Soviet Invasion

Not surprisingly, and showing more common sense than the U.S. was demonstrating at the moment, the Soviets blinked.
Unlike Americans, Soviet leadership really knew what war for survival is. That's why they shied away from direct confrontation every time Americans barged in with all that confidence of 19yo buddy convinced of his own immortality. Just think about it, Reagan's infamous "I ordered attack" joke would probably trigger nuke exchange if muttered by Brezhnev or Andropov. Some say this timidity cost Soviets Cold War, but I like to think it prevented WWIII from happening.

Speaking about US army versus Soviet army, there were no direct confrontation between them worth talking about, but if war against same enemy count, Americans have nothing to speak of. Nazi 6th Panzer army teared Americans in pieces in tanker's hell of Ardennes until Nazi run out of fuel, and then Russians reduced the same army to ground meat in tanker's paradise of Hungarian Plains. Japanese had their share against Russians too.
 
CanadianGoose, I might note the sheer absurdity of ranking either army based on encounters with the Wehrmacht forty years earlier but instead would point out that the Russian Army was effectively broken in the 1980s, unable to even properly mobilize to occupy Poland in 1981.
 
CanadianGoose, I might note the sheer absurdity of ranking either army based on encounters with the Wehrmacht forty years earlier
And your suggestion is??? OK, let's try less remote events. Soviets in 8 years set puppet regime in Afghanistan able to control main urban centers, acting against force financed and supported by another superpower. Would US Army be able to achieve same feat in Afghanistan today (even in absence of any meaningful support of ragrag guerillas from any outside force), it would he hailed as "da greatest victory of Amerrrika".

the Russian Army was effectively broken in the 1980s, unable to even properly mobilize to occupy Poland in 1981.
I might note the sheer absurdity of calling Soviet Army of 1981 "Russian" (which is as valid as calling German army of today "Nazi Invasion Force"), but it is self-evident. Instead I would just guess that you got your version of history from modern Polish magazines, aren't you?
 
What is this plan of Poland, btw ? :confused:

the plan from the sovjets to destroy the BRD aka West Germany the Netherlands Belgium and Luxemburg. First all nukes stationed in poland will be launched to all important and big cities then the soldiers from Poland would cross the country to kill any survivors. :(
 
I might note the sheer absurdity of calling Soviet Army of 1981 "Russian" (which is as valid as calling German army of today "Nazi Invasion Force"), but it is self-evident. Instead I would just guess that you got your version of history from modern Polish magazines, aren't you?

Um, his American. The Soviets were communist Russians, but Russians nonetheless. What's your point?
 

Typo

Banned
And your suggestion is??? OK, let's try less remote events. Soviets in 8 years set puppet regime in Afghanistan able to control main urban centers, acting against force financed and supported by another superpower. Would US Army be able to achieve same feat in Afghanistan today (even in absence of any meaningful support of ragrag guerillas from any outside force), it would he hailed as "da greatest victory of Amerrrika".
You have to be really biased to use Afghanistan as evidence of Soviet success.

Replace Soviet with American and Afghanistan with Vietnam and the first part of that statement still holds true.

I'm pretty sure you are trolling.
 
The Soviets were communist Russians, but Russians nonetheless.
It is really muddy point we're wading into here. I know that every nation of FSU (even Ukrainians, for crying out loud, who gave USSR three of six General Secretaries) are trying hard to picture themselves as victims of Soviet occupation, but methink that everybody will really benefit if we call Soviet Soviet and Russian Russian.

You have to be really biased to use Afghanistan as evidence of Soviet success.​
Nope, you just have to think it terms of goals and stages, not it terms of Commie or any other propaganda.

Replace Soviet with American and Afghanistan with Vietnam and the first part of that statement still holds true.​
Oh yeah? I guess you are unaware that ARV had been logistically supported by USA till very last day and DRA held for several months after USSR collapsed and Russia withdrew it's support.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Unlike Americans, Soviet leadership really knew what war for survival is. That's why they shied away from direct confrontation every time Americans barged in with all that confidence of 19yo buddy convinced of his own immortality. Just think about it, Reagan's infamous "I ordered attack" joke would probably trigger nuke exchange if muttered by Brezhnev or Andropov. Some say this timidity cost Soviets Cold War, but I like to think it prevented WWIII from happening.

Speaking about US army versus Soviet army, there were no direct confrontation between them worth talking about, but if war against same enemy count, Americans have nothing to speak of. Nazi 6th Panzer army teared Americans in pieces in tanker's hell of Ardennes until Nazi run out of fuel, and then Russians reduced the same army to ground meat in tanker's paradise of Hungarian Plains. Japanese had their share against Russians too.


1st point - Mostly agree, but, contrary to some opinions, American DO have a sense of humor & know a joke when they hear it. The whole quote is "I have signed papers making the Soviet Union illegal; we start bombing in five minutes." That is obviously a joke; had Brezhnev said, we might have trusted him a bit more since it would have made him more human.

2nd point - In addition to the valid comments made earlier in the thread I am constrained to add this: The VI Panzer had been serverely thinned well before it reached the Eastern Front by Allied Tac Air, both while deployed in the Ardennes and during it's withdrawal. There is also a significant difference between an armored heavy force hitting against what was a lightly held, mainly by infantry (and many of these units were reconstituting from Arnhem or were green, fresh from the U.S.), sector of the lines vs. a battle between two heavy armored forces, with the Red Army having full air cover. (Note that, once air power was available, the German offensive, which was already running into serious difficulties, simply fell apart, resulting in horrific losses to the engaged units.)
 
Last edited:
It is really muddy point we're wading into here. I know that every nation of FSU (even Ukrainians, for crying out loud, who gave USSR three of six General Secretaries) are trying hard to picture themselves as victims of Soviet occupation, but methink that everybody will really benefit if we call Soviet Soviet and Russian Russian.

Soviet Russians then. Short form would either be Soviets or Russian.:)
 
But the US could send thousands of bombers (with their escort) and bomb SU's Moscow or something. The NATO also had Pershing II missiles. Those missiles are a bullet in the back for the SU. Within 12 minutes Moscow would've been Muscow Paste.
The SU could have attempted to attack Alaska but they would have to expect a HEAVY counterattack and that would probably dislodge them.
The 1987-88 NATO forces would be enough to stop the initial SU invasion, albeit very unlikely, without nukes. So darn it. No nukes, no war.


I was jokeing about the Alaska invasion.:D

The SU had its own bombers & enough IBCM's to nuke quite a few of the USA's major citys. And Europe could be burned right off the map with its mid/short range nukes.



CanadianGoose, I might note the sheer absurdity of ranking either army based on encounters with the Wehrmacht forty years earlier but instead would point out that the Russian Army was effectively broken in the 1980s, unable to even properly mobilize to occupy Poland in 1981.

Ditto with the US army in the 1970s but in the 1980 it was in much better shape.

Army effiivemess can change drastically within a few short years
 
OK so the conclusion of all this is that the SU can't invade anywhere sucessfully during the years of 1980s upwards. With the reorganisation of the US army and all that.
Ok what about the 1970s? Urban fox mentioned that the US was weaker then. I don't know about NATO though. Was it equally weak? If the Soviet invasion was initiated about 10 years earlier would it have a better chance of success?
I am still thinking of how the soviets could have sucessfully weaken the Western Allies, or at least get some places that could patch up it's economy, then sue for peace.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
OK so the conclusion of all this is that the SU can't invade anywhere sucessfully during the years of 1980s upwards. With the reorganisation of the US army and all that.
Ok what about the 1970s? Urban fox mentioned that the US was weaker then. I don't know about NATO though. Was it equally weak? If the Soviet invasion was initiated about 10 years earlier would it have a better chance of success?
I am still thinking of how the soviets could have sucessfully weaken the Western Allies, or at least get some places that could patch up it's economy, then sue for peace.


In the '70s any Soviet attack would have triggered a NATO nuclear response. That was a basic part of the Alliance strategy. The reaction would not be limited to the U.S. the UK had it's own weapons as did France (although it is likely that French weapons would have been deployed only to defend France). A '70s attack is actually one of the more destructive WW III scenarios since both sides nuclear arsenals are near peak inventory.
 
Top