Defensive Soviet military doctrine

[Monk78]

WI USSR followed a defensive military doctrine during the Cold War

No conventional attack on Western Europe
Any aggression on part of NATO will be dealt with nuclear attack on NATO bases

Soviet army Conventional forces primary goal to police East Europe and fight defensive actions against non NATO members like China japan turkey Iran etc

how much money can the soviets save by not making all those mechanized armored forces and investing that in other military fields ?

how will the public image of ussr be ?

how will NATO respond ? Knowing 100% any attack on WP will be nuclear war from day 1

soviet air forces will be essentially the same except a lot less tactical strike planes

Soviet navy will have less ocean going ships but more focused on sea denial
Tom Clancy novels will be a lot shorter ?

 

[CV12Hornet]

WI USSR followed a defensive military doctrine during the Cold War

No conventional attack on Western Europe
Any aggression on part of NATO will be dealt with nuclear attack on NATO bases

Soviet army Conventional forces primary goal to police East Europe and fight defensive actions against non NATO members like China japan turkey Iran etc

how much money can the soviets save by not making all those mechanized armored forces and investing that in other military fields ?

how will the public image of ussr be ?

how will NATO respond ? Knowing 100% any attack on WP will be nuclear war from day 1

soviet air forces will be essentially the same except a lot less tactical strike planes

Soviet navy will have less ocean going ships but more focused on sea denial
Tom Clancy novels will be a lot shorter ?

Um, Monk, all the equipment you listed is still part of a defensive force. You want armored and mechanized forces when on the defensive. You want tactical strike planes while on the defensive. And sea denial as the Soviets practiced it still needs ocean-going ships, because when your opponent is a carrier force you're gonna need to extend that sea denial out pretty far.

Look at what NATO bought. They were supposed to operate on the defensive and yet they had oodles of armor and tactical strike planes.

The only change a more defensive posture would bring is a reduction in the overall size of the Red Army.

 

[Monk78]

Um, Monk, all the equipment you listed is still part of a defensive force. You want armored and mechanized forces when on the defensive. You want tactical strike planes while on the defensive. And sea denial as the Soviets practiced it still needs ocean-going ships, because when your opponent is a carrier force you're gonna need to extend that sea denial out pretty far.

Look at what NATO bought. They were supposed to operate on the defensive and yet they had oodles of armor and tactical strike planes.

The only change a more defensive posture would bring is a reduction in the overall size of the Red Army.

Indeed they are important
but let’s say by 1980 figures
12 k tanks rather than 50k tanks
600 strike fighters rather than 2400
more Missile corvettes and medium size ASW ships ( grisha and krivak size) rather than bigger warships and use of more AVMF bombers than OTL ( and strategic aviation bombers can be decreased as SLBM and ICBM became more reliable )

plus by explicit threat of escalating any aggressive war by NATO to nuclear from day 1 the soviets should be able to discourage western hawKS from trying any such move

 

[Pesterfield]

I think the most important thing would be a decision to be open about it.
"We took over Eastern Europe, but we don't want to conquer the world. We did it because we're terrified of another Napoleon or Hitler."

Could any Soviet government be that honest and what would the response of the West be?

 

[AdA]

A defensive doctrine would mean that the war would be fought in Warsaw Pact countries territory, giving them ample opportunities to change sides.

 

[AdA]

I think the most important thing would be a decision to be open about it.
"We took over Eastern Europe, but we don't want to conquer the world. We did it because we're terrified of another Napoleon or Hitler."

Could any Soviet government be that honest and what would the response of the West be?

Communism is a global doctrine by definition. You can't be communist and not want to overturn capitalist regimes everywhere.

 

[Monk78]

Communism is a global doctrine by definition. You can't be communist and not want to overturn capitalist regimes everywhere.

Yes they do but by peaceful means or supporting “ liberation “ movements not by wars of conquest

 

[Monk78]

A defensive doctrine would mean that the war would be fought in Warsaw Pact countries territory, giving them ample opportunities to change sides.

Poles and Czechs would not be so thrilled to see FRG troops in their countries any more than soviet

 

[WhiteDragon25]

Communism is a global doctrine by definition. You can't be communist and not want to overturn capitalist regimes everywhere.

Yes they do but by peaceful means or supporting “ liberation “ movements not by wars of conquest

What Monk78 said: the whole point of Communism is that the workers of the world would rise up in international revolution to overthrow their capitalist oppressors; notably, the workers in their home countries overthrow their government, not some external actor. The Soviet Union invading and conquering everyone would run counter to the whole point of the exercise: the Soviets believed the World Revolution to be inevitable, so they have no reason to go on the offensive themselves; they just needed to sit back and wait for their capitalist adversaries to collapse under the weight of their own internal contradictions, and upon the revolutions firing up, only then would they consider directly intervening to assist the revolutionaries against their governments. Of course, the Soviets would prefer it if they stayed alive long enough to see that happen, especially when every capitalist nation in the world wants to kill them, so maintaining a strong military and numerous buffer satellite-states is only rational.

Additionally, the Soviets' idea of defensive warfare was to go for a more aggressive counter-offense approach than a static defensive line approach. The Soviets saw what happened to the French when they tried to hide behind the Maginot Line waiting for the Germans to come to them and get mauled in the meat-grinder of bunkers and trenches: it didn't work, obviously. And the Soviets had personal experience with being invaded by a highly-aggressive mobile enemy during Barbarossa: it was extremely costly, to say the least, so they certainly didn't want to go through that again. Hence, why they went with going on the offensive first in the event that war was declared on them: better for the battles to be waged on the enemy's territory rather than your own.

Of course, that's predicated on the assumption that the nukes won't be flying immediately after the declarations of war are made: ground offensives would be pretty pointless in that case. Which is why the Soviets swore to using a second-strike-only doctrine in regards to their nuclear weapons: they're not going to be the ones starting World War III, but they'll certainly be finishing off the capitalists in response.

All said, Soviet military doctrine made perfect sense given the conditions and circumstances of the Cold War - the problem laid more in the Soviet economic and political structures than anything.

 

[CalBear]

Communism is a global doctrine by definition. You can't be communist and not want to overturn capitalist regimes everywhere.

You can, but that requires that the Communist system actually be a better one that the alternative(s). In theory Communism is better for the people, in reality? didn't quite pan out.

To the OP:

The Soviets never stated that they were going to be the aggressor. They always claimed that they were "peaceful Socialists" and their military was purely defensive in nature. A lot of the old time hard liners actually believed, to their dying day, that the ONLY reason the Capitalists didn't attack and overturn the Revolution (which was destined to replace Capitalism, and the Capitalists knew it and feared that day) was that the strength of Soviet Arms prevented it.

 

[Monk78]

You can, but that requires that the Communist system actually be a better one that the alternative(s). In theory Communism is better for the people, in reality? didn't quite pan out.

To the OP:

The Soviets never stated that they were going to be the aggressor. They always claimed that they were "peaceful Socialists" and their military was purely defensive in nature. A lot of the old time hard liners actually believed, to their dying day, that the ONLY reason the Capitalists didn't attack and overturn the Revolution (which was destined to replace Capitalism, and the Capitalists knew it and feared that day) was that the strength of Soviet Arms prevented it.

Good point but soviets did have plans of defending ussr by attacking Western Europe so ideologically their doctrine maybe defensive but operationally it was based very much on taking the fight to NATO
Obviously we can debate the merits of each approach And I’m not saying at all that what I’m suggesting is necessarily the right approach but what if they had no plans of going on offensive in a conventional war in Europe.Meaning they did not plan on it Or rehearsed it or frankly even had the capability. And their only way of defending against NATO was nuking their ground forces in Eastern Europe so far away from soviet border.While bulk of red army sits under NBC protection farther east

 

[ObssesedNuker]

The Soviets bent towards the offensive was a doctrinal observation based on a very simple principle of war, as observed by our good friend Carl von Clausewitz, from whom the Soviets borrowed a lot of their military philosophy: "Defense is passive, it's purpose is preservation. The purpose of assault is conquest."

A good defense preserves ones forces until an optimum time arises to transition to the offense, but only through offense can you actually defeat the enemies forces, occupy his territory, deprive him of the ability to wage war, and thereby enforce your will upon him. Thus offense, in this view, is the key to actually winning the war, not just fighting it.

With that said, as it is one can find far more defensive elements in Soviet dispositions during the Cold War from a strategic-operational perspective then was the case with NATO. The way the various Soviet Group of Forces and the military districts lent the Soviets much more in the way of defense-in-depth when compared to NATO's commitment to a thin forward defense. If NATO's forces in West Germany were wiped out in the opening blow of a WARPAC offensive, then that was game over for NATO as far as the conventional war was concerned. On the other hand, if the Soviet Group of Forces in Germany were somehow wiped out in the opening blow of a NATO offensive, on the other hand, then at least the Northern Group of Forces in Poland and Central Group of Forces in Czechoslovakia would still be there to pick up the fight.

In fact, Soviet paranoia over NATO's adoption of forward defense and the associated deployments was aroused based on how little military sense it made, given it's sacrifice of vital depth... unless one was to acquire that depth by seizing it through offensive action. Thus, from the Soviet perspective, NATO's deployments were the one with an overwhelmingly offensive character. In reality, of course, the reason NATO adopted forward defense wasn't military at all, but political: it was forced upon NATO by the West Germans as a condition for their smooth cooperation and a concession to mollify them given their designated place as the battlefield for WW3. On the West Germans part, their push for it was driven not by rational analysis of the military facts, but an emotional desire in refusing to sacrifice land in the event of a Warsaw Pact invasion.

On the operational-tactical level, the Soviet planning in the event of a NATO first strike (when it could not be pre-empted, that is) called for immediate counter-offensive action based on a desire to force mobile meeting engagements, where the Soviets perceived they would have the advantage due to their stronger centralized control being able to feed units into the meeting engagements faster then NATO could. They sought the same sort of situation when on the offensive, although there they expected they would have to first breakthrough prepared NATO defenses before they could achieve maneuver. Regardless, the way Soviet doctrine demanded that their defensive/counter-offensive actions unfold would condition them to still develop the same sort of army you saw them develop in the Cold War IOTL.

 

[AdA]

Poles and Czechs would not be so thrilled to see FRG troops in their countries any more than soviet

Send in the Americans first.
Just radio them ahead and tell them "we are entering your country to liberate it from Soviet occupation. Sorry we are 40 years late. Do you want to help or just watch?"

 

[AdA]

You can, but that requires that the Communist system actually be a better one that the alternative(s). In theory Communism is better for the people, in reality? didn't quite pan out.

To the OP:

The Soviets never stated that they were going to be the aggressor. They always claimed that they were "peaceful Socialists" and their military was purely defensive in nature. A lot of the old time hard liners actually believed, to their dying day, that the ONLY reason the Capitalists didn't attack and overturn the Revolution (which was destined to replace Capitalism, and the Capitalists knew it and feared that day) was that the strength of Soviet Arms prevented it.

Real life communism requires doublethink.
In Strategic terms that translated to:
Offensive is Defensive
Conquest is Liberation


On a more daily base things like:
Ladas are good cars.

Living in the one country in the world that still has a fully working Marxist Leninist Communist Party with seats in parliament (they usually get 6 to 8% of the national vote) I have few illusions about communism.
(I don't regard modern China or North Korea as being Marxist Leninist)

 

[yulzari]

Once one understands the sheer size of the Soviet Union and it‘s extensive open terrain which forms so much of it the defence of the Soviet Union has to be by an offensive doctrine where possible. This was the founding experience of the Red Army which had to rely upon movement of it’s limited forces rather than hold ground alone. It does not, in itself, imply an aggressive stance of invasion of it’s neighbours but you cannot defend it by sitting still. Of course German invasions did push them back and make them defend key points and barriers but a practical Red Army had to have an offensive doctrine to cover the ground. Western Russia is not Western Europe replete with dense barriers etc. The sheer size of the Soviet Union is what brought the Germans (and the French before) to a halt not just armed defence.

The offensive doctrine of the Soviet Union is quite as understandable and sensible as the defensive doctrine of NATO and separate from any offensive political ambitions. One does not imply the other In this case.

An opposite might be, for example, an offensive doctrine for Italy which would only invite retaliation if employed against a near peer whilst being unsuited to the defence of Italy which needs a sound defensive doctrine.

Thus the political aims of the Soviet Union might be aggressive but an offensive doctrine Soviet Union army is not necessarily designed to carry that out, but rather to be able to best defend home territory.

 

[Sam R.]

Could any Soviet government be that honest and what would the response of the West be?

One hopes that the General Secretary does not love surprises.

Also annihilating all humanity is a problematic mental position for the PC/Pb to take. They can accept a whole lot of monstrosity while their view of history is moving forward. However threatening to end history is incomprehensible: they’re motivated by a new world that is here, not the hereafter.

Historical Soviet defensive posture can be explained by the GPW, fear and unwillingness to be a first strike power. A Pb that game theorised posturing first strike could have saved 5% of the economy. That’s enough to save Soviet capitalism from the 1980s recession. All you need to save Soviet capitalism is a nomenklatura willing to destroy human civilisation and themselves.

 

[Barry Bull]

The Soviets bent towards the offensive was a doctrinal observation based on a very simple principle of war, as observed by our good friend Carl von Clausewitz, from whom the Soviets borrowed a lot of their military philosophy: "Defense is passive, it's purpose is preservation. The purpose of assault is conquest."

A good defense preserves ones forces until an optimum time arises to transition to the offense, but only through offense can you actually defeat the enemies forces, occupy his territory, deprive him of the ability to wage war, and thereby enforce your will upon him. Thus offense, in this view, is the key to actually winning the war, not just fighting it.

With that said, as it is one can find far more defensive elements in Soviet dispositions during the Cold War from a strategic-operational perspective then was the case with NATO. The way the various Soviet Group of Forces and the military districts lent the Soviets much more in the way of defense-in-depth when compared to NATO's commitment to a thin forward defense. If NATO's forces in West Germany were wiped out in the opening blow of a WARPAC offensive, then that was game over for NATO as far as the conventional war was concerned. On the other hand, if the Soviet Group of Forces in Germany were somehow wiped out in the opening blow of a NATO offensive, on the other hand, then at least the Northern Group of Forces in Poland and Central Group of Forces in Czechoslovakia would still be there to pick up the fight.

In fact, Soviet paranoia over NATO's adoption of forward defense and the associated deployments was aroused based on how little military sense it made, given it's sacrifice of vital depth... unless one was to acquire that depth by seizing it through offensive action. Thus, from the Soviet perspective, NATO's deployments were the one with an overwhelmingly offensive character. In reality, of course, the reason NATO adopted forward defense wasn't military at all, but political: it was forced upon NATO by the West Germans as a condition for their smooth cooperation and a concession to mollify them given their designated place as the battlefield for WW3. On the West Germans part, their push for it was driven not by rational analysis of the military facts, but an emotional desire in refusing to sacrifice land in the event of a Warsaw Pact invasion.

And let Soviet paranoia ran wild as it was the West German who advocated for forward defence. One should also take note of the effect of WWII to Soviet psych.

 

[Monk78]

Send in the Americans first.
Just radio them ahead and tell them "we are entering your country to liberate it from Soviet occupation. Sorry we are 40 years late. Do you want to help or just watch?"

The whole point of NATO (seems to me in the minds of Anglo americans ) was to fight Russians to the last German. Sending US troops first means they will get the max casualties

 

[marathag]

The offensive doctrine of the Soviet Union is quite as understandable and sensible as the defensive doctrine of NATO a

Other than they were quite aware that Nato would fight conventionally until they started to lose, and then would break out the tactical nukes, and was US policy that a WMD was a WMD, no matter if Nuclear, Biological or Chemical, and every Soviet Plan had large chemical usage from Day One.
So any Soviet attack would be WW III, that they would lose decisively until 1965, and then both US and USSR would lose after that as Full Exchange would put an end to both by MAD.

So Offensive Plan was a journey into oblivion if ever carried out, so foolish to even plan for.

The East Germans by themselves had 2300 MBTs and 5000 AFVs, 11 Divisions worth.
Then add in the Poles, and the Soviet Divisions.
That expected to be on the Spanish Border by D+35
That's the plan, till Nukes fly.

 

[Monk78]

Other than they were quite aware that Nato would fight conventionally until they started to lose, and then would break out the tactical nukes, and was US policy that a WMD was a WMD, no matter if Nuclear, Biological or Chemical, and every Soviet Plan had large chemical usage from Day One.
So any Soviet attack would be WW III, that they would lose decisively until 1965, and then both US and USSR would lose after that as Full Exchange would put an end to both by MAD.

So Offensive Plan was a journey into oblivion if ever carried out, so foolish to even plan for.

The East Germans by themselves had 2300 MBTs and 5000 AFVs, 11 Divisions worth.
Then add in the Poles, and the Soviet Divisions.
That expected to be on the Spanish Border by D+35
That's the plan, till Nukes fly.

Isn’t that extremely optimistic? Even French border by D35. Given how outclassed soviet weapons were
In what yr did GDR had 2300 MBT ?