are soviet units overrated ?

[sfbaytf]

Russia is an interesting place to me. In 5th grade I had a teacher who was one of the very few allowed into Russia on a visit while under communist rule. Her fascinating stories about the visit excited me. In high school we had a trip scheduled to Russia, but it got cancelled due to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

In college I studied quite a bit about Russia. One of my professors lived and studied in Russia. Gorbachev recently came to power and she believed he was riding a tiger and his effort at reform would ultimately fail.

The problems that currently affect Russia were present in the 70's and 80's. Rampant corruption at all levels of society, rampant alcoholism, gross industrial inefficiencies to name a few. Today alcoholism remains a huge problem, corruption and inefficiencies hasn't gone away, just migrated to a few oligarchs, who have suddenly died in mysterious accidents or suicides. Corruption at all levels of society appear to be just as prevalent as the old days of communism.

There were always questions about the true effectiveness of the Russian military during the Cold War period. Some painted it as a 10 foot giant, others pointed out the weaknesses and flaws of Russian society in general and believed it would lead to a general decrease in effectiveness. Russian draftees were subjected to brutal treatment and lack of realistic training. The overall willingness and effective of the Warsaw Pact allied was also questioned.

It was though in many circles that the recent reforms and increase in funding under Putin the military would become a more professional force, but it appears most of the money went into the bank accounts of oligarchs who spent it on lavish yachts and other luxuries. Cronyism and incompetence have not appeared to have gone away.

A huge problem for Russia is demographics. In Russia the life expectancy for men is shocking low. Alcoholism is believed to be a big factor. The number of prime aged males is shrinking and that has huge implications for it economic and military wellbeing. Even more worrisome is the recent call up has enticed many males to flee Russia causing a potential brain drain. Losing the number of males in Ukraine means far fewer offspring in the future Russia, like China is sitting on a massive demographic time bomb. Different reasons but a timebomb, nonetheless.

To get an idea of what this could lead to, look right here at home. Inflation is a big issue; heck even here is it with the rising cost of games. Most think it’s about cost of goods, but the main and most worrisome component is the sticky labor inflation. Right now, there are more jobs than people willing or able to take them and that is causing a huge problem as labor costs are rising.

An aging population with many older experienced worked leaving the labor force with jobs not being filled is huge problem. There are other reasons-7 million prime aged males not participating in the workforce for instance. I was going to take a flight last week that got cancelled. The reason? Not enough workers.

If you follow the financial markets there is a big debate on just how high the Fed will be forced to raise rates to curtail inflation and just how much collateral damage will be done.
Russia does have the advantage of oil and natural gas to fuel its economy.

In terms of gameplay some mention they feel the Russian/ Warsaw Pact are overpowered. Personally based on what I know and believe they are. How much is open to debate, but in the end it doesn't bother me at all.

I found the original Flashpoint too easy to win as NATO in many cases. Now it seems far more difficult.

If the Russians/WP are overpowered in the game I just say to myself, a much younger Gorbachev came to power much earlier and along with his powerful clique were able to reform much of Russian society. A 100% surtax was imposed on alcohol, leading to some riots that had to be violently suppressed for the good of the country. A Marius' figure was put in charge of the Russian Army and reformed it. Afghanistan never happened.

Gorbachev opened ties to the West and western capitalists eager for new markets and profits were more than happy to supply expertise and assistance.

Then Gorbachev was overthrown in a coup by reactionary forces who felt things went too far too fast and the iron curtain fell once again across Europe. A younger Putin like figure took reigns of power…

As the designers have said this game is fully modable, so I expect someone to come up with different datapoints and we'll go from there.

[Stimpak]

Let's not forget the political turmoil in the warsaw pact countries at the time. Hard to see them going along with an all out war in 1989, particularly the East Germans who were but months from reunification with their brothers.

Personally I think that the Soviet's hope of winning a conventional war died in 1980. Maybe earlier than that even - late 70's, they would have peaked in 1975 then fell off a cliff hard with respect to relative capability versus NATO, who were starting to introduce high tech, great reforms in training and doctrine, and assault breaker platforms. After 1986, it was no contest. Only the absolute worst case scenario for NATO that we see in Flashpoint would allow them to get as far as they do.

[sfbaytf]

1980 or perhaps 1981 being the point where the hope of winning a conventional war and 1975 being the peak sounds about right. The post Viet-Nam period for the US military was a mess. Lack of funding, discipline problems and a wide array of other factors would have given the former Soviet Union their best opportunity.

Even with current weaknesses, Russia remains an adversary to be wary of. Its just gone to a different level. More asymmetric and economic at the present with the possibility of things spilling over a direct confrontation.

Hopefully that won't come to pass.

[Stimpak]

It won't, so long as Ukraine can fight the Russians off by herself, which is why supporting them is still important.

[jmlima]

It won't, so long as Ukraine can fight the Russians off by herself, which is why supporting them is still important.

Yeah. IMO, russian military danger is overstated, russian dark-money danger continues to be understated. The number of politicos and parties that cyclically do their bidding and are shown to be in their pockets is truly staggering.

Which is not to say that a mad man with nukes is not an ever present danger.

[sfbaytf]

When it comes to the cloak and dagger stuff, Russia is as good as it gets. They had access to what Hitler was up to in WW2. During the Cold War they penetrated deeply into the British intelligence service. They compromised FBI agents.

Social media and the ability to manipulate public opinion has become a new battlefield too.

[kevinkins]

[/quote]
Yeah. IMO, russian military danger is overstated, russian dark-money danger continues to be understated. The number of politicos and parties that cyclically do their bidding and are shown to be in their pockets is truly staggering.
[/quote]

Wasn't Macgregor mentioned in this thread? At least he is so delusional during public appearances as to be harmless. But Putin is delusional and can do a lot of harm on his way out.

[PN79]

Regarding Czechoslovak army in game I noticed two things quicky:
1) Still using 82mm vz. 52 mortars in motor-rifle battalions. In reality long gone and in their place were in 1989 120mm vz. 82 mortars or MLR platoon with two RM-51 rocket launchers.
2) Too much T-55AM2 and T-55AM2B. While Czechoslovakia started to modernize T-54 and T-55 earlier and in larger quantities than other nswp countries it was T-54AM1 and T-55AM1 which were prevalent (approx. 1000) against about 200 T-54AM2 and T-55AM2 and single battalion with T-54/55AM2B.

To asses if Warsaw Pact units are overpowered or not is hard. One has to go through specific examples and then after lot of work observe results. Another thing is morale and willingness to die for commies in Moscow - that would be near zero in nswp armies by 1989.

[Jagger2002]

MacGregor is one of the best analysts of the Ukrainian war, IMO. My impression is that he has no ideological or political agenda but simply following where ever information leads. And he clearly has the background experience and intellect to reach sound conclusions. Listening to him is like a breath of fresh air considering just about everyone else is pushing political or ideological agendas.

[kevinkins]

That's all well and good. But are you aware of the following:

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6299099588001

It's one thing to be wrong about military operations but, he has no clue on how modern operations are conducted, misread the ability of the RA and UA, while believing Putin would just stop at the Dniper. Just give Russia western Ukraine. Putin has no interest in western Ukraine. How does he know? On Putin's payroll? What's really funny is at 1:30 when Macgregor says "the game is over". Woops.

MacGregor’s appearance on Monday comes just days after he told Stuart Varney of Fox Business that Russia’s forces were “too gentle” during the first days of the invasion, that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a “puppet” who shouldn’t be resisting Russia’s incursion, and that everything that’s been coming out of Ukraine is propaganda.
Varney could barely believe what he was hearing. “I’m inclined to disagree with you, Colonel,” he said

Ritter is another one - from June:

Scott Ritter, a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer who was a leading critic of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, was interviewed for YouTube channel The Left Lens about the Russian special military operation to "demilitarise and de-Nazify" the Ukraine. "NATO and the United States are facing the kind of moral and physical defeat at the hands of Russia that will probably mean the end of NATO," he told presenter Danny Haiphong. "I don't think NATO survives this." Ritter said "By the time Russia finishes this, Russia will have an army that's the most seasoned, combat experienced military in the world, facing off against NATO forces who are poorly-trained, poorly-led and, guess what, now poorly-equipped because they gave all their weapons away".


Retired US Army Colonel Douglas MacGregor told Fox News' Tucker Carlson that US President Joe Biden's administration was sending token numbers of weapons to Ukraine to avoid acknowledging that it had lost its proxy war. "It's hard, when you look at something this ridiculous, not to conclude that this is a face-saving measure on the part of the administration that really doesn't want to admit that this war was lost a long time ago," MacGregor said.

Funny, both Ritter and MacGregor have gone to ground in a face-saving measure. But again, not a breath of fresh air and extremally ideological. MacGregor has been associated with martial law at the southern border and antisemitism. His extremes have forced him to back the wrong horse in Putin. One can agree with him, but he is not presenting level headed interviews based on data.

Here is a video of two defeated old men without a clue (watch at own risk).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3MkvWxdJrU

You will find a more honest discussion on Russian TV. Maybe because their sky IS falling.

[Currahee150]

…just no. If McGregor was half right in his predictions Ukraine would have lost the war literally six times over by now, and in addition would be at the English Channel. He’s another talking head that’s keeps using his (admittedly impressive) 73 easting credentials to try and convince people he knows what he’s talking about regarding the Russian Military. If he did, Kyiv would have fallen on day 1. (Spoiler alert, it didn’t).
I could keep bashing him, but I’ll leave it this: I’m all for unbiased and even alternative viewpoints on current conflicts, but McGregor isn’t one of them. He has rejected reality in favor of one of his own. Please please please stop using him a source.

As for the topic on hand, while I believe Soviet Equipment and doctrine was better aligned to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses than current Russian forces, I think the underlying issues (unrealistic training, questionable maintenance programs, corruption, societal issues) would still be there and would quickly rear their ugly head. The bolt out of the blue attack would have been terrifying…for about three days. Then logistical issues would, in my opinion, started to cripple the advance. This isn’t to say NATO wouldn’t have their own not insignificant issues but the Soviet steamroller might not have been the unstoppable force it cracked up to be.

[edit: ninja’s by Kevin, who was kind enough to provide examples ]

[CapnDarwin]

Folks, let's pump the breaks on this discussion as it is getting more political and chippy than actually addressing the Cold War aspect of the question. I don't want to have this get closed, and folks warned. The game offers extensive modding capability, and soon, the modding docs will come, and you can build things as you believe them to be.

Thanks, and enjoy the Holidays and the game!

[GloriousRuse]

I think we're all missing a rather large part of the discussion, which is that the devs chose to model the Soviet Army as it was feared by western analysts at the time, not as it was. You aren't commanding or fighting against a "realistic" Soviet Army, but rather what NATO thought it would actually have to face in a coming war. At least that's my interpretation of why things like technical performance are over modeled and many factors like troop quality, employment context, and doctrine are minimized. It's all in the name of good fun, and its best to enjoy it as such.

A few examples:

Contextual Use: Ah, the hated Reflex missile. Now, we all know - now- you wouldn't battle carry this. The choice to employ it would be a deliberate one, clearing your tube, deliberately selecting the munition, uploading it, and then preparing to fire it. After firing it you know you are going to have a dozen seconds or more tracking the missile to target using SACLOS, making shooting on the move...difficult...and that's assuming your target doesn't back down or leave LOS. So that "offensive engagement" in FCSS is really a short halt, a deliberate upload, re-acquire a target, then track the missile on. The western side would get a few free shots before the unit "fired", including very potentially one while the missile was en route, with western gunnery doctrine meaning the halted missile tank was prioritized (stationary before moving, front before flanks, etc...). And you the player would be silently cursing your men as idiots for trying while the little explosions ticked off. Whoever survived would then forever more say "no, we aren't trying that."

It would be a very different scenario if the T80s were waiting in hide, knowing they were looking down a few KM of bowling alley. But NATO didn't know that, or didn't act like it. The missile really can work under the right conditions...NATO acted and trained like you could actually have it to hand in a jiffy and fire accurately on the move at extreme range. So that's what the devs put in game. The unknown terror that your range advantage was going to be erased by a wonder weapon, or the desperate hope that at least your best formations could fight back at range. Because it isn't about realism, its about "real-ish" fun.

Minimize the Differences: One of the unspoken truths about high technology is that it requires a commensurate investment in people to do what it says on the tin. You only need to look at one of Russia's famous tank biathlons to realize that even a notionally good fire control can miss a ton with a poor crew. We, just like the western analysts of the 1980s, routinely imagine the baseline as far higher than it is, and then apply it to our opponents - something the devs did very well in building the notional soviet army for the game.

I got a recent reminder of this via a war story or two about master gunners training Ukranian tankers pre-invasion. The Ukranians still in effect used the soviet model of gunnery training. They would roll up to their range position, fire at an assortment of targets, hit some, miss some and be generally pleased that they now knew how to shoot - at which point they'd be out of training ammo. In fairness, their T64s were by any mid cold war standard shooting quite lethally, a definite mark up from WWII gunnery, but just as definitely not the "75+% hit rate on the move!" the technology should have been able to do.

By western standards, their performance would be appalling. A western crew under range conditions does not miss; virtually ever. They race the clock to see if they can kill targets fast enough to reduce each threat before a very good enemy could acquire them and shoot back, in a wide array of situations. They fire more ammo, have more reps, and do loads of simulator work before that - and the chances are if they are too slow too often, let alone missing shorts, they get disqualified and have to try to qual again.

The difference that dedicated crew-tech fusion provides vs "good enough" and new tech is so gapingly astronomical that it boggles any of our conceptions of the classic wargaming parameters of "green, regular, veteran, elite" with some bonuses/maluses off a basic core of performance.

But again, NATO didn't know that. They assumed they were good, but that the Russians would be nipping at their heels. They treated them that way in modelling, giving them the benefit of the doubt for claimed capabilities, seemingly reinforced as other NATO crews played OPFOR. So the devs modeled that to reflect the feeling of the age - and they got it very right "man, stay up a second too long, they'll put one through your turret ring" or the Russian "fine, we'll lose the first volley then win the second" mentality. We all know that's not true - a company in road column at 2500m has about thirty seconds to live after a platoon top hats order - but damned if they didn't get that feeling right.

Doctrine An artillery example. We know that Soviet artillery doctrine, particularly for the RAGs that make up so much of the support in game, was fairly rigid. The RAG commander and a small staff rode near or with the Regimental commander and primarily designed his fire plan in support of that commander. He was chief of staff, fire control center, and unit commander all in one. He would stay in contact with the CRTA, but his guns really weren't a universal asset. Something like being instantly linkable to a higher-level recon fire complex to provide counterbattrey for the division or army at will, then transition back down into supporting his formation, then send a fire mission to help out a sister regiment to the south...it just wasn't in the cards. The C2 links weren't there.

Coming up from below, we know that calling for fire was strictly controlled by deliberate observation posts and commanders. A soviet sub-unit did not just "hop on fires net" and get support. And for good reason; not only wasn't that their job in soviet doctrine, but trying to call in accurate fire mission from a moving non-GPS'd tank against a target you might not even have a map open for, to guns that very well may not have had time to register and will need some kentucky windage for their own location...well, suffice to say you could miss by hexes in game.

But..one more time...NATO didn't treat it that way. They may have known down to the round what soviet doctrine said would happen, but invariably when they wargamed it they gave it a degree of flexibility and agility far above what it had. Breathless observers talked about the lethality of the "recon fires complex" without realizing it just meant some small part of the Soviet artillery might be able to do what was the standard for NATO artillery, and rather was an unstoppable killing machine sending back precise targetting data to waiting batteries in moments.

And the devs have worked hard to replicate that feeling, not that Soviet artillery is a very direct support centric item, but that to NATO's eyes they would be facing guns everywhere, with artillery pounding them from every direction at every step, from a fire control apparatus like their own only slightly worse. And man, did they nail it. Realistic? Of course not. But does it get the Cold War atmosphere they were aiming for? Absolutely.

So - yes, of course the soviets are over modeled. Because the game isn't about realism, it's about the NATO nightmare, and what they thought realism might be before everyone pulled back the curtain.

[WABAC]

GloriousRuse, thanks for the interesting read while I take a break from cooking. Not much chance to play the game today. Still have wrapping to do to.

Many of the things you mention can be adjusted in the national data spreadsheets.

[blond_knight_new]

Very good points GloriousRuse. That would explain the results Ive been seeing.

[GloriousRuse]

@WABAC well, I don't want to start mucking around in foundational settings for a game I wholly intend to play MP at some point. If I did, tailoring them on could be a challenge - a diverting story:

After Desert Storm, the DoD decided this was a spectacular chance to adjust it's modelling. After all, there had been some embarrassing public forecasts of 10,000, or even 30,000 US losses. (The fact that the coalition went anyhow is indicative of just how staggeringly different expectations for wars were back then - I supremely doubt anyone would have greenlit the invasion of Iraq with a straight faced "we could lose 30,000 men in the first month")

So they decided to use 73 Easting as a test scenario to help tweak their close combat parameters. Thanks to advances in technology and relative scrutiny of the action, it was one of the best preserved instances that could be recreated. Plus, it was essentially a frontal assault through a desert with comparatively equal sub unit engagements...it was, in short, full of controlled variables.

Just one problem: McMasters' force kept getting annihilated in every run. Just slaughtered. Many, many fine tweaks were made, and they didn't make much difference. Eventually in exasperation the modelers said "screw it, cut the Iraqi probability of hit in half!" Well, blue started winning, but horribly pyrrhic victories that looked nothing like the actual outcome. But now that previously unthinkable drastic moves were on the table - in effect, looking at published Russian stats and saying 'nope, those are either complete bullshit or the crews were so bad it doesn't matter", they kept moving that number down.

By the end of it, they needed to reduce the T72 probability of hit by ninefold before getting close to the real outcome...how much of that was the T72? How much was the export model nature the Russians would claim? Where did an Iraqi Republican Guard stack vs the other mass armies of the world?

I've never seen an answer to that - though admittedly I haven't looked too hard - but thirty years later in the Nagorno-Karabakh, Russia would echo the post gulf refrain "well, it was just export models used by crappy locals...not the real thing. Trust me, our stuff and our men are better" We know how that went.

[kevinkins]

Interesting. Did they try to change the volume of outgoing Iraqi fire to simulate poor performance that way?
A lot of factors go into the volume of fire a formation can achieve. Once they determine a level that yields
the real outcome, those factors might be elucidated one by one.

[GloriousRuse]

Depends on the study. Ph adjustments were in a lot of them

I know one of the JANUS reviews for the time basically said "look our model is great - it gets pretty close to the actual outcome" except for the minor issue that the American side needed to put out 120% of the TOWs and over 400% of the main gun they actually used to get that result.

That became a problem, because JANUS was effectively recreating the first mission of Panzer Leader where the T72s weren't shooting at all.

When they ran it sans sandstorm, everyone got beat to pieces. But as critics might rightly argue, if the T72s and BMPs were serving four times more incoming than they should...how could we realistically assess what their actual performance was anyhow?

Alas, studies are expensive and so was simulation time in the early 90s, so in many cases you're left piecing together a wicked problem.

[Stimpak]

I remember an anecdote on Iraqi gunnery from the Battle of Khafji where a brigade-strength unit, approximately a battalion at the front, had made it within a few hundred meters (One hex!) of DHQ 1st Marine Div... and hit nothing, accomplished almost nothing, being beaten back by a platoon of LAVs and their marines before the air support showed up.

[Stimpak]

@WABAC well, I don't want to start mucking around in foundational settings for a game I wholly intend to play MP at some point. If I did, tailoring them on could be a challenge - a diverting story:

After Desert Storm, the DoD decided this was a spectacular chance to adjust it's modelling. After all, there had been some embarrassing public forecasts of 10,000, or even 30,000 US losses. (The fact that the coalition went anyhow is indicative of just how staggeringly different expectations for wars were back then - I supremely doubt anyone would have greenlit the invasion of Iraq with a straight faced "we could lose 30,000 men in the first month")

So they decided to use 73 Easting as a test scenario to help tweak their close combat parameters. Thanks to advances in technology and relative scrutiny of the action, it was one of the best preserved instances that could be recreated. Plus, it was essentially a frontal assault through a desert with comparatively equal sub unit engagements...it was, in short, full of controlled variables.

Just one problem: McMasters' force kept getting annihilated in every run. Just slaughtered. Many, many fine tweaks were made, and they didn't make much difference. Eventually in exasperation the modelers said "screw it, cut the Iraqi probability of hit in half!" Well, blue started winning, but horribly pyrrhic victories that looked nothing like the actual outcome. But now that previously unthinkable drastic moves were on the table - in effect, looking at published Russian stats and saying 'nope, those are either complete bullshit or the crews were so bad it doesn't matter", they kept moving that number down.

By the end of it, they needed to reduce the T72 probability of hit by ninefold before getting close to the real outcome...how much of that was the T72? How much was the export model nature the Russians would claim? Where did an Iraqi Republican Guard stack vs the other mass armies of the world?

I've never seen an answer to that - though admittedly I haven't looked too hard - but thirty years later in the Nagorno-Karabakh, Russia would echo the post gulf refrain "well, it was just export models used by crappy locals...not the real thing. Trust me, our stuff and our men are better" We know how that went.

Sorry to necro, but I've been wondering - is there a source for this excerpt? I'd be very interested in reading more!