https://pimeakronikka.blogspot.com/
Kimmo Huosionmaa
Cold war armies were many differences in the comparison to modern armies or military forces. The Soviet military believed the ordinary man's skills and ability to make military maneuvers. And the production of the Soviet army was the so-called general soldier, who had the ability to operate any kind of systems. Bad rumors say that the Soviet Union used the military forces also for threat, that if somebody said something against the political system, would that person called to military refreshing, where that person would be informed, that it would be wrong to criticize the political system of the Soviet Union and other communist countries. I sometimes write about communist block armies, because they are made with the same format with Soviet military forces.
The United States military forces believed in professional military force, and that have caused critics against that institution. There is claimed, that those professional military men are spending all of their life for practicing killing techniques, what makes them extremely dangerous. But the defenders of professional military forces are asking: "what else must the military men be than dangerous?". The purpose of the military is to cause fear in the mind of the enemy.
This supports the model of professional military men. And of course, the use of robots in the combat zone is supported by avoiding own losses. Robots are good warriors because they would not make anything, what operators are not allowed them to do. The robot operators would not need hand-to-hand combat skills for accomplishing their missions and that's why those persons are safer than some green berets. The loss of robots is very easy to tolerate, and nobody even notices if some drones are shot down. If the human pilot would be shot down, will all world know about it, and that person could tell something, what is classified. But robots would not know anything if they are destroyed. And that's why those systems are so high in the western military shopping lists.
The tactics were different in both sides of the Iron curtain. Soviet tactics were simple frontal assaults where were used tanks in the massive formations and massive firepower against the enemy and that tactics were effective against more technical but outnumbered German army in the Second World war. But the problem with that tactics was great losses. United States military believed smaller groups movements by using helicopters.
The United States military was more technical and uses more complicated tactics against the enemy, but that would save men at least in the limited conflicts. The philosophy of the Soviet army was, that the men were recruited for a couple of years, and then they were released for civil works. The United States military used professional and voluntary troops, what was able to operate in the overseas situation, and those voluntary men were excellent fighters, but the problem was that they were not released for other works.
Professional soldiers lose contact with the normal life, but they are easier to send far away from home for the military actions. There are good points for supporting both sides of military training. When we are thinking about the technical stuff, what the military forces were got in the United States, the mission of that equipment is to make those forces capable of highly mobile operations, where the helicopters and aircraft would replace tanks and artillery. The problem with frontal assault tactics is the high number of own casualties, what are seen in many combats, where the communist army have taken apart.
When we are thinking about the long-term war between the nations, that would be hard to understand, that the long-term wars are the good thing only for the commanders of the armies. The problem with that kind of actions is, that the commanders would be untouchable in the long-term conflict. And this is the reason, why the United States created nuclear weapons. Those weapons allowed to stop the conflicts very fast, and that was the reason, why also the Soviet Union made their first nuclear weapon in 1947. That weapon was worked perfect cover for Kremlin and other governments.
The user of nuclear weapons would not need very much training, and this is the reason for creating the ballistic missiles. When we are thinking about the Soviet political system, that nation would stand better in the long-term war. But the USA:s tactics was, that if the Soviet Union would crush the defense of NATO, the use of nuclear weapons would be possible. And every democratic state is talking about defense forces. Attack forces are the term, what is used for communists armies. Many things were secret in the Cold War military forces, and there were made many experiments, what are not mentioned.
But when we are talking about the military equipment or toys, we must remember the wisdom of some admiral. I don't remember was that person Jellicoe during the First World War, but the thing goes like this: "if the equipment is bad, and the ships would be sunk in the battles, it would be better to stay in the harbor". Or something like that went the philosophy of that admiral. The Soviet side was not well known about open information about military forces and in that country, and even the factories were prohibited to photograph from outside.
And that tells something about how open that nation was in the time of Cold War. Of course, AK-47 was the better concept than M-16 in the Vietnam War, and the U.S military used too many toys. But if the bombers would always send on one way trip in the war, would that also mean something. And when we are thinking about this kind of situation, that other side of the conflict would consume the conventional forces, would that drive the conflict to the point, where the use of nuclear weapons would be possible.
When we are talking about the economy and its relationship with the military, we must concern that democratic nation would not get any equipment for free. Every worker must get the salaries, and if we would think that the use of political prisoners in the production of military equipment, that would make the work cheap, but are those products actually so branded, that they could use in the real battleground.
The problem with prison work is always sabotage and the poor brand, what was one reason for the collapse of Germany in the 1940's. So every military product of German army was good on paper, but the practical apps were far away, what they should be. This is one problem with undemocratic countries. The workers have the bad motives and the equipment would be made with spoil, and that would make them even dangerous in the real situation.
https://www.warhistoryonline.
