Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Soviet Force Reductions in Europe
Keywords: Soviets,NATO]
Message-ID: <11702@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 24 Nov 89 06:02:12 GMT
References: <11646@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR
Lines: 45
Approved: military@att.att.com



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