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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[BlairWitch749]

Can the POD be after the war?

Have the Russians shift away from conscription as part of the destalinization, it was hugely expensive and largely impractical ( all of their military ops between the end of ww2 and the end of the cold war involved only spearhead type comittments anyway)

They would have done well with a goal of 30 really high quality divisions (say 2 airborne/air mobile and 28 really well equipped mechanized divisions) as opposed to having 100 of really really mixed quality

This not only frees up young men from losing 2 years of economic activity, but frees up a lot of money not training/equipping them

As part of their shift to a professional army, make the qualification courses for officers and nco's longer and more realistic; and pay them enough to make it attractive to stay in the military

[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.

[AdA]

Originally Posted by BlairWitch749

Can the POD be after the war?

Have the Russians shift away from conscription as part of the destalinization, it was hugely expensive and largely impractical ( all of their military ops between the end of ww2 and the end of the cold war involved only spearhead type comittments anyway)

They would have done well with a goal of 30 really high quality divisions (say 2 airborne/air mobile and 28 really well equipped mechanized divisions) as opposed to having 100 of really really mixed quality

This not only frees up young men from losing 2 years of economic activity, but frees up a lot of money not training/equipping them

As part of their shift to a professional army, make the qualification courses for
officers and nco's longer and more realistic; and pay them enough to make it attractive to stay in the military

A socialist society will probably stick to a people's army. National service will be a must, and professionalizing the Army seen as move away from socialism. It was after 1991 and the first gulf war that consensus on professionalism emerged, and even then you'll have to still count china as socialist to see a socialist country move towards professionalism. Which makes as smile, because
it was because they were people's armies that all the Warswaw pact armies sided with the people in the great eastern Europe colour change. I can imagine ceausesco thinking Damm I should have gone for professionals, when the army shoot him.

[Kome]

Originally Posted by Wing_Silver

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?

Like Blackwave, i meant this needs a post-war POD.

WW2 and the Cold War were two different wars. Your going to run into problems if you try to prepare for the Cold War before or while fighting WW2 and it really limits the room to maneuver when it comes to the POD.

Originally Posted by AdA

A socialist society will probably stick to a people's army. National service will be a must, and professionalizing the Army seen as move away from socialism. It was after 1991 and the first gulf war that consensus on professionalism emerged, and even then you'll have to still count china as socialist to see a socialist country move towards professionalism. Which makes as smile, because
it was because they were people's armies that all the Warswaw pact armies sided with the people in the great eastern Europe colour change. I can imagine ceausesco thinking Damm I should have gone for professionals, when the army shoot him.

Ironically enough the new destalinized USSR might have to do its own military purge to be able to switch to a volunteer force. Or even a mixed professional-conscript force.

For the Cold War it really does provide their best bet tho.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by AdA

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.

Sure, but even then their concept of war is going to be different somewhat than IOTL, when at times the Soviets were for lack of a better option throwing wave after wave of infantry at armor and 88 mm guns. A more mechanized USSR that does better will have rather less reasons to engage in the tactics and mentality of desperation. And rather more ability to use its huge numbers well......

[BlairWitch749]

Originally Posted by AdA

A socialist society will probably stick to a people's army. National service will be a must, and professionalizing the Army seen as move away from socialism. It was after 1991 and the first gulf war that consensus on professionalism emerged, and even then you'll have to still count china as socialist to see a socialist country move towards professionalism. Which makes as smile, because
it was because they were people's armies that all the Warswaw pact armies sided with the people in the great eastern Europe colour change. I can imagine ceausesco thinking Damm I should have gone for professionals, when the army shoot him.

maybe the net could be reduced or the term shortened

let the kids take two semesters of red army training/indoctrination whatever as part of high school but don't actually conscript them into the military for 2 full years, removing them from the economy

[omega21]

Originally Posted by BlairWitch749

maybe the net could be reduced or the term shortened

let the kids take two semesters of red army training/indoctrination whatever as part of high school but don't actually conscript them into the military for 2 full years, removing them from the economy

Alternatively, conscript only the high-performing kids to serve the 2-year conscription for the army (and the 3-year one for the Navy). The rest get a few short months of training and go back into civvy street and the reserves.

This is a bit un-socialist, though. It could be justified as "only the best to defend the homeland, the rest will help them in times of need..."

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by omega21

Alternatively, conscript only the high-performing kids to serve the 2-year conscription for the army (and the 3-year one for the Navy). The rest get a few short months of training and go back into civvy street and the reserves.

This is a bit un-socialist, though. It could be justified as "only the best to defend the homeland, the rest will help them in times of need..."

And gives kids strong incentive to underperform.

[Linkwerk]

In an ATL USSR thread I remember somebody proposing a Soviet-style "new look" defensive plan. Post WW2 the idea would be to place an emphasis on strategic forces, the maintenance of a much smaller combined arms army to hold down eastern Europe and act as a tripwire, and to create of a mass militia- something of a cross between DOSAAF and the modern-day Chinese People's Armed Police- to keep the population militarized and provide civil defense/emergency response measures.

It seems like a pretty doable plan, but I don't know if it would have flown politically.

[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.