems of sustaining and initiating direct attacks against determined enemies, regardless of potential resources, though a primary strength of the Soviet military will be its huge manpower pool and ability to generate armies on a mass scale.

Agreed on the first point. In the purges the Red Army basically killed almost all its best staff officers, loosing all the advantages of the work they had done on creating the worlds largest and most advanced force and doctrine for in depth mechanized operations.
On the second, the changes that would avoid the purges would also limit the totalitarian craziness that was Stalin's USSR major weak point.
When we see what the 10% survivors of the 1st generation soviet staff officers did in 43/44/45, we get a glimpse of what they could have done with all the minds that were killed in the purges. Add to that the impact on industrial development in the late 30s, and we have the biggest baddest butterfly of them all.

[Kome]

Originally Posted by Wing_Silver

In a scenario just before the second world war, how might the Soviet Union later develop a more effective military than they possessed OTL over the course of the cold war?

Our POD can only be before WW2?

Thats a pretty limited timeframe. I think Snake has the best bet there. Especially if the Soviets do EXTREMELY well and the Germans dont do that much damage to the Soviet Union and dont end up traumatizing the nation for the next 50-some years.

You need to get rid of the siege mentality they developed. Undoubtedly the Civil War and the Socialist state facing a world of capitalists thing didnt help, but its Germany that really fucked up the USSR. After that the most important thing for the USSR was to deter aggression through force, and if that failed to make sure the next time the fascists attacked them, they would win.

And that was the strategic doctrine of the post-WW2 Soviet armed forces. Even if they played the Cold War game and tried to get away from it, that mentality was still there subconsciously. Even after they obtained nuclear weapons the perceived need for a conventional force deterrent was still there.

So the Soviet military was built along that 'Final War' mentality. One big war between the east and the west, with the prize for the victor being survival. Great, except it meant the Soviet Union was subpar when it came to every other military aspect of the Cold War. Oh yeah, and that rampant military spending also destroyed the nation.

Deterrence and defense yes. Power projection? Not so much since they werent designed for that. Economically Efficient? Definitely no.

[Wing_Silver]

Originally Posted by Kome

Our POD can only be before WW2?

Thats a pretty limited timeframe. I think Snake has the best bet there. Especially if the Soviets do EXTREMELY well and the Germans dont do that much damage to the Soviet Union and dont end up traumatizing the nation for the next 50-some years.

If the POD was moved several years after the first world war, what sort of force capability might have developed within the Soviet Union through the 60s - 80s decades of the cold war?

I've heard others mention great technology gaps in their armed forces. Did they have the resource potential of closing some gaps?

And what other ways could the Soviet Union have improved its military abilities?

[Simreeve]

Originally Posted by Kome

You need to get rid of the siege mentality they developed.

Doesn't that really go all of the way back to Peter the Great's troubles with Sweden and Poland, or arguably even to the Mongol conquests?

[Kome]

Originally Posted by Simreeve

Doesn't that really go all of the way back to Peter the Great's troubles with Sweden and Poland, or arguably even to the Mongol conquests?

There wernt very many veterans of the Mongol conquest left during the Cold War.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Kome

Our POD can only be before WW2?

Thats a pretty limited timeframe. I think Snake has the best bet there. Especially if the Soviets do EXTREMELY well and the Germans dont do that much damage to the Soviet Union and dont end up traumatizing the nation for the next 50-some years.

You need to get rid of the siege mentality they developed. Undoubtedly the Civil War and the Socialist state facing a world of capitalists thing didnt help, but its Germany that really fucked up the USSR. After that the most important thing for the USSR was to deter aggression through force, and if that failed to make sure the next time the fascists attacked them, they would win.

And that was the strategic doctrine of the post-WW2 Soviet armed forces. Even if they played the Cold War game and tried to get away from it, that mentality was still there subconsciously. Even after they obtained nuclear weapons the perceived need for a conventional force deterrent was still there.

So the Soviet military was built along that 'Final War' mentality. One big war between the east and the west, with the prize for the victor being survival. Great, except it meant the Soviet Union was subpar when it came to every other military aspect of the Cold War. Oh yeah, and that rampant military spending also destroyed the nation.

Deterrence and defense yes. Power projection? Not so much since they werent designed for that. Economically Efficient? Definitely no.

The siege mentality might change but the view of the USSR as the citadel of the proletarian revolution will not change. The USSR merely adjusted its methods, it never altered its goals. The problem with any Soviet victory in this sense is it will make the worst features of the system magnify in a sense tenfold. You'd see a personality cult based on the grand triumph of Soviet arms without the gruesome losses and ruin inflicted on the OTL USSR, hardly a combination to avert a Cold War of some sort.

Originally Posted by AdA

Agreed on the first point. In the purges the Red Army basically killed almost all its best staff officers, loosing all the advantages of the work they had done on creating the worlds largest and most advanced force and doctrine for in depth mechanized operations.
On the second, the changes that would avoid the purges would also limit the totalitarian craziness that was Stalin's USSR major weak point.
When we see what the 10% survivors of the 1st generation soviet staff officers did in 43/44/45, we get a glimpse of what they could have done with all the minds that were killed in the purges. Add to that the impact on industrial development in the late 30s, and we have the biggest baddest butterfly of them all.

Except that they did that with US gas, riding US trucks, and eating Spam. The USSR sans Purges has to provide all this by itself, not so much with Lend-Lease as per OTL, which means its whole approach to war will be somewhat different.

[Kome]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

The siege mentality might change but the view of the USSR as the citadel of the proletarian revolution will not change. The USSR merely adjusted its methods, it never altered its goals. The problem with any Soviet victory in this sense is it will make the worst features of the system magnify in a sense tenfold. You'd see a personality cult based on the grand triumph of Soviet arms without the gruesome losses and ruin inflicted on the OTL USSR, hardly a combination to avert a Cold War of some sort.

Im not trying to avert the Cold War. Im trying to have the Soviets develop a force more effective at fighting a Cold War, not to fight WW3. What you had in OTL was an expensive and unweildy force. Suitable to fight in all out defense of the motherland, less so when it came to trying to expand Soviet influence around the world.

[Genmotty]

Without Stalin, argueably the Soviet Union would have not only done better during WWII, much of the totalitarianism during his reinge would not become entrenched within the political system.

Thus the soviet bloc would very much likely be a major world power today, the Cold War somewhat less tense due to their never have been the 'Iron Curtain' and while there would have still been the massive geopolitical standoff between Communism and the West, Communism without totaliterianism would likely have been much more like Lenins philosophy and modern european socalism with everyone getting on a lot more 'luvy duby'.

The Soviet Union in that sense might have an armed forces that is very much like the current US armed forces, but with less fleets (probally three fleets, Atlantic, Pacific and Global Taskforce) and more of a land focus.

Afganistan and Iraq might have been joint Soviet-US coaliations. Who knows, the butterflys are large by removing Stalin from the equation.



EDIT: technologyically and industrially the Soviet Union within the 20thC under different leadership could easily equal the same kind of transitions and advancements as the United States did in our history.

[AdA]

Except that they did that with US gas, riding US trucks, and eating Spam. The USSR sans Purges has to provide all this by itself, not so much with Lend-Lease as per OTL, which means its whole approach to war will be somewhat different.[/QUOTE]

A lot of the industrial capacity of the USSR had to be used to replace all the stuff lost in 1941. Factor that in, add the increased capability from not having to move all factories behind the Urals, plus not losing all those cities and industrial manpower and the Soviets would have surplus manufacturing and agricultural capability. It's not that they could not buid trucks, its just that since they were getting free trucks, they concentrated their building strength on the stuff they did best. Tanks, artillery, aircraft, etc.
I assume, of course, that a better red army in a better USSR would not suffer those calamitous first and second year losses.

[Easterling]

Originally Posted by Wing_Silver

In a scenario just before the second world war, how might the Soviet Union later develop a more effective military than they possessed OTL over the course of the cold war?

WW2 is the key here, because during the cold war, the soviet military was exactly as effective as the Soviets wanted it to be, and theri desires were shaped by the experience of the war.
You know how it is said that armies allways plan to fight the last war? This is a very good description of how both superpowers, USA and USSR buit up tier forces during the cold war.
The Soviets were prepared to defeat Barbarossa 2. They prepared for a total conventional land war, and I am sure that if the "imperialist capitalists" had somehow decided to attack, the Red Army would have had absolutely no trouble in defeating them. The Red Army was a powerfull land army with an emphasis on quality over quantity, due to the assumption that quality would come from accumulated experience in case of high intensity warfare. The flaw of this thinking was that in the era of "pax atomica" high intensity warfare involving great powers is an impossibility. So the Soviets were stuck with an oversized and costly military that had no hope of ever doing anything usefull and that had serious trouble in the oly war it had to fight, that in Afghanistan.

Compare this to the American experience. They allso tried to fight the last war, but through a happy coincidence, their ww2 experience prepared them much better prepared for the future. If the Russians wanted to defeat Barbarossa 2, then the Americans wanted to execute Overlord 2. And most american deployments after ww2 were indeed somewhat similar to Overlord, in that the Americans would land in some distant overseas country to liberate (or, dependng on circumstances "liberate") it. So the US army was an expeditionary force "par excellence" with an emphasis on mobility and flexibility, and they ended up setting the standards for everyone else. Would the US army been able to win a head-on confrontation with the Red Army? Most likely no. But id did not need to. Instead, the US army ended up very well suited fo all the "little wars" that it had to fight in the post ww2 era (even when the Americans lost, like in Vietnam, it was not as much the fault of the army as the fault of the political leadership at home). So the US army was much more cost-effective and usefull then the Red Army, and it was not due to some exceptional foresight on the part of American planners, but due to differnet experiences in ww2. Change ww2 and you might change postwar doctrine.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Easterling

WW2 is the key here, because during the cold war, the soviet military was exactly as effective as the Soviets wanted it to be, and theri desires were shaped by the experience of the war.
You know how it is said that armies allways plan to fight the last war? This is a very good description of how both superpowers, USA and USSR buit up tier forces during the cold war.
The Soviets were prepared to defeat Barbarossa 2. They prepared for a total conventional land war, and I am sure that if the "imperialist capitalists" had somehow decided to attack, the Red Army would have had absolutely no trouble in defeating them. The Red Army was a powerfull land army with an emphasis on quality over quantity, due to the assumption that quality would come from accumulated experience in case of high intensity warfare. The flaw of this thinking was that in the era of "pax atomica" high intensity warfare involving great powers is an impossibility. So the Soviets were stuck with an oversized and costly military that had no hope of ever doing anything usefull and that had serious trouble in the oly war it had to fight, that in Afghanistan.

Compare this to the American experience. They allso tried to fight the last war, but through a happy coincidence, their ww2 experience prepared them much better prepared for the future. If the Russians wanted to defeat Barbarossa 2, then the Americans wanted to execute Overlord 2. And most american deployments after ww2 were indeed somewhat similar to Overlord, in that the Americans would land in some distant overseas country to liberate (or, dependng on circumstances "liberate") it. So the US army was an expeditionary force "par excellence" with an emphasis on mobility and flexibility, and they ended up setting the standards for everyone else. Would the US army been able to win a head-on confrontation with the Red Army? Most likely no. But id did not need to. Instead, the US army ended up very well suited fo all the "little wars" that it had to fight in the post ww2 era (even when the Americans lost, like in Vietnam, it was not as much the fault of the army as the fault of the political leadership at home). So the US army was much more cost-effective and usefull then the Red Army, and it was not due to some exceptional foresight on the part of American planners, but due to differnet experiences in ww2. Change ww2 and you might change postwar doctrine.

This is hoary old nonsense. The US conscription system from WWII to Vietnam was idiotically handled, guaranteeing that US infantry would for a number of reasons be the least-effective element of the US war machine, while those elements most effective would be precisely the elements not exposed to the proper purpose of armies: fighting and killing their enemies. The USA only gained a full qualitative advantage over the USSR in a military sense after the post-Vietnam reforms.

[AdA]

Originally Posted by Easterling

WW2 is the key here, because during the cold war, the soviet military was exactly as effective as the Soviets wanted it to be, and theri desires were shaped by the experience of the war.
You know how it is said that armies allways plan to fight the last war? This is a very good description of how both superpowers, USA and USSR buit up tier forces during the cold war.
The Soviets were prepared to defeat Barbarossa 2. They prepared for a total conventional land war, and I am sure that if the "imperialist capitalists" had somehow decided to attack, the Red Army would have had absolutely no trouble in defeating them. The Red Army was a powerfull land army with an emphasis on quality over quantity, due to the assumption that quality would come from accumulated experience in case of high intensity warfare. The flaw of this thinking was that in the era of "pax atomica" high intensity warfare involving great powers is an impossibility. So the Soviets were stuck with an oversized and costly military that had no hope of ever doing anything usefull and that had serious trouble in the oly war it had to fight, that in Afghanistan.

Compare this to the American experience. They allso tried to fight the last war, but through a happy coincidence, their ww2 experience prepared them much better prepared for the future. If the Russians wanted to defeat Barbarossa 2, then the Americans wanted to execute Overlord 2. And most american deployments after ww2 were indeed somewhat similar to Overlord, in that the Americans would land in some distant overseas country to liberate (or, dependng on circumstances "liberate") it. So the US army was an expeditionary force "par excellence" with an emphasis on mobility and flexibility, and they ended up setting the standards for everyone else. Would the US army been able to win a head-on confrontation with the Red Army? Most likely no. But id did not need to. Instead, the US army ended up very well suited fo all the "little wars" that it had to fight in the post ww2 era (even when the Americans lost, like in Vietnam, it was not as much the fault of the army as the fault of the political leadership at home). So the US army was much more cost-effective and usefull then the Red Army, and it was not due to some exceptional foresight on the part of American planners, but due to differnet experiences in ww2. Change ww2 and you might change postwar doctrine.

Large scale maps are sometimes useful. The USSR had to face NATO (not exactly a small armies club in the cold war) on one side, and China (not what we would call a small army) on the other. Given its mission, the soviet Army wasn't that big.
The US could fight off a Canadian Inavasion with one Divison and a Mexican invasion with another. Its Army as to be either expeditionary or very small.
Afeghanistam is interesting. If we read the Russian texts on it, they feel they lost because they tried to fight like americans (small forces, using locals, lots of air support, not invading sanctuaries in Pakistan) rather then do it Russian style (when you absolutely have to kill every motherfucker in the room) with lot more troops, scaring the shit out of noncooperative neighbours, killing as many locals as required to keep them peacefull.
After 10 years of ISAF, we're beggining to see their point...
Like the US, the russians first six months in that horrible country went very well...

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by AdA

Large scale maps are sometimes useful. The USSR had to face NATO (not exactly a small armies club in the cold war) on one side, and China (not what we would call a small army) on the other. Given its mission, the soviet Army wasn't that big.
The US could fight off a Canadian Inavasion with one Divison and a Mexican invasion with another. Its Army as to be either expeditionary or very small.
Afeghanistam is interesting. If we read the Russian texts on it, they feel they lost because they tried to fight like americans (small forces, using locals, lots of air support, not invading sanctuaries in Pakistan) rather then do it Russian style (when you absolutely have to kill every motherfucker in the room) with lot more troops, scaring the shit out of noncooperative neighbours, killing as many locals as required to keep them peacefull.
After 10 years of ISAF, we're beggining to see their point...
Like the US, the russians first six months in that horrible country went very well...

The irony is that in WWII the US and Soviet ways of war had certain profound similarities: reliance on firepower often at the expense of common sense at a tactical level, force structures with major, glaring weaknesses, ultimate victory due to the radio and the internal combustion engine, a focus on attrition strategies, economic miracles relative to a blundering and incompetent German economic leadership......

[AdA]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

The irony is that in WWII the US and Soviet ways of war had certain profound similarities: reliance on firepower often at the expense of common sense at a tactical level, force structures with major, glaring weaknesses, ultimate victory due to the radio and the internal combustion engine, a focus on attrition strategies, economic miracles relative to a blundering and incompetent German economic leadership......

The Russian used Firepower integrated with manouver, the US sometimes tried to use firepower in order to avoid having to manouver.
I know I'm preaching to the choir in this one, but if someone had landed Chuikov's 8th Guards Army in Iwo Jima those japanese would have been all dead in a couple of days

[Easterling]

Because that worked so well in Korea...

There were no nukes used in Korea.

As for car insurance, it's allso useless if you end up never using your car.

[Easterling]

Originally Posted by AdA

The USSR had to face NATO (not exactly a small armies club in the cold war) on one side, and China (not what we would call a small army) on the other. Given its mission, the soviet Army wasn't that big.
The US could fight off a Canadian Inavasion with one Divison and a Mexican invasion with another.

And the USSR could fight a Chinese invasion with one division and sufficient nukes.
The point is that such a hipothetical Chinese (or NATO) invasion was never going to come, and that all the soviet preparations for total conventional war were ultimately a waste of time and resources.
My impression was that the Americans were never (not even in the days of conscription) as focused on total war, and that they were somewhat better prepared for fighting in limited conflicts.

[AdA]

Originally Posted by Easterling

And the USSR could fight a Chinese invasion with one division and sufficient nukes.

Because that worked so well in Korea...


The point is that such a hipothetical Chinese (or NATO) invasion was never going to come, and that all the soviet preparations for total conventional war were ultimately a waste of time and resources.

And your car insurance is useless if you're positive you're never going to have a car accident. By that logic I would have been out of job for the last 30 years...

My impression was that the Americans were never (not even in the days of conscription) as focused on total war, and that they were somewhat better prepared for fighting in limited conflicts.

The US only used conscription in war time, being rich enough to pay for it's peacetime needs. When it used concription it did it the wrong way. Conscription works like a charm for "defence of the homeland" wars. For foreign wars nobody really understands or wants it is a sure way to loose. If the US had conscription in the last ten yeras public opinion would have forced them out of Iraq and Afeganistam in no time.
And America was dead serious about total war in the Cold War days, or else they faked it very well and expensively. All those USAFE aircraft cost a lot and trained a lot...

[dropbearabroad]

"they (Americans) were somewhat better prepared for fighting in limited conflicts"

I'm not sure they were. Korea was a draw, Vietnam was a loss, Somalia and Beirut were failures, and the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are far from victories. Yes, there were other missions that were successful but the overall scorecard isn't great.