Sino-Russian led Dessert Storm

[weasel1962]

The Soviets are not as efficient as NATO. They never were.

But could they move a few hundred troops? They did, just took longer (and also because they didn't need to rush). That's the point. If they had to rush like the Americans, sure in a forum, one can criticize everything and assumed everything would fail (0% serviceability). But in reality they did it.

How much equipment did the Soviets return from Est Germany alone? Sure they left some but still moved 2.6 million tons, 4,200 tanks, 3,700 artillery tubes, 1,400 aircraft and 677,000 tons of ammunition.

Did the Soviet invade a country with a few hundred thousand troops? They did e.g. invasion of Afghanistan, just 10 years before (which hastened their breakup). Moving 80000 troops and 4000 flights into the country in a single week. 10 years later, they did not lose that capability (just the will to use it).

Will they incur more casualties than US. Likely they would have.

Is a Soviet led desert storm a realistic scenario? Of course it never happened. Soviets in 1990/1991 had zero inclination for intervention so this is discussing a theoretical capability. In the 80s, it wasn't so clear cut. The nightmare scenario was a Soviet invasion into the gulf --- leading to the Carter doctrine.

[skyward]

Any country can do large troops movement when it pre-planned. Plan invasion on a next door country with 80000 troops is not that amazing. Afghanistan was wide open of invasion. It is the reaction troops movement that is hard to do. The USSR have never done it. When China attack Vietnam, USSR only was able to send a small force and some aid.

[madrat]

The Soviets did not have RDF capacity equivalent to the U.S., which is the crux of the argument. The U.S. alone moved 350,000 troops into theater within a few months. This is completely independent of allied forces. People may have forgotten Iraq had a million strong land force in the day. You needed hundreds of thousands immediately, not just tens of thousands. We had pre-positioned ships ready to support local equipping an MEU within a week (nearly anywhere on the globe). The Soviets never had that.

[nastle]

But even MiG-25 and MiG-25 can reach Syria from Crimea, MiG-29 with three fuel tanks, MiG-25 with one huge fuel tank, while MiG-31 and Su-27 could do that without fuel tanks and with full A-A loadout.

.

mig-29 with 3 tanks ? was that possible for the 9.12 ? I don't know and that leaves it with ability to carry R-27 and R-73?

Also I thought only mig-25PD can carry the oversized tank and not the PDS ?

ANd if we are talking about ferry range can't the mig-23M also carry 3 x tanks ? but 2 on the wing pylons not gloves plus full A-A load ?

[hornetfinn]

Soviet equipment was easier to transport as most of it was/is smaller and lighter to transport. For example T-72/80 were about 40-45 tonnes when M60A3 and M1/M1A1 were 50 to 60 tonnes. BMP-2 was about 14 tonnes while M2 was about twice as heavy. But it would've still been very tough for the Soviets to do. I think they would've been capable of that but it would've likely taken longer.

[mixelflick]

They could have mobilized a force - eventually. It probably wouldn't have been as big and it def wouldn't have happened as fast. Most importantly, it wouldn't have been nearly as capable. Many capabilities on display in DS like stealth, PGM's, C3 etc are only being realized now in Russia, but certainly not all of them. For example, they still don't have a stealth fighter, bomber... stealth anything. PGM's? The first rounds of such in Syria didn't hit much, until they got the bugs worked out. Pretty safe to say they wouldn't have taken down Iraqi C3 or IADS in the first few weeks, nevermnd 48 hours.

OTOH they would have had a real good idea of Iraqi equipment and training, given they sold it to them and trained them LOL. But the Iraqi's weren't pushovers, and had combat experience - something the Russians would have lacked. We did too, but overwhelming technology helped make up the difference. The Russians wouldn't have had this, and probably would have taken a lot longer to eject Iraq from Kuwait. I rather think they would have launched an amphibious assault vs. the one we faked, and I'm not sure how effective it would have been.

China is a whole 'nother ball game. Don't see them capable of conducting operations that far from its borders in 1991. In fact, I can't even see that today. They're just not there yet, particularly in the airlift and aerial refueling areas...

[weasel1962]

The Soviets were fully trained for a conventional war. They made the invasion of Afghanistan easy in 1979/80. What they weren't trained for - counter-insurgency i.e. Afghanistan after 1980-1989.

Desert storm was conventional.

Below are US military manual that shared how the US military viewed the Soviets in 1984. Chapter 15 (FM-2-1) would also address in part Nastle's question of Soviet EW capabilities during that era.

https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-2.pdf

The Soviets have been paying increased attention to the development of power projection forces that would enable them to assert their influence in areas distant from their borders. Naval and air transport resources can be employed to project regular ground force units as well as naval infantry and airborne units and independent air assault brigades.

Soviet power projection capabilities are impressive in the Persian Gulf region. The Soviets have a sub-stantial number of divisions in varying states of readi-ness based in Mghanistan and in the Transcauscasus, North Caucasus, and Turkestan Military Districts. Soviet aircraft based in Afghanistan can reach most points in the Persian Gulf region and large portions of the Arabian Sea. Port facilities in the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen and Ethiopia greatly enhance the operating potential of the Soviet fleet in the Indian· Ocean and Arabian Sea