Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site pucc-i
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!pucc-j!pucc-i!afb
From: afb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Conventional Arms Balance in Europe
Message-ID: <1264@pucc-i>
Date: Wed, 29-Jan-86 11:39:39 EST
Article-I.D.: pucc-i.1264
Posted: Wed Jan 29 11:39:39 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Feb-86 10:40:26 EST
References: <1245@pucc-i> <915@whuxl.UUCP> <1908@brl-tgr.ARPA> <516@whuts.UUCP> <517@whuts.UUCP>
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Lines: 89
Summary: My Sources...


     By the way, my source for the data I will use is "World War 3: August 1985"
by former NATO general Sir John Hackett, with contributions from many others. I
believe I gave the author's name incorrectly in a previous posting...(General
Bernard Rogers is the current head of NATO).


In article <517@whuts.UUCP>, orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes:
> Here are some important facts on the conventional arms balance in
> Europe, from the book, Arsenal of  Democracy by Tom Gervasi:
>  (note: these figures are not the most up-to-date but more recent
>         figures would continue the same balance)
>  
> 2)NATO holds the preponderance of naval force with 485 surface combatants
>   on station vs the Warsaw Pact's 195


     Which will be of overwhelming importance in the battle for Munich, several
hundred miles inland...

>  
> 3)NATO has only 64 active divisions vs 68 Warsaw Pact active divisions:
>   however NATO has a standing force of 2,800,000 vs the Pact's 2,600,000

     Not meaning to be nit-picking, but does this include the forces of 
NATO members Greece, Italy, and Turkey?  All of these are rather far-removed
from Central Europe.  No Warsaw Pact member is.  Also, it is unclear whether
some of these figures include the Soviet Union and United States.  From my
interpretation of these, it would seem that some (the tank figures which follow)
do include them, while some (the spending figures) do not.  Nice bit of 
misdirection, that.

> 4)NATO also has a preponderance of reserve strength. Adding active and
>   reserve forces NATO has 5,184,500 vs 4,800,000 men
> 
> 5)The above troop figures do *not* include an additional 326,800 French
>   troops

     It is unclear whether the above troop figures *do* include US forces 
on the wrong side of the Atlantic.  Raw numbers can often be (pusposefully)
misleading in this respect.

> The tank balance is 27,200 Warsaw Pact tanks to 11,800 NATO tanks.
> Tom Gervasi points out that if tanks were really so critically short in
> NATO that it would be stupid for the US to have provided 1,015 M-60A3
> tanks and 771 M-48A5 tanks to various countries in the Middle East and
> Asia.  Similarly if the British military truly thought tanks were critically
> needed in Europe they would be foolish to have planned to send 800 Chieftain
> tanks to Iran before the Iranian revolution led to cancellation.

     The M60 is about 20 years old, the M48 closer to 30.  I suspect that the
Chieftain is of similar vintage.  Hell, why didn't we save some of those fine
old Shermans?

>  
> My previous figures for NATO antitank weapons was incorrect, the correct
> figure is 193,000 antitank weapons for NATO vs 68,000 for the Warsaw Pact.
> NATO's antitank weapons employ the latest in precision guided technology
> and electronics including laser, optical and infrared guidance.
> Dr. William Perry, under secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering,
> has stated that the US has a substantial lead in precision-guided weapons
> which he considers to be "the most significant application of technology
> to modern warfare".  We all know that the US leads in sophisticated
> electronics by a longshot so this statement should be no surprise.
> Dr. Perry also stated "The technology balance is shifting in favor
> of the antitank systems." and points out that NATO leads in the 
> lethality of tanks, artillery, and rocket launchers as well as in
> the quantity and quality of combat aircraft.

     Again, I have seen different figures, therefore it is not surprising that
you provide no specifics on the totals of combat aircraft.  I will provide 
them on a later posting.

>  
> We have seen how deceptive mere quantitative comparisons can be in the
> numerous Middle East wars.  Time after time Israel's highly advanced
> weapons largely from the US, have massacred Arab Soviet-supplied weapons.
> This has been true even in cases of a *quantitative* superiority for
> the Arabs.

     Much of the Israeli success in the Middle East has been due to superior 
command and control.  The Syrian and Egyptian armies are well-known for their
tendency to panic and flee under adversity, regardless of their numerical
advantages.

> 
> To say there is a "conventional weapons gap" in NATO is as absurd as
> saying the US is behind in the nuclear arms race.
>  tim sevener whuxn!orb