FNG's thoughts on Macross

[Noyhauser]

Considering during the `80s most Soviet troops were conscripts and all US troops were volounteers I don`t find this surprising at all. The Soviets had a war to fight in Afghanistan and would have been less picky about intelligence, the US however had the luxury of peace and the ability to pick and choose their personell to a higher degree. You could also argue that freedom and capitalism moulds individuals to be more free thinking and have more initiative and free thought than a communist who is taught to be a cog in a wheel. This also may have accounted for more intelligent US troops.

You can also look at US performance in Grenada and Panama and see the level of tech and precision employed was already miles ahead of the Soviets fighting during the same era in the `Stan. It takes more intelligence and training to operate the more advanced equipment that the US had.

I mean you can see that communist tactics have never been brilliant in any conflict, peferring brute force and mass sacrafice for the greater good than well thought out tactics that save lives. You might say that individual human life is more valuable in a society like the US as well, so they fight `smarter`.

This is horribly off topic so I'll keep it shorter than normal. I'm sorry but your assertions might have some truth for low level Soviet soldiers... but your claim that the soviets could only win through "brute force and mass sacrifice" isn't supported by history. From the 1920s onward, the Soviet Union had some of the leading thinkers in the operational arts. Read about the history of V. K. Triandafillov and his colleagues, and the "deep Battle concept."While they started poorly in the Second World War, the USSR became increasingly proficient in operational and tactical operations. This is evident in some of the major Soviet offensives, like Bagration.

In the Cold War era, the quality of Soviet troops as well as their doctrine greatly increased as the country's development increased as the lessons of the Great Patriotic War were distilled. In the 1970s and 80s The Operational Maneuver group was feared by NATO, who believed that the USSR could win in Europe without resorting to Nuclear weapons. I could go on this but ask any serious military historian and they will agree that Soviet military doctrine was quite advanced for much of the 20th century.

As a final note, you really might want to rethink your examples. Afghanistan: With the exceptopn of the beginning of the invasion with the 40th army, the Soviets did not use anything close to their best troops in the conflict. Most units were either Category B or C troops, with some soviet Spetznaz and other special forces to undertake special operations. Moreover they were never really interested in hearts and minds. Grenada and Panama were relatively minor operations, and in the former's case was not a shining example of American doctrine. The Gulf War would be a better one.

[Million Star]

Interesting post Noyhauser, I`m coming from a laymans POV so I am generalising. However I would also like to give the example of Russian troops performing poorly and without precision in Grozny, Chechnya. Again these were mostly conscripts but they were all but wiped out on their first advance into the city. The famed Spetznaz also got into some very bloody fights in Grozny and performed very non surgically. Compare this to the Americans fighting a whole city in Mogidishu and only losing 19, but killing over 1000-3000 armed militia.

And yeah Grenada and Panama were minor and but pay testament to US precision and swift victory ability.

The Gulf War is a case of overwhelming firepower (something like 100 pieces of artillery per 10 miles of enemy frontline I read somewhere.) in a place where there isnt many places to hide making it very easy for the infantry.

Edited December 5, 2010 by Million Star

[Million Star]

You might also look at US performance in Fallujah, losing 95 men but pacifying 1000s of heavily armed insurgents including many Chechens who actually fought the Russians in Grozny. Two militaries, same enemy, one clearly came out better after the fight. Actually pound for pound, based on all the evidence I would easily rate the average US soldier over the average Russian soldier any day.

This:

is greater than:

Seriously, I know which troops I`d rather face in battle.

Edited December 5, 2010 by Million Star

[Valkyrie Driver]

I can say that the US Military invests a lot in ensuring the effectiveness of the individual Soldier/Airman/Marine/Sailor. Since WW2 the effectiveness of each individual has increased steadily, and as such the effectiveness of the whole has increased as well. Another thing, Soviet tactics have, for the most part, been "Massed" tactics. Human waves (i.e. the Siege of Stalingrad) where massed fire from massed troops was key to overwhelming the enemy. The US has always put great emphasis on individual marksmanship. During the revolution, one man with a rifle could decide the outcome of the battle. During WW1 German troops were astounded by the accuracy and lethality of US Marine rifle fire during several battles. The US Air Force has no requirement to be qualified (25/50 rounds must hit the target to qualify), unless one's job requires it. The USAF maintains the lowest standard for marksmanship. In my Basic flight qualifying was held as a matter of pride, out of 50 individuals we had 4 non qualified, and 5 experts (42/50), and 5 barely qualified. Everyone else missed expert by 10 points or less. Excellent marksmanship is a point of pride for most US Service members. I cannot speak about the soviets view, I can only speculate from their battle tactics. Also, judging by the weapons used for the last 60 years the US has had a weapon that fits the training and battle doctrine of accurate individual fire. The M16 is accurate and effective. The downside is the maintenance that is required to keep the weapon functional, this is mitigated by the discipline and training US service members receive.

[Valkyrie Driver]

This is horribly off topic so I'll keep it shorter than normal. I'm sorry but your assertions might have some truth for low level Soviet soldiers... but your claim that the soviets could only win through "brute force and mass sacrifice" isn't supported by history. From the 1920s onward, the Soviet Union had some of the leading thinkers in the operational arts. Read about the history of V. K. Triandafillov and his colleagues, and the "deep Battle concept."While they started poorly in the Second World War, the USSR became increasingly proficient in operational and tactical operations. This is evident in some of the major Soviet offensives, like Bagration.

In the Cold War era, the quality of Soviet troops as well as their doctrine greatly increased as the country's development increased as the lessons of the Great Patriotic War were distilled. In the 1970s and 80s The Operational Maneuver group was feared by NATO, who believed that the USSR could win in Europe without resorting to Nuclear weapons. I could go on this but ask any serious military historian and they will agree that Soviet military doctrine was quite advanced for much of the 20th century.

As a final note, you really might want to rethink your examples. Afghanistan: With the exceptopn of the beginning of the invasion with the 40th army, the Soviets did not use anything close to their best troops in the conflict. Most units were either Category B or C troops, with some soviet Spetznaz and other special forces to undertake special operations. Moreover they were never really interested in hearts and minds. Grenada and Panama were relatively minor operations, and in the former's case was not a shining example of American doctrine. The Gulf War would be a better one.

The soviets had good minds and sound doctrine, however, during most of the 20th century the average soviet citizen was still not that far off from the peasants that their forebears were. Someone mentioned literacy rates earlier in the thread, but literacy doesn't mean intelligence, you can teach anyone with half a brain to read. Spatial reasoning, critical thinking, and abstract thought must be developed in an environment conducive to creative thought. Let's face it, communism does not foster competition and creativity. While the US may not have a great image abroad, many countries cite the ignorance and arrogance of our general population, Our military and business worlds are full of the cream of our society. We have many smart and talented individuals in charge of our country, maybe some of them have no business being in the positions they are, but that is not my place to say. I have witnessed some of the ignorance and arrogance of some common Americans, and I've seen people in the military who aren't the sharpest tools in the shed, but, those military individuals are mental and moral giants compared to the idiots I've seen outside it. Not to say that the civilian sector doesn't contribute as much as the military to the social good. I'm just saying that the US Military has always had very high standards compared to the civilian sector, which would have devastated out military had it not been for compulsory military service, and comparable wages. (I get paid each month about what the average unskilled laborer gets for a full time job, excluding pay allowances.)

[azrael]

If you can't stick with the topic, LOCK.