cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) (11/22/89)
From: cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) Alright, my last posting on Eastern Europe was either lost or rejected (although I haven't got anything back). Most of the points I raised there were covered in other postings on the same subject. But I'd like to pursue the main issue I raised there. The following thread is meant strictly as a military science application. I don't want it to enter the political realm (nor, I am sure, will it be allowed). I have seen nothing to indicate any real conventional arms reductions on the eastern side of central Europe. ABC stated the other night that the Soviets have reduced their troop strength by 250,000. (I think -- that figure seems overblown beyond belief. That's more than 10 divisions. I hope I heard wrong.) Charles Kamps, in the latest issue of Strategy and Tactics, claims that the Soviets are building 53 combat aircraft and 283 tanks (T-80s, I presume -- that's roughly 1 division) a month. He further claims that the Soviets added several divisions in the Eastern U.S.S.R some years ago, and that promised troop reductions will barely eliminate these divisions (it wasn't clear to me whether these where actual additions or merely an increase in "category A" divisions). The question then becomes: Are there any actual troop reductions in East Germany or Czechoslovakia? Are there any hardware reductions? Are the Soviets removing T-55s or T-64s and claiming tank reductions? What promises have been made regarding troop cuts? It what ways has the threat been reduced? Should the West react immediately with troop cuts of its own? I don't know of any actual reductions (outside of medium-range nucs, but that was by treaty). I think Gorbachev has promised troop cuts sometime in the 90s, but I'm hazy as to how many. Just this weekend, the paper indicated that U.S. intelligence sees a reduction in Soviet military spending. On the other hand, Cuba still gets $3 million a day, and the FMLN got arms and money from somebody. I'm interested in numbers here. Political implications belong in alt.Commie.plot. Chris Perleberg cperlebe@encad.wichita.ncr.com
terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) (11/24/89)
From: terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <11646@cbnews.ATT.COM> cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) writes: > > >From: cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) > > >I have seen nothing to indicate any real conventional arms reductions on >the eastern side of central Europe. ABC stated the other night that the >Soviets have reduced their troop strength by 250,000. (I think -- that >figure seems overblown beyond belief. That's more than 10 divisions. I >hope I heard wrong.) Charles Kamps, in the latest issue of Strategy and >Tactics, claims that the Soviets are building 53 combat aircraft and 283 >tanks (T-80s, I presume -- that's roughly 1 division) a month. He further >claims that the Soviets added several divisions in the Eastern U.S.S.R some >years ago, and that promised troop reductions will barely eliminate these >divisions (it wasn't clear to me whether these where actual additions or >merely an increase in "category A" divisions). Every discussion I have heard about the Soviet troop reductions in Europe that mentioned specifics tends to confirm what Kamps implied. Most of the equipment removed has been obsolete or obsolescent. As Kamps notes, this reduces their maintenance requirements, and I imagine it makes training easier by having less variety of equipment. In essence they are doing something they would probably have to do anyway. As for reduction in manpower, the Soviet category system appears to have confounded most analysis that I have seen. All that is agreed upon is that lowere category units have older equipment and lower full time complements. Some sources say that lower categories also have less equipment while others (such as Kamps) indicate that they have a full complement of equipment. In relation to troop reductions in Central Europe this is a important distinction. If a divsion is reduced to a lower category by shipping troops back to the Soviet Union, there is a reduction in troop strength. The equipment is still there. It is relatively easy to move men around. The difficult part of strategic mobility is the equipment (the whole rationale for the US light divisions). It is much easier to move troops from Russia to Central Europe than it is for the US to move troops to Western Europe. Unless entire divisions are removed, including their equipment, any troop withdrawals be accepted with caution. Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogc.edu
borynec@watmath.waterloo.edu (James Borynec) (11/27/89)
From: bnr-di!borynec@watmath.waterloo.edu (James Borynec) I am not sure about what other conventional arms reduction actions the soviets are actually doing, but, they ARE removing their bridge-laying equipment, as promised. From a military science point of view, this is a VERY signifigant cutback. Possibly more important than their tank reductions. j.b. -- UUCP : utzoo!bnr-vpa!bnr-di!borynec James Borynec, Bell Northern Research Bitnet: borynec@bnr.CA Box 3511, Stn C, Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 4H7
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (11/27/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) >Every discussion I have heard about the Soviet troop reductions in Europe >that mentioned specifics tends to confirm what Kamps implied. Most of the >equipment removed has been obsolete or obsolescent... Of course, the US is busily working on plans to do exactly the same in the event of conventional-force-reduction agreements. In particular, any agreement to reduce NATO combat aircraft will result in wholesale scrapping of old aircraft and elaborate shuffling (e.g. passing on semi-new aircraft to allies to replace older ones) to make sure that all the new stuff stays. There has been talk of late about the possibility that agreements might contain clauses specifically aimed at preventing this. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) (11/27/89)
From: Randy Appleton <randy@ms.uky.edu> In article <11646@cbnews.ATT.COM> cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) writes: >Are the Soviets removing T-55s or T-64s and claiming tank reductions? What else would you call it? A T-55 looks like a tank to me. The last I heard, there was talk on the NATO side of the Mutual and Balanced Force Reduction thing of getting rid of the old NATO aircraft, like the F-104's, before the new Torando ADF's and the F-15's. I expect the Soviets to get rid of their worst hardware first, just like I expect that of us. BTW, they do have legitimate security needs, too. Randy randy@ms.uky.edu