orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/28/86)
Here are some important facts on the conventional arms balance in
Europe, from the book, Arsenal of Democracy by Tom Gervasi:
(note: these figures are not the most up-to-date but more recent
figures would continue the same balance)
1)NATO spending exceeded Warsaw Pact spending each year through the 1970's
ending in 1979 with $212 billion for NATO vs $175 billion for the Warsaw Pact
Secretary of Defense Harold Brown estimated that during the 70's NATO
outspent the Warsaw Pact by $318 billion
2)NATO holds the preponderance of naval force with 485 surface combatants
on station vs the Warsaw Pact's 195
3)NATO has only 64 active divisions vs 68 Warsaw Pact active divisions:
however NATO has a standing force of 2,800,000 vs the Pact's 2,600,000
4)NATO also has a preponderance of reserve strength. Adding active and
reserve forces NATO has 5,184,500 vs 4,800,000 men
5)The above troop figures do *not* include an additional 326,800 French
troops
Now to consider every militarists' favorite, the infamous "tank comparison".
As I have previously pointed out to myopically focus solely upon the
major weapon of the *last* war is to live in the past.
The tank balance is 27,200 Warsaw Pact tanks to 11,800 NATO tanks.
Tom Gervasi points out that if tanks were really so critically short in
NATO that it would be stupid for the US to have provided 1,015 M-60A3
tanks and 771 M-48A5 tanks to various countries in the Middle East and
Asia. Similarly if the British military truly thought tanks were critically
needed in Europe they would be foolish to have planned to send 800 Chieftain
tanks to Iran before the Iranian revolution led to cancellation.
My previous figures for NATO antitank weapons was incorrect, the correct
figure is 193,000 antitank weapons for NATO vs 68,000 for the Warsaw Pact.
NATO's antitank weapons employ the latest in precision guided technology
and electronics including laser, optical and infrared guidance.
Dr. William Perry, under secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering,
has stated that the US has a substantial lead in precision-guided weapons
which he considers to be "the most significant application of technology
to modern warfare". We all know that the US leads in sophisticated
electronics by a longshot so this statement should be no surprise.
Dr. Perry also stated "The technology balance is shifting in favor
of the antitank systems." and points out that NATO leads in the
lethality of tanks, artillery, and rocket launchers as well as in
the quantity and quality of combat aircraft.
We have seen how deceptive mere quantitative comparisons can be in the
numerous Middle East wars. Time after time Israel's highly advanced
weapons largely from the US, have massacred Arab Soviet-supplied weapons.
This has been true even in cases of a *quantitative* superiority for
the Arabs.
To say there is a "conventional weapons gap" in NATO is as absurd as
saying the US is behind in the nuclear arms race.
tim sevener whuxn!orbafb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis) (01/29/86)
By the way, my source for the data I will use is "World War 3: August 1985" by former NATO general Sir John Hackett, with contributions from many others. I believe I gave the author's name incorrectly in a previous posting...(General Bernard Rogers is the current head of NATO). In article <517@whuts.UUCP>, orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > Here are some important facts on the conventional arms balance in > Europe, from the book, Arsenal of Democracy by Tom Gervasi: > (note: these figures are not the most up-to-date but more recent > figures would continue the same balance) > > 2)NATO holds the preponderance of naval force with 485 surface combatants > on station vs the Warsaw Pact's 195 Which will be of overwhelming importance in the battle for Munich, several hundred miles inland... > > 3)NATO has only 64 active divisions vs 68 Warsaw Pact active divisions: > however NATO has a standing force of 2,800,000 vs the Pact's 2,600,000 Not meaning to be nit-picking, but does this include the forces of NATO members Greece, Italy, and Turkey? All of these are rather far-removed from Central Europe. No Warsaw Pact member is. Also, it is unclear whether some of these figures include the Soviet Union and United States. From my interpretation of these, it would seem that some (the tank figures which follow) do include them, while some (the spending figures) do not. Nice bit of misdirection, that. > 4)NATO also has a preponderance of reserve strength. Adding active and > reserve forces NATO has 5,184,500 vs 4,800,000 men > > 5)The above troop figures do *not* include an additional 326,800 French > troops It is unclear whether the above troop figures *do* include US forces on the wrong side of the Atlantic. Raw numbers can often be (pusposefully) misleading in this respect. > The tank balance is 27,200 Warsaw Pact tanks to 11,800 NATO tanks. > Tom Gervasi points out that if tanks were really so critically short in > NATO that it would be stupid for the US to have provided 1,015 M-60A3 > tanks and 771 M-48A5 tanks to various countries in the Middle East and > Asia. Similarly if the British military truly thought tanks were critically > needed in Europe they would be foolish to have planned to send 800 Chieftain > tanks to Iran before the Iranian revolution led to cancellation. The M60 is about 20 years old, the M48 closer to 30. I suspect that the Chieftain is of similar vintage. Hell, why didn't we save some of those fine old Shermans? > > My previous figures for NATO antitank weapons was incorrect, the correct > figure is 193,000 antitank weapons for NATO vs 68,000 for the Warsaw Pact. > NATO's antitank weapons employ the latest in precision guided technology > and electronics including laser, optical and infrared guidance. > Dr. William Perry, under secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, > has stated that the US has a substantial lead in precision-guided weapons > which he considers to be "the most significant application of technology > to modern warfare". We all know that the US leads in sophisticated > electronics by a longshot so this statement should be no surprise. > Dr. Perry also stated "The technology balance is shifting in favor > of the antitank systems." and points out that NATO leads in the > lethality of tanks, artillery, and rocket launchers as well as in > the quantity and quality of combat aircraft. Again, I have seen different figures, therefore it is not surprising that you provide no specifics on the totals of combat aircraft. I will provide them on a later posting. > > We have seen how deceptive mere quantitative comparisons can be in the > numerous Middle East wars. Time after time Israel's highly advanced > weapons largely from the US, have massacred Arab Soviet-supplied weapons. > This has been true even in cases of a *quantitative* superiority for > the Arabs. Much of the Israeli success in the Middle East has been due to superior command and control. The Syrian and Egyptian armies are well-known for their tendency to panic and flee under adversity, regardless of their numerical advantages. > > To say there is a "conventional weapons gap" in NATO is as absurd as > saying the US is behind in the nuclear arms race. > tim sevener whuxn!orb
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (01/30/86)
> Here are some important facts on the conventional arms balance in > Europe, from the book, Arsenal of Democracy by Tom Gervasi: > (note: these figures are not the most up-to-date but more recent > figures would continue the same balance) > > 1)NATO spending exceeded Warsaw Pact spending each year through the 1970's > ending in 1979 with $212 billion for NATO vs $175 billion for the Warsaw Pact However command economies (like the Warsaw Pact countries) are able to obtain much of what they need for military activities with artificially low prices. As an example, Soviet soldiers are paid substantially less than the counterparts in the West -- even when compared to NATO countries that rely on the draft. This makes the Warsaw Pact spending more effective than numbers alone. > 2)NATO holds the preponderance of naval force with 485 surface combatants > on station vs the Warsaw Pact's 195 > NATO is also an ocean-based alliance, requiring much larger naval forces than the Warsaw Pact, which has no oceans to cross to resupply allies. (This also works the other way around -- the Soviets have traditionally had a larger army than the U.S. or Britain, both of which have oceans to discourage invasion.) > 3)NATO has only 64 active divisions vs 68 Warsaw Pact active divisions: > however NATO has a standing force of 2,800,000 vs the Pact's 2,600,000 > > 4)NATO also has a preponderance of reserve strength. Adding active and > reserve forces NATO has 5,184,500 vs 4,800,000 men > Suvorov's book _Inside_The_Soviet_Army_ (a book that must be taken with a grain of salt) provides a description of how the Soviet's organize their reserves such that each division can effectively split in half, with reserves joining established divisions. (This had a lot to do with how rapidly the Soviet Army grew, with experienced officers in charge of large numbers of reserves, when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.) This is not a criticism of the Soviet approach -- in fact, it sounds like a good idea. But it does make their active divisions plus reserves somewhat more useful than our active divisions plus reserves. > 5)The above troop figures do *not* include an additional 326,800 French > troops > They probably don't include Cuban or Nicaraguan troops. In the event of war, I would be shocked out of my wits if the Cuban Army didn't participate in harassing operations against the United States -- and Cuba has roughly 3x10^6 troops -- one of the five largest armies on Earth. > Now to consider every militarists' favorite, the infamous "tank comparison". > As I have previously pointed out to myopically focus solely upon the > major weapon of the *last* war is to live in the past. > The tank balance is 27,200 Warsaw Pact tanks to 11,800 NATO tanks. > Tom Gervasi points out that if tanks were really so critically short in > NATO that it would be stupid for the US to have provided 1,015 M-60A3 > tanks and 771 M-48A5 tanks to various countries in the Middle East and > Asia. Similarly if the British military truly thought tanks were critically > needed in Europe they would be foolish to have planned to send 800 Chieftain > tanks to Iran before the Iranian revolution led to cancellation. > Tanks aren't critically short to NATO because of tactical nuclear weapons including (supposedly) nuclear land mines along some invasion routes. I'm arguing that tactical nuclear weapons are a moral or effective approach, but that's one of the reasons the NATO countries are quite short in the number of tanks. > My previous figures for NATO antitank weapons was incorrect, the correct > figure is 193,000 antitank weapons for NATO vs 68,000 for the Warsaw Pact. > NATO's antitank weapons employ the latest in precision guided technology > and electronics including laser, optical and infrared guidance. > Dr. William Perry, under secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, > has stated that the US has a substantial lead in precision-guided weapons > which he considers to be "the most significant application of technology > to modern warfare". We all know that the US leads in sophisticated > electronics by a longshot so this statement should be no surprise. > Dr. Perry also stated "The technology balance is shifting in favor > of the antitank systems." and points out that NATO leads in the > lethality of tanks, artillery, and rocket launchers as well as in > the quantity and quality of combat aircraft. > > We have seen how deceptive mere quantitative comparisons can be in the > numerous Middle East wars. Time after time Israel's highly advanced > weapons largely from the US, have massacred Arab Soviet-supplied weapons. > This has been true even in cases of a *quantitative* superiority for > the Arabs. > Assuming, of course, that all that high technology works. One of the advantages the Soviets have is that low technology systems WORK! It's true that one F-16 can probably take on 3 MiG-25s, but at some point sheer numbers do make a difference. > To say there is a "conventional weapons gap" in NATO is as absurd as > saying the US is behind in the nuclear arms race. > tim sevener whuxn!orb Your analysis is flawed, but not completely ridiculous. Are you willing to see the money spent on conventional weapons and troops if the Soviets insist on a conventional weapons race in the year 2000? Traditionally democracies will not spend money on armed forces until it almost too late. In a sense, this a strength, because until World War II, we didn't let the military warp our sense of priorities. But because there are countries like the Soviet Union which do not operate in as open a manner as the West, democracies are in great peril because we won't spend money on armed forces.
baba@garth.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (02/05/86)
In article <1264@pucc-i> afb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis) writes: > > By the way, my source for the data I will use is "World War 3: August 1985" >by former NATO general Sir John Hackett, with contributions from many others. I >believe I gave the author's name incorrectly in a previous posting...(General >Bernard Rogers is the current head of NATO). For Heaven's sakes, man, look at the cover of that book! It's a *novel*, a work of *fiction*! Baba
afb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis) (02/11/86)
In article <257@garth.UUCP>, baba@garth.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) writes: > In article <1264@pucc-i> afb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis) writes: > > > > By the way, my source for the data I will use is "World War 3: August 1985" > >by former NATO general Sir John Hackett, with contributions from many others. I > >believe I gave the author's name incorrectly in a previous posting...(General > >Bernard Rogers is the current head of NATO). > > For Heaven's sakes, man, look at the cover of that book! It's a *novel*, > a work of *fiction*! > Baba What else would a book called "WW 3: August, 1985" that was written in 1979 be? General Sir John Hackett is hardly Rosemary Rogers. If you look at the force levels he projected for 1985, I think that they jibe very well with the current levels. This is easy to do, because all of the relevant data is presented in *tabular* form (rather strange for a novel). He wrote this "novel" with the purpose of shaking the West out of its malaise, therefore it was written with as much care and accuracy as possible. It is a *novel* because General Hackett wanted to convey his message as widely as possible, and deemed that a work of fiction would be the most effective way. For Heaven's sakes, man, look at the *inside* of that book! Michael Lewis
baba@garth.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (02/17/86)
Michael Lewis writes: > What else would a book called "WW 3: August, 1985" that was written in >1979 be? General Sir John Hackett is hardly Rosemary Rogers. If you look at >the force levels he projected for 1985, I think that they jibe very well with >the current levels. But your primary source for current force levels seems to be Hackett's novel. If you have non-fiction figures available, why haven't you used them? I gave my copy away years ago, but my recollection is that his estimates of Soviet force levels were a little high, and his projections of non-US NATO force levels and effectiveness were wildly optimistic. > This is easy to do, because all of the relevant data is >presented in *tabular* form (rather strange for a novel). He wrote this >"novel" with the purpose of shaking the West out of its malaise, therefore it >was written with as much care and accuracy as possible. It is a *novel* >because General Hackett wanted to convey his message as widely as possible, >and deemed that a work of fiction would be the most effective way. Or, to put it another way, it was written as a piece of propaganda. When I read it, back in '80, I was appalled by Hackett's heavy-handed plumping for the European defense consortia. The pivotal roles given to such Euro-weapons as the Tornado MRCA and the re-armed British Polaris fleet were decidedly unrealistic. The theme that, fortunately, wise NATO military leaders in the early eighties were given the controversial and expensive weapons systems they wanted was flogged mercilessly. His "projected" force tables must be viewed with a certain amount of skepticism. As a novel, Hackett's book is awful. As propaganda, it's pretty good. It provides, if nothing else, an interesting insider's look at the NATO command structure, but as a reference for anything approaching serious debate on the balance of power in Europe, it is at best questionable. Baba
afb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis) (02/21/86)
In article <263@garth.UUCP>, baba@garth.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) writes: > estimates of Soviet force levels were a little high, and his projections > of non-US NATO force levels and effectiveness were wildly optimistic. For the purposes of our discussion, I deemed that the projected force level estimates would suffice...if anything, the figures tended to err on the side of optimism, as you pointed out. Therefore, the arms balance is *at least* that bad. > > Or, to put it another way, it was written as a piece of propaganda. When I > read it, back in '80, I was appalled by Hackett's heavy-handed plumping for > the European defense consortia. The pivotal roles given to such Euro-weapons > as the Tornado MRCA and the re-armed British Polaris fleet were decidedly > unrealistic. The theme that, fortunately, wise NATO military leaders in > the early eighties were given the controversial and expensive weapons systems > they wanted was flogged mercilessly. His "projected" force tables must be > viewed with a certain amount of skepticism. > I agree that the figures are best taken with a grain of salt, but they are useful. After all, does anyone *really* know how many troops and tanks the Soviets have in Europe? As you said above, the figures will tend to be a little optimistic, which is why I bothered to dredge them up in the first place. > As a novel, Hackett's book is awful. As propaganda, it's pretty good. > It provides, if nothing else, an interesting insider's look at the NATO > command structure, but as a reference for anything approaching serious > debate on the balance of power in Europe, it is at best questionable. > > Baba