aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP (02/01/86)
My little bit about the quantity vs. quality, NATO vs. the Warsaw Pact debate: I don't know what the actual numbers are. I would like to research them, but for the moment I'll have to try to meld the various figures others are quoting. I tend to rate 1 Soviet corporal as probably a good bit better than 1 American corporal, and certainly above most Dutch soldiers. Things to bear in mind: Warsaw pact soldiers are mostly conscripts. This means that they are less "professional" and affects their morale - what they are willing to fight for. It also means, however, that there is a large reservoir of trained military manpower in the Warsaw pact countries; and many of them have been trained since youth in the Pioneer military exercises. In the Warsaw pact countries, a military career is relatively prestigious, even though as dull as any military job anywhere. In the West, military careers are not very attractive. This affects the quality of people who become career soldiers and officers. Most West Europeans go through compulsory service, like the Warsaw pact countries, but fewer stay on. The American all-volunteer army has the above recruitment problem compounded by drug abuse. In other words, many American soldiers are stoned on duty. (by the way, can anyone tell me anything about the officially sanctioned use of stimulants by combat troops in Korea and Vietnam? I've just been hearing some horror stories from a Canadian veteran of the Princess Pats. I'm particularly interested in comparisons between American, British, and Turkish troops). Patriotism is denigrated in the West, but seems to be still widespread in Eastern Europe despite Communism. I suspect that many Eastern Eiropeans would be reluctant to fight foreign wars, but would defend their homelands vigourously. This is probably a good thing, except that I'm not at all sure that Westerners would defend their homelands more vigourously than a reluctant East European might fight to take it away. Sure, the West has high-tech. I don't think that is going to make much difference in a battlefield full of ECM. Especially since much high-tech military equipment hasn't been tested, and will likely break down in the first few days of battle. Roughly, then, I think the West gets more bang for the buck in high-tech, but nowhere near as much in low-tech, conventional military. In other words, if it weren't for the possibility of escalation into a nuclear war, the Warsaw pact could win a conventional war in Europe now.