Able Archer 1983?What you want is a pair of war games I can't remember the name of right now. But which I'm sure I've linked here before. Drop me a PM in case I forget to come back to this thread.
Done by the USA and allies, it was the first major western war game IIRC to assume a conventional start to the war and go from there.
Knowing what we know now vs 1980s intelligence, one could tilt the results of said war games towards NATO by a fair bit.
But like a number? No idea.
Before the Abrams/LeoII/Challenger introduced Chobham-type armour and guns better than the L7, I'd say with the exception of 120mm rifled Chieftain, NATO was at a disadvantage in MBTs. It's not that the 105mm armed M-60 and Leopard weren't better than the T-72, T-64 and T-62, but they weren't sufficiently better to offset the significant Soviet advantage of numbers.Depends which part of the 80s your talking about. To make things short, I'd say inferior in the early, roughly equal in the middle, and superior in the late.
Yes that sounds reasonableDepends which part of the 80s your talking about. To make things short, I'd say inferior in the early, roughly equal in the middle, and superior in the late.
I more or less agree with the comments made by others about the gains made by NATO during the 1980's in terms of quality, competence, tactics and equipment.In the 1980s how did the Soviet military compare to NATO in terms of quality, competence, tactics and equipment?
If NATO forces (US, West Germany, UK etc) were a perfect 10 overall where would the Soviet military rank on the same scale?
The equipment you mention certainly boosted NATO combat value but the 105 mm L7 still was sufficient if not superior to the bulk of Soviet armour in the early to mid 80's of T55 and T62. Even the British 20 pdr. still packed a punch good enough to knock out most opponents (each of the four coastal defence groups (Bde size) on Zealand had a squadron of 20 pdr. Centurions to be used as tank destroyers, but the enemy armour would likely not be worse than T55. The two mechanised Bdes on Zealand had 105 mm armed Centurions).Before the Abrams/LeoII/Challenger introduced Chobham-type armour and guns better than the L7, I'd say with the exception of 120mm rifled Chieftain, NATO was at a disadvantage in MBTs. It's not that the 105mm armed M-60 and Leopard weren't better than the T-72, T-64 and T-62, but they weren't sufficiently better to offset the significant Soviet advantage of numbers.
Same with aircraft, until the F-15 and F-16 entered service, much of NATO depended on the F-4 Phantom II, F-104 Starfighter and other 1950s designs. Again, not to say the MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25, MiG-27, etc, were better, but there's a lot more of them, so NATO needs to be MUCH better than the Soviets.
I've read somewhere that post Cold War trials determined that the 105 mm L7 was not nearly as effective as it was believed at the time.The equipment you mention certainly boosted NATO combat value but the 105 mm L7 still was sufficient if not superior to the bulk of Soviet armour in the early to mid 80's of T55 and T62.
I was active in the RDA (Royal Danish Army) in the 1980s and this was pretty much what everybody talked and wondered about then. From my experience then and what has been brought forward later my personal opinion is that NATO by 1980 was in a weak position. The massive nuclear response had long since been given up, but very little had been done to effectively replace this with the practical means with which to resists an attack without going total nuclear.
When Reagan took over in 1981 this started to change however, and by mid 80's I would claim that NATO was in a very favourable position to decisively crush any Soviet attack without going nuclear. Not only was the practical capacity to reinforce NATO across the Atlantic massively increased but the European NATO members also became much more focussed on the threat. The Army I joined in 1979 was a de facto WWII relic but changed tremendously through the 1980s - not only equipment but perhaps more so in doctrines.
I of course can't speak for all NATO countries but I did spend a lot of time with US, Canadian, British and German units and got the same general impression. I was not at least impressed by how the Bundeswehr developed its doctrines and equipment to stop massive armoured attacks.
BTW I took part in Able Archer in 1983, but I didn't fire any nukes![]()
What was driving the improvements to NATO's effectiveness?
Reagan (and to a lesser extent, Thatcher post-1982) spent a lot of money on the military. That translated to new equipment much of which was tailored to respond to Soviet 70's TOE - Apaches, A-10s, F-14/15/16/18, Abrams/Challenger/Leo2, Bradley/Warrior, E-3, HARM, etc. At the same time, the Soviet Union was feeling a significant money drain in Afghanistan that hampered its ability to maintain its technological progression.What was driving the improvements to NATO's effectiveness?
Was it recovery of the US from Vietnam? Was it connected to Afghanistan? Was it just the right time for ideas to mature and technology to become available?
fasquardon
Edit - Smith, you ninja!