Tanks in war

[S-2]

"...i mean even a massive military alliance such as NATO was worried about them."

All show-no go. It was a massive facade. Nat'l power isn't measured in tanks, jets, missiles, etc. It's measured in gross and per capita GNP. All else stems from that if sustainable vigor is the objective.

Sure they had us worried but we leveraged them at the one point where they couldn't fight an attrition war- the economy.

 

[Jihad]

S-2 is correct, I remember my history teacher telling me that later on, when the Americans sent in some sort of spy satellite or plane above Soviet skies, before it got shot down, it took alot of interesting pictures, and with these pictures, the Americans came to the conclusion that alot of power bolstering from the Soviets was actually a cover up, their true strength in numbers was much smaller then they actually showed to the rest of the world, it is called propaganda.
They made videos of hundreds of tanks and other vehicles standing in a line and they kept coming and coming, so it looked as if the Soviets had hundreds or thousands of those babies, but the reality was, these tanks and other vehicles were simply taking turns and entered a huge stadium and left it again, it was a rotation of vehicles.

 

[All-Green]

Despite the propaganda it is true that the Soviet Armed forces did indeed boast impressive numbers in tanks.
However numbers tend to be quite misleading. To keep so much numbers operational and in service was a big burden for the great bear to carry and also contributed to the acceleration of its economic collapse.
Whereas Soviet Union did indeed pose a grave threat to NATO with its overwhelming numbers, in reality soviet union was playing into a trap whereby it had to produce and maintain a huge number of weapons in its attempts to intimidate the west.
The cold war was won by the west without a single battle with NATO on the expected front, instead Soviet Union was humbled in areas like Afghanistan and its economic collapse was accelerated.
If it were not for MAD, i think Soviet Union would indeed have attacked Europe to sustain its economy since at the end its economy was in ruins and all those tanks proved to be for naught.

 

[S-2]

All-Green is correct.

The armed forces were large, well-equipped, and aggressive. You didn't want to do battle with this force as an enemy. Not on their terms nor, frankly, any terms which defined conventional war in Europe which was, ultimately, unacceptable because of the HUGE human and material costs.

The battle had to be won before the first shot was fired. How? My making the cost to the Soviets unbearable at a nat'l social level.

So we did battle for their citizens and won with blue jeans, color T.V., and rock n' roll. We emphasized a western culture that could offer far more than simply tanks, jets, and missiles. It started as early as Soviet soldiers seeing our troops in Berlin post-1945. It ended the same way in 1989 but took forty-four years to accomplish- every year of which we as a society were in great danger from their army.

We had to, meanwhile, hold the line on the frontiers of freedom and airland battle doctrine with our new equipment bought us the means to shift the struggle to a higher plane.

The army was a strong exterior crust to a soft and malleable public whose perceptions could be shaped over time. We simply had to figure a way to keep the pot simmering without prematurely boiling over onto our laps.

I had great respect for their armed forces. I held less respect for their society. The effort put forth wasn't sustainable by the Soviet people and ultimately showed.

I hope that makes some sense and is only my perception of matters.

 

[hj786]

I have read somewhere that because America over-estimated the Soviets, it built a weapon development industry and military that was literally designed to fight the bogey-man and win.