In need of an opposing aircraft

At the end of the day nice if what your day is true. They absolutely wanted to ourperforms USA jets, but we're not able to.

This is evident from what their designers intended vs what they got.

At the end of the day it comes down to doctrine. Soviet doctrine for decades was very pragmatic on how war goes based on soviet experience in WW2. Why build a warplane with an engine rated for 10k hours when it has a combat life expectancy of a few sorties? That sort of thing. Why spend tons of cash on a fancy radar when that plane will be shot down on sortie 3. Put that radar behind a SAM shield. The examples go on and on. And for the most part modern Russian doctrine is similar enough to it.

 

I agree with Kev on China, they have the money, manpower and dashing good looks to be the bad guys. But I don't see how you are gonna get even a semi modern Chinese jet in game. (The JF17 aint it). So my main hope is for an old school hypothetical with "aging" mig29's.

Thanks for the info guys, sorry it was a repetitive question. Su-35 being too modern, fair enough. The reason why I posted this is that I like flying DCS and do like the feel of the Russian and Chinese birds. Sadly flying these and the FC3 models in VR as they are low fidelity models makes it difficult as all functions are either key-mapped or need to be mapped to the HOTAS, that is a lot of buttons. Having some in cockpit function for the Su's and Mig 29's would be good. High fidelity or face-lift versions of the FC3 planes like they are doing with the KA-50 would be really great

I understand your desire for more modern full fidelity Russian aircraft. From the discussions I have read it seems there is no incentive to even add a clickable cockpit to FC3 planes from ED. So until a 3rd party developer can bring something new your just going to have to make due with the most modern aircraft currently available such as the Mig-29 and Mig-21 if you want to fly full fidelity Russian aircraft.

you are neglecting a very famous rival.

the PILOTS best in the world I say that I am Italian ........ I said the best pilots in the world ready for fighting with the most experience in modern combat are the ISRAELI PILOTS.

The Isrelian area force is very well organized and is of a high standard. As a rival I would recommend.

IAI KIFIR

you are neglecting a very famous rival.

the PILOTS best in the world I say that I am Italian ........ I said the best pilots in the world ready for fighting with the most experience in modern combat are the ISRAELI PILOTS.

The Isrelian area force is very well organized and is of a high standard. As a rival I would recommend.

 

 

 

IAI KIFIR

Oh Lordie Lordie… nah, I'm not commenting on this... big padlock looming:D

I wasn't saying that all of their jets are crap.

 

Basically what i'm getting as, is in the past they had opted for quantity over quality. Once thier economy had stabilized post 90's they have been playing catchup to modernize the gen 4 fleet to capabilities that US already had for decade or more, nor do they have enough of these modernized fighters in service to have numerical superiority.

 

Their newer equipment ( in most but not all cases) doesn't appear to be as good nor produced in quantifiable enough numbers to turn a tide in a war, nor are all of their gen 4 produced fighter fleets are modernized.

 

Like the Pak Fa development only happened because India agreed to invest money to help development... and they are unimpressed and backed out of purchasing those stealth fighters. It will likely be Russia alone will only produce a small quantity of them, and there is no way way thy have anywhere near the level of technologies that F35 has, and questionable just how good the low observability is for T50.

 

Su35 is largely regarded as the best gen 4.5 fighter of Russia. Something that could actually go toe to toe with other nato 4.5 gen, yet again they have only afforded to be able to produce like an estimated 100 of them in the past 12 years, not all of which are in Russian Service but some sold to China.

 

A weak point for Russian fighters today are their engine lives. Russian made engines don't amount of flight hours as western made engines do.

 

For ground forces another examples the T14 Armata. Looks great on paper, but despite being presented in 2015. Only around 30 models exist, still going through state trials after all this time. In 2020 it is expected to enter operational service, and contract for 100 examples has been placed. However even Russians admit they wont ever produce the 1500+ tanks they wanted due to lacking the funding for it, are instead opted in the last few years to upgrade cold war vintage tanks like the T72B and T80B tanks with more modern Reactive armor, and internal changes to fire controls. So far there are no export buyers of the T14.

 

The Syrian intervention against ISIS has shown that despite of better available precision targeting technology, Most Russian weapons in inventory are of the unguided type being employed, by modernized aircraft that are capable of employing guided weapons. When used Most guided weapons used have been GPS guided bombs and they are limited in their strike capabilities due to small availability of Targeting pods ( which are fairly recent introduction to their air forces).

 

 

China has been ignored far too long. In recent years they really been investing alot into thier military. IN the coming years, it will be Chinese military will be able to far better challenge to US militarily than Russia ever could hope to, because they actually have a economy that nearly rivals the USA.

 

Thus in DCS we should be looking at China as the new primary "neer peer"OpForce adversary for hypothetical 21st century conventional conflict scenarios ( much more so than Russia). Hopefully we could get a Pacific/ Asia region oriented map for ( currently) fictional flashpoint.

First of all thank you for a very good response. I mostly agree with all of your statements.

I just have a few comments.

The U.S. couldn't afford to buy the F-22 in great numbers so it's not surprising that Russia can't afford the Pak Fa, although they may not be comparable aircraft.

The Russian campaign in Syria seems to have been rather successful even though they haven't used a lot of guided munitions. Russia probably isn't as sensitive to collateral damage as the US, so the incentive to use more precise weaponry is smaller.

All things considered I think the Russians have done an admirable job at developing competitive military equipment. I mean with the decades of communist oppression, the loss of their empire, and all of that.

China is up and coming, of course, and it sure would be fun with Chinese assets, a map of Taiwan and maybe some African region in which we can place a virtual proxy war.

Since when is produced number criteria invented in DCS? What is minimum number of planes produced enough for plane to be modeled in dcs?

- "A weak point for Russian fighters today are their engine lives." please check maintenance intervals for booth teams then come back and correct that quote?

- GPS is on red called GLONASS

- told you about minimum number of planes produced criteria

- "I mean with the decades of communist oppression, the loss of their empire, and all of that." - Russia never expanded out of its borders, same now as before. NATO is in other hand expanding. So get real.

I found this very "subjective painting" kev2go.

PS: Give us upgraded Su27S(k)m https://adiewicaksono.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/su-27skm_sheme_b_eng.gif or go home. DCS red is now 100% underdog. Who likes this masochistic setup anyway? Is the purpose of DCS to manipulate public opinion or game that supposed to be balanced and fun - focus on your own skills not OP cold-war spytype sht. that happens now in background of some dickhead offices on booth sides. I want engineers work here not politics or RL pilot talk - "my dad is stronger that yours". So should I quit playing DCS unitil those people balance this "game" or should I go make my own? What you think?

But they have been spending money on more fancy bells and whistles on their aviation assets, its just that not all of them are modernized.

 

 

 

Glass cockpits, GPS, datalinks, Precision guided weapons, HOTAS centric controls. Even PESA radars in some of the more advanced fighters vs using traditional mechanical array Radars.

 

But i think outdated doctrine would probably be the worst enemy.

 

If you dont have the appropriate doctrine to adjust for current technology or changes in modern warfare, then your technology will not be used to its fullest potential or in worst cases appropriately at all. Thats why any nation should be smart enough to study foreign conflicts, isntead of relying on an outdated war experience from 74 years ago which does not hold anywhere near the sort relevancy as it once did.

 

You have to consideRussia cant afford to take the sort of attrition rates in modern times like they could in ww2. Demographically Russian population has been decreasing. They just wouldnt be able to sustain mass casualties and easily replace them.

 

US intently studied the 1973 ARAB-Israeli conflict, as lessons learned there were highly applicable since Syrians used both Soviet equipment and Soviet Doctrine, especially noting new emerging threats like the appearance of AGTMs. TheUS has revised thier Doctrine countless times. Air Land battle of the early 80s was totally different from the preceding doctrines of the 60s and 70s. Even the 2014- present day conflict over Ukraine is something worth looking at.

 

AS for Chinese, its enough that we got AI assets for ground , air defense, naval, and air. hell the FC3 J11A is already a more potent adversary than the Su27S. Near identical variant, but its the R77 integration that makes the difference. Thats the 1 thing that everyone wanted on their Russian SU27 to make things more "balanced" against blufor.

Well not to derail the thread, but NATO doctrine during the cold war, especially Air land battle was lets say hopelessly optimistic in thinking the convential side of the conflict would play any major role. If the soviets had decided to go for it, the war would be nuclear in the first minute if you actually read the rather detailed red warplans, complete with how many Kt each airbase gets on minute 0, then minute 15, then minute 30 etc. Same for various NATO ground bases.

Modern Russian doctrine has in some ways evolved past that. And Ukraine for them is a testbed, so well worth studying. Kind of like GW1 was a "live fire" for various western tech.

I agree that in terms of air doctrine, they likely have changed, but its all about the $$$. I suppose it is instructive where they are actually spending the little cash they have.

And I agree, I'd like to see a China map to use those assests on.

modern Russian doctrine

MIG 31

my prefer video i like it

Well not to derail the thread, but NATO doctrine during the cold war, especially Air land battle was lets say hopelessly optimistic in thinking the convential side of the conflict would play any major role. If the soviets had decided to go for it, the war would be nuclear in the first minute if you actually read the rather detailed red warplans, complete with how many Kt each airbase gets on minute 0, then minute 15, then minute 30 etc. Same for various NATO ground bases.

 

Modern Russian doctrine has in some ways evolved past that. And Ukraine for them is a testbed, so well worth studying. Kind of like GW1 was a "live fire" for various western tech.

 

I agree that in terms of air doctrine, they likely have changed, but its all about the $$$. I suppose it is instructive where they are actually spending the little cash they have.

 

And I agree, I'd like to see a China map to use those assests on.

Optimsitic. NO I think if anything its Russians who would seem "optimisc" that they would think they even needed to bother with "nuclear" oriented doctrine.

there was something called "MAD" no one wants to be the first one to launch a nuke, even at the threat of a conventional war. A limited nuclear of a few dozen nukes, exchange in Europe, let alone full out Global nuclear war simply isn't feasible for any side.

In such escalation There is no point in deploying a conventional army if there are no strategic objectives to take, any resources, or most importantly any armies to take objectives with if all the deployed armies have all been wiped out from a nuclear blast, or if the remaining surviving solders in the field are suffering from radiation sickness and thus are combat ineffective. Yes NBC systems exist in armored vehicles and for coverall suits for the infantry, but you can only stay fully enclosed in an armored vehicle one for so long. same with with the suits. NBC suits can only withstand so much radiation. Troops can only remain in a area of certain radiation for so long, or if higher enough radiation is present that suit wont do any good.

Chernobyl (although not an actual nuclear bombblast) shows from a plant nuclear explosion alone, how much harm the leak and spread of large amounts of radiation can do, not only to a region, but affect other countries. reported cases for variosu forms of cancer soared even as far as England. Not to mention how much $$$ it cost for cleanup and other related tasks to date, how much that hurt Soviet economy. Now imagine dozens or even hundreds of similar events. Seriously MAD concept was sound. Nuclear war was never going to be feasible for any side.

Just as Russia's plan of "7 days to the river Rhine" was overly optimistic, but why was that a war plan to begin with? Because they believed at the time it was the best chance they had of winning a conventional war. With the understanding that once REGFOR arrived from the United states, they wouldn't have the means to win a longer term war over Europe.

Edit: The post above appeared while I was writing this, and I wrote it as a discussion of the rational for different approaches to equipment and doctine in the USSR and the West, but it's interesting that the above appeared while I was writing.

My position is that while finances were undoubtedly a factor, a significant part of the reason for the different approaches (& I know this will be difficult for some of you to grasp) is also that after the dust settled from the 2nd world war, the Russian's never had an expansionist military intention with respect to Europe - Part of why Stalin was hated so much by the Bolshevics was his belief you could build communism in one country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country

The Communism of the USSR might have (& Russia might still) pose a political threat to the West, but there's never been a realistic possibility that Russia would initiate a 'first strike' attempt at a ground invasion of Western Europe. Their strategy was (continues to be) to maintain and defend what they saw as their (then) existing sphere of influence, and maintain a buffer between NATO and the Russian homeland. Their 'occupation' of the Crimean peninsular - which prevented the Russian naval base becoming a NATO base - being a good example of this. What we see as Russian Expansionism, from their point of view was preventing yet another part of the ex-soviet union falling into NATO, and a NATO naval base from appearing on their border.

From the time of the USSR's formation to the fall of the Eastern Pact, The Soviet military has existed to counter the perceived threat of Western aggression, and so their military makeup and strategies have reflected that.

The West (USA) expected to be flying into enemy airspace, and so they built aircraft & employment doctrine that reflected that - aircraft building their own SA, pilots acting autonomously - because there would be no ground command with the coverage giving them the ability to provide these.

The Russians expected to be fighting over their own country - & so set up GCI coverage in the expectation that the fighting would take place inside its coverage, built planes to integrate with the GCI & radar sets that could be slaved by ground commanders - All for the defence of the homeland

That's also why they concentrated so heavily on SAM systems (remember the first successes for high altitude SAMs were Russian SAMs shooting down American aircraft flying over enemy territory thousands of miles away from the USA - not Russian aircraft flying over Western Allies. Gary Powers' downing in a U2 over Russia being a case in point)

I'd suggest that part of why the Su-57 concentrates so heavily on frontal stealth is that they have no expectation that they'll be hiding from Western radars as they overfly Western Europe - the expectation is that they'll be searching for and flying towards Western aircraft that are performing incursions into Russian airspace - so they're stealthy enough to avoid being launched on until they get within a range they believe they can also lock and launch.

This was drawn up before the Ukraine aligned itself with the West & asked to be brought under the NATO umbrella, so understates the situation, but watch this animation showing NATO's creep towards Russia's borders and consider what I've said.

-

Wow Weta didn't realize that you left ED team, to find a new job with a "company" located at 55 Savushkina Street, St Petersburg :smartass:

But hey congrats on the higher paying job! :thumbup:

@Weta

That... is a very well reasoned and thought out analysis I never really thought about. Definitely food for thought!

@JackMcKay

Well, I thought you left to make your own game months ago anyway. Harder than.you expected, or what? =R

- "A weak point for Russian fighters today are their engine lives." please check maintenance intervals for booth teams then come back and correct that quote?

- GPS is on red called GLONASS

- told you about minimum number of planes produced criteria

- "I mean with the decades of communist oppression, the loss of their empire, and all of that." - Russia never expanded out of its borders, same now as before. NATO is in other hand expanding. So get real.

 

 

 

I found this very "subjective painting" kev2go.

 

 

PS: Give us upgraded Su27S(k)m https://adiewicaksono.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/su-27skm_sheme_b_eng.gif or go home. DCS red is now 100% underdog. Who likes this masochistic setup anyway? Is the purpose of DCS to manipulate public opinion or game that supposed to be balanced and fun - focus on your own skills not OP cold-war spytype sht. that happens now in background of some dickhead offices on booth sides. I want engineers work here not politics or RL pilot talk - "my dad is stronger that yours". So should I quit playing DCS unitil those people balance this "game" or should I go make my own? What you think?

A)Delving into Military doctrine to explain and understand the differences in design philosophy with regards to various military equipment is not discussing politics, sadly some can't distinguish the two.

B) Instead of complaining about lack of "balance" realize that the point of simulation isn't balance but simulating individual aircraft. This isn't a F2P arcade aircraft MMO where balance takes precedence over what aircraft gets decided to be added.

IF you heard the podcast with matt wagner its been explained by him why modern Russian Red air isn't going to happen from Eagle dynamics, and can only be at most expected from 3rd parties, and even then if ti happens its just likely going to be 80s era cold war early Gen 4 vintage stuff at most, given the publicly accessible documentation, which means that will not make Red air more balanced.

SO its pointless to argue. You aren't getting the likes of a full fidelity Su27SM , Su30, or Mig29SMT anytime soon from ED. Just accept it.

FOr the time being dekka's upcoming JF17 thunder will be adequate enough to act as a sort of stand in in for modernized Red Air. Be happy with that.

Optimsitic. NO I think if anything its Russians who would seem "optimisc" that they would think they even needed to bother with "nuclear" oriented doctrine.

 

 

there was something called "MAD" no one wants to be the first one to launch a nuke, even at the threat of a conventional war. A limited nuclear of a few dozen nukes, exchange in Europe, let alone full out Global nuclear war simply isn't feasible for any side.

 

In such escalation There is no point in deploying a conventional army if there are no strategic objectives to take, any resources, or most importantly any armies to take objectives with if all the deployed armies have all been wiped out from a nuclear blast, or if the remaining surviving solders in the field are suffering from radiation sickness and thus are combat ineffective. Yes NBC systems exist in armored vehicles and for coverall suits for the infantry, but you can only stay fully enclosed in an armored vehicle one for so long. same with with the suits. NBC suits can only withstand so much radiation. Troops can only remain in a area of certain radiation for so long, or if higher enough radiation is present that suit wont do any good.

 

 

Chernobyl (although not an actual nuclear bombblast) shows from a plant nuclear explosion alone, how much harm the leak and spread of large amounts of radiation can do, not only to a region, but affect other countries. reported cases for variosu forms of cancer soared even as far as England. Not to mention how much $$$ it cost for cleanup and other related tasks to date, how much that hurt Soviet economy. Now imagine dozens or even hundreds of similar events. Seriously MAD concept was sound. Nuclear war was never going to be feasible for any side.

 

 

Just as Russia's plan of "7 days to the river Rhine" was overly optimistic, but why was that a war plan to begin with? Because they believed at the time it was the best chance they had of winning a conventional war. With the understanding that once REGFOR arrived from the United states, they wouldn't have the means to win a longer term war over Europe.

And yet the historical documentation of the Warpac OPPLANS shows that there were no offensive scenarios (At least that have been found to date) that show that the WP intended to fight a "limited" nuclear exchange from the start and the hope was twofold that they could decapitate nato and make a 2 rush to france. And that the political leadership of nato wouldn't allow nuclear counter-strikes on western soil. The only non-nuclear plan found was from 1954 and it was a defensive one. Every other decades op plans had nuclear strikes integral to them. They din't really believe NATO would escalate to a general exchange, and that any tac nukecounter-strikes would be minimal.

And yet the historical documentation of the Warpac OPPLANS shows that there were no offensive scenarios (At least that have been found to date) that show that the WP intended to fight a "limited" nuclear exchange from the start and the hope was twofold that they could decapitate nato and make a 2 rush to france. And that the political leadership of nato wouldn't allow nuclear counter-strikes on western soil. The only non-nuclear plan found was from 1954 and it was a defensive one. Every other decades op plans had nuclear strikes integral to them. They din't really believe NATO would escalate to a general exchange, and that any tac nukecounter-strikes would be minimal.

I never said otherwise that they didnt have plans that involved use of nukes... Only optimistic to think that NATO would not counter such responses, and the gambling risk that it would not escalate to more larger scale use than they had felt comfortable with. All in all, even western analysts and former military strategists believe something like seven days to the River Rhine and reaching Lyons by day 9 was not feasible due to the over extension of logistics needed for such a rapid push. This especially would be come even less plausible of succeeding in the 1980's ad Soviet economy dwindled, Military units cut down, and training standards dropped.

It is equally wrong to suggest US in particular was not able to operate in limited nuclear war, even if thier AIR land battle doctrine didn't focus on a nuclear warfare, however even before Air land battle emerged us doctrine did call for "flexible Response" versus massive nuclear retaliation. Meaning that even though they moved to a conventional oriented doctrine, they were willing to use means outside of nuclear use, but also in turn very much willing to resort to limited retaliation attacks if the soviets decided to go through with using their own nuclear weapons in support of a military assault.

Armored vehicles had NBC systems present and troops could be issued NBC type suits ( in US service specifically had CBRN and MOPP suits).

Wow Weta didn't realize that you left ED team, to find a new job with a "company" located at 55 Savushkina Street, St Petersburg

 

But hey congrats on the higher paying job!

No, I haven't taken another full time job :) - but sometimes it's easier to see things more clearly when you're standing further away, and NZ is a long way from the patriotism and partisanship of the struggle between the US & Russia.

I don't personally don't see either side as having any particular moral superiority, I was - and am - just discussing how the expectations of the circumstances of battle lead to differences in the way countries prepare for those battles.

Witness the Maginot Line ...

Were the USSR's weapons developed with a view to defence rather than offence ?

As you pointed out, the USSR had (Russia has) enough nuclear weapons to assure M.A.D., but M.A.D is the very thing that removes the possibility of their being used offensively. *

In the absence of an effective ABM system, a massive nuclear arsenal is not an offensive weapons system.

The "M" in M.A.D. is the significant bit...

It's "We both die"

It's not a strategy for offence as you have no planet to live on afterwards. It's effectively booby-trapping your own home - and booby-trapping your own home doesn't make a good offensive strategy.

Paraphrasing JFK: "if you launch an all out nuclear war, the fruits of victory will be ashes in your mouth"

Literally.

Radioactive ashes.

M.A.D. is the end.

*& to ensure its effectiveness as a deterrent, the "M" has to be maintained, which is why there was the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty banning anti-ICBM weapons systems.

... and why Reagan was so keen on - and the USSR so hostile to - the idea of the "Star-Wars" SDI program.

Reagan thought that given the USSR's parlous economic state, the US had enough of a technological advantage to be able to build a shield that would neutralise the threat of retaliation from the USSR & remove the "M" from M.A.D.

Which is consistent with my original premise...

No, I haven't taken another full time job :) - but sometimes it's easier to see things more clearly when you're standing further away, and NZ is a long way from the patriotism and partisanship of the struggle between the US & Russia.

 

I don't personally don't see either side as having any particular moral superiority, I was - and am - just discussing how the expectations of the circumstances of battle lead to differences in the way countries prepare for those battles.

 

Witness the Maginot Line ...

 

Were the USSR's weapons developed with a view to defence rather than offence ?

 

As you pointed out, the USSR had (Russia has) enough nuclear weapons to assure M.A.D., but M.A.D is the very thing that removes the possibility of their being used offensively. *

 

In the absence of an effective ABM system, a massive nuclear arsenal is not an offensive weapons system.

The "M" in M.A.D. is the significant bit...

 

It's "We both die"

It's not a strategy for offence as you have no planet to live on afterwards. It's effectively booby-trapping your own home - and booby-trapping your own home doesn't make a good offensive strategy.

 

Paraphrasing JFK: "if you launch an all out nuclear war, the fruits of victory will be ashes in your mouth"

 

Literally.

 

Radioactive ashes.

 

M.A.D. is the end.

 

*& to ensure its effectiveness as a deterrent, the "M" has to be maintained, which is why there was the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty banning anti-ICBM weapons systems.

 

... and why Reagan was so keen on - and the USSR so hostile to - the idea of the "Star-Wars" SDI program.

Reagan thought that given the USSR's parlous economic state, the US had enough of a technological advantage to be able to build a shield that would neutralise the threat of retaliation from the USSR & remove the "M" from M.A.D.

 

Which is consistent with my original premise...

Guess Russians wnet by "Sometimes the best offense is the best defense?"

When it comes to examining to thier ground vehicles design is very indicative characteristics of offensive doctrine based vehicles. All russian tanks emphasised a small profile. Small profile is less ergonomic for crew, but makes a smaller target to hit. Something needed in a offensive. Soviet tanks have very limited gun depression ( generally -4 to -6) and very poor reverse speeds. Many of the 1950s - 1960s tanks also put emphasis on Stabilizers, something that is quite usefull in a offensivem as you can shoot on the move.

If you cant reverse, or depress your gun adequatley , it makes it not ideally suited for a defensive posture.

Up until the late 70ss, western tank designs, US and British in particular were defensive oriented in thier designs.

Tall tank profile made for better crew ergonomics, but easier to hit out in the open, coupled with greater gun depression of say -10 degrees, and superior reverse speeds make for a better Hull down tank. IE defensive tank for defensive positions. ALso many of the earlier western tanks lacked gun stabilization to thier Soviet counterparts, which means shooting on the move is not viable thus limiting their effectiveness if used in an offensive. Comparatively at that time to tanks like the M60A1 or Cheiftan, Russian tanks certainly had superior forwards mobility, and emphasized armor in particular on the turret. The only exception to this leopard 1, but the idea was to have a mobile shoot and scoot, tank, no that the Germans thought they could win in an offensive. US didnt start putting gun stabilizers into thier tanks until 1970s.

Its not until the 80s with the new Air land battle doctrine, where tanks like M1's , and NATO allies like germant with thier leopard 2's are capable of having top notch stabilization, digital fire control, and the mobility that outdoes most Russian tanks, making it suitable for offensive fire and maneuvering, thus properly suitable for offensive where it would be possible to exploit gaps in the lines. The Challengers too have vastly improved mobility, but are the worst of these new generation Nato tanks. Still predominantly defensive oriented.

IF the USSR really expected to be fighting nothing more than a defensive war over their own homeland, they wouldn't have designed thier armored vehicles like that. You can also see the stark difference in thier primary small arms the Ak47 family and the M16 rifles.

Ak47 emphasised automatic supression and only accurate enough up to 300m. Low recoil m16, selective fire with a smaller higher velocity round allowed troops to carry more ammo, and be very accurate and precise weapon at picking off advancing soviet troops at rangers beynd thier weapons effectiveness ( 460-500m). Can be used offensively but arguably a better defensive weapon than the AK47.

The only aspect that can be considered offensive of nato doctrine was thier air power, but then the idea of sending aircraft behind enemy lines is for Interdiction strikes, or hitting strategic targets. IE reducing production of war materials, or in the case of interdiction, attempting to curb the ammount of reinforcements or supplies the adversary can send to the front, thus assisting in the land defense.

Hence the idea of Defensive Aerial doctrine, and air defense networks. Nato simply believed thier superior airpower would prevent any russian aircraft. from getting through, but even that is a generalization as Russia too produced Fighter bombers, and Longer range interdiction aircraft like the Su24. very much offensive weapons, that if avoiding Nato aircraft would contend with as not nearly as intricate air defense network.

The idea of air intercept was only with earlier soviet aviation like Mig15/17/19/21/23. Eventually in the 4th generation they too moved to more offensive air capabilities with the production of the Su27 Air superiority fighter, that would have been viable for combat air patrol, and not just GCI point defense intercept.

As for the other stuff i wont comment due to rule 1.7.

I never said otherwise that they didnt have plans that involved use of nukes... Only optimistic to think that NATO would not counter such responses, and the gambling risk that it would not escalate to more larger scale use than they had felt comfortable with. All in all, even western analysts and former military strategists believe something like seven days to the River Rhine and reaching Lyons by day 9 was not feasible due to the over extension of logistics needed for such a rapid push. This especially would be come even less plausible of succeeding in the 1980's ad Soviet economy dwindled, Military units cut down, and training standards dropped.

 

It is equally wrong to suggest US in particular was not able to operate in limited nuclear war, even if thier AIR land battle doctrine didn't focus on a nuclear warfare, however even before Air land battle emerged us doctrine did call for "flexible Response" versus massive nuclear retaliation. Meaning that even though they moved to a conventional oriented doctrine, they were willing to use means outside of nuclear use, but also in turn very much willing to resort to limited retaliation attacks if the soviets decided to go through with using their own nuclear weapons in support of a military assault.

 

 

Armored vehicles had NBC systems present and troops could be issued NBC type suits ( in US service specifically had CBRN and MOPP suits).

My point was that there were no plans that didn't involve a nuclear first strike. That was the shocking discovery. Aside from the 1954 plan which is because tac nukes didn't really exist then. And that plan is actually defensive, not offensive in nature. Because the Soviets really did think NATO was going to invade them like Hitler did. And their solution to this having done it once was to fight it on the other guys soil.

There is also no question of NATO not responding in kind, or at least in theory. However the soviets plans revolved entirely around removing as much of that tactical capability in Europe as possible by use of decapitation strikes and nuclear first strike doctrine. The whole point is that they didn't think the US would escalate it to a global strategic exchange in order to "save Europe". And for similar reasons the advance stops at the french border, precisely because they knew the french would do it.

There are not offensive or deffensive weapons, it's the way you use those weapons what determines that.

There are not offensive or deffensive weapons, it's the way you use those weapons what determines that.

True, but if you look at their intended design philosophies for specific doctrine some are better suited for 1 type of warfare over the other, and therefore would best utilized to their strengths not their weaknesses.

All of those capabilities you mention are equally good in any type of warfare. Tanks themselves were designed to be breakthrough weapons, so they are not a good example. Also, it´s easy to counter the argument if I say that those "offensive" capabilities you mention were there just to retake positions after a NATO offensive.

All of those capabilities you mention are equally good in any type of warfare. Tanks themselves were designed to be breakthrough weapons, so they are not a good example. Also, it´s easy to counter the argument if I say that those "offensive" capabilities you mention were there just to retake positions after a NATO offensive.

So you're gonna build us a "defensive" mig29 right? After the 23 of course ;)

All of those capabilities you mention are equally good in any type of warfare. Tanks themselves were designed to be breakthrough weapons, so they are not a good example. Also, it´s easy to counter the argument if I say that those "offensive" capabilities you mention were there just to retake positions after a NATO offensive.

No they arent....

I can easily same the same thing vice versa but that would be quite disingenuous. Just because in ww1 aircraft initially used only reconnaissance and limited bombing in support of troops doesn't mean thats all aircraft do today, or the only type of aircraft. Fighters became a thing, so they could shoot down the unarmed recon. other fighters were made to counter other fighters shooting at their reconnaissance and bombers supporting the war on the ground.

You are drastically oversimplifying things. Similarly just because tanks were created for "breakthrough" back in ww1, doesn't mean they all are as equally suited for both types of warfare depending on what models you look at from specific nations. Doesnt mean they cant conduct both types of warfare but understand, that some types are better suited for one over the other

I can only explain again. A tank with low profile, poor gun depression, and poor reverse speed does not make for an ideal defensive tank relative to those other characteristics. IN hull down position limits where you can point the gun, and forces greater exposure and more flat terrain for employment. IF such a tank doesn't expose itself its limited to how low it can point the gun.

A tank with High profile, superior gun depression, and lack of gun stabilization and inferior mobility to the other does not make for an ideal offensive tank relative to what the characteristics of the type an adversary employs. ITs strong suit is defense. Vice versa as the other tank's stronger suits are offensive employments. It also makes it in general better suited to utilizing cover an concealment in any type.

This shouldn't be hard to comprehend. If you think otherwise you clearly don't have any grasp in armored warfare and unable to differentiate their national doctrinal differences in design.

Best case example of stark contrast design lets use the M60A1 in comparison to the Soviet T62 tank, which was developed as a interim response ( at least until the T64 was ready) to address firepower shortcomings of the T55 after learning of the M60 as a successor to the the M48. upped armor tank and its more powerfull gun. IN comparison the British Chieftain, although equipped with a stabilizer was poor in mobility ( much worse than M60), and ill suited for offense due to weak Lower front plate. Such a large obvious weakpost, that both obsolete ww2 tanks and should firied early anti tank rockets would be able to kill it out in the open. You know why it wasn't considered a design flaw? because the Brits had thier Chieftains oriented to be used around defensive Hull down, and in hulldown such a spot wouldn't be expected to be exposed. In which the high sloped plates and turret were expected to be largely immune at the time to tanks it was designed to counter, IE the T55 and even against early ammunition of the T62.

This video is the filmed version of the printed Tradoc document so to speak, YOu can see a stark difference in the strengths and weaknesses of each tank. the M60A1 is a defensive doctrine oriented tank. No one says it can be used for offensive but that is arguably a inferior offensive weapon compared to to the T62 ( despite some design and operational compromises), or at least was until M60A1 RISE, and in particular the M60A3, which in turn has features that bridge capability gaps in offensive capabilities if used for offensive type of warfare, but of course RUssia had next generation tanks in mainstream series by then.

The M60A1 was totally ill suite in firing on the move ( a characteristic desirable for offensive use), due to lack of stabilization until the 70s, which even when it did get stabilizer via retrofit, IT still was inferior to that of T62, and not quite suitable for firing on the move, but rather quick stops.

Even Nato educational videos prior to AIR land battle doctrine of the 80s are predominately focused on defense against warpact, and were expecting to hold the line against a warpact offensive, against a large swarm of soviet mechanized forces.

In contrast il also throw this in as interesting tidbit. These certainly would have given NATO forces huge trouble in a time before next generation tanks Challenger, M1, Leopard 2 were a thing.

A UK video ( 9:03 for relevant bit)

I can further tell you that experiencing with AFV simulation of various tank types greatly reflects the theories discussed on their doctrines and how they are best utilized to their strengths and weaknesses, SO please don't think you can convince someone who knows better, otherwise.