NATO vs Warsaw

donchoo SG

Which do you think is more powerful before soviet union breakup?

If you have read several declassified materials from both pacts, you be surprise at the different methods and military tactics both side would adopt if there was a war.

I once read that the soviet union would invade china if cold war broke out! Remember that there was a period of time where relations was sour between the two.

sgFish SG

wouldn’t it be dumb of the russkies to open up a second front in the event that the cold war heats up?

SMAPLionHeart SG

invade china for wad? can't even conquer it and lose one of your "allies"
russkies are smart , obviously they won't do something as stupid as starting another war

fudgester SG

Fighting NATO is already hard enough on it. No way on earth could they fight the PLA and NATO on two different fronts separated by thousands of kilometers. After all, it was just a period of sour relations, that's all. I don't see much profit to be gained by attacking their communist 'brothers' at the cost of fighting a two-front war.

At the most they would have kept a holding force behind in the East just in case the US Seventh Fleet decided to attack the Soviets there. Oh, and to hold back any possible Chinese invasions until reinforcements could be sent there. No way can the Soviets invade China.

fkh SG

Warsaw Pact armed force had one advantage : they use standard equipment supplied by former USSR, they were unified by communist beliefs.

Whereas, NATO used their own weapons and try to maintain unique identify by disregarding USA sometimes.

However, in the times of war, many of Warsaw Pact soldiers would defect en-mass to NATO side, or even organised internal mutiny against "Soviet puppets" (communist party in their own countries.)

Besides that , Eastern Europe military forces were inferior to that of Western counterpart. Why ? They don't do scientific research to ensure that their own equipments are better .

For example, MiG 31 Foxhound is generations behind F-15

liuzg150181 SG

The answer depends on the timeline i guess,though the advantage of NATO which you ascribe to does not seem to supercede until around and near the collapse of Soviet Union~~~

This is an excerpt from "The Art of Maneuver:Maneuver-Warfare Theory and AirLand Battle" written in 1994 by then US infantry officer,now Lt.-Col. Robert Leonhard regarding this issue:
"The development of AirLand Battle began with the assignment of Gen. Donn Starry as TRADOC commander in 1977. An experienced armor officer and former corps commander, Starry served to focus attentionon what he referred to as the "Central Battle" - a future decisive confrontation between NATO and Warsaw Pact forces in Europe. With growing concern over the expansion and modernization going on within the Warsaw Pact, officers in TRADOC and V Corps developed of mathematical, computer-assisted "battle calculus" with which to study the huge decisive battle they envisioned.
.......................................................................................
Inevitably, battle calculus had to reveal the bad news: even factoring in the latest technology and equipment that the West could offer, the force ratios and anticipated loss rates in the Central Battle would eventually produce a Warsaw Pact victory........................ "

khyron1 SG

MiG-31 is actually mission-specific plane…designed to intercept bombers coming over the Pole.

liuzg150181 SG

Mig-31-interceptor,to intercept bombers
F-15-tactical fighter,air superiority
F-16-multi-purpose
Smile

|-|05| SG

Not just mission specific.....it was plane specific. It was meant to intercept the XB-70 valkeriye. A mach3 bomber.
In the words of some Aircraft engineer. The MiG 31 was basically 2 huge engines with wings and a pilot.

Shotgun SG

I think u guys are confusing the MiG-31 and the MiG-25. The MiG-25 was really designed to counter US Strategic bombers as well as the fabled valkrye.

The MiG-31 is an improvement over the foxbat, but includes the ability to engage and destroy low level cruise missiles as well. MiG-31s are primarily deployed around Moscow.

|-|05| SG

BY GOSH youre right!

donchoo SG

I thought mig-31 was use to counter the Pavania Tornado (watever its spelled) deployed by the NATO countries. Use to penetrate deep into hostile territory to deliver its package.

baer SG

Other than the readable and almost believeable Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" , there has been a lot of material of "what if"; others more improbable than some.

Far as I can make a final analysis, both NATO and Wasaw Pact were preparing for very different wars. NATO thought that the WP would use chemical, spanez attacks and big stick OMG manuvers; while WP thought NATO would preempt "Airland" like in Iraq/Kuwait in 1990. Both were wrong, nothing happened.

Forget Alan Toffland's "the next war" or Inforwar, what took everyone by suprize was 9-11 and the collaspe of economic infrastructure of USSR. The real 'cause bellus' (Sp?) of next war is water and energy ...and maybe diseases (AIDS and H5N1 pandemic).

China is already feeling that security of water is paramount. Japan went to war in 1941 over energy. H5N1 fatality rate is 50%.

In a toss-up between systems (eg. NATO vs WP or other previous "head to head, line in the sand" situations), what matters is not what technology or political beliefs exists but more proasic concerns like survival and 'way of life' arguments. Nothing sharpens the senses like extermination and "us vs them".