I’ve talked sometimes about the “you’ve seen so many imitators that the original doesn’t seem so original” effect with regards to fiction. When reading this translated, declassified 1969 Soviet lecture on conventional operations after the monomanical focus on nuclear weapons earlier that decade, I’ve found it applied to history as well. Because a lot of it just seems like later pieces on how a large force would fight conventionally. And there’s more interesting things to it as well.
- “A future world war is first and foremost a nuclear war.” Similar pieces illustrate that while the Soviets had made plans under the assumption that a World War III would start conventionally, they did not believe that it would end conventionally.
- This is for front and army level operations, with one frequently replacing the other. This I’ve seen a lot of in translated Soviet field regulations, to include two unit names being used interchangeably, one an echelon below the other. The assumption I’ve always had is that it’s a concession to heavy casualties because your “front” will quickly be worn down to the size of a paper-strength army, your army worn to a paper-strength division, and so on. I could be wrong.
- The stated rate of advance is 35-40 kilometers a day, a slightly lower one than their later 40-60.
- Airborne forces are to be used.
- The “going over to nuclear weapons” section specifically brings up the opponent pushing the button as soon as they start losing badly.
- With typical Soviet precision, the article estimates “A fighter bomber division is capable, in one day of combat with two to three sorties, of inflicting destruction (up to 20 percent losses) on one to two enemy brigades.”
- As always, there’s the boilerplate necessary propaganda statements and the obligatory (if quite understandable) reference to World War II.
One thought on “The Beginning of Conventional WW3 Plans”
Interesting, I wonder if the increase in operational speed was the result of improved engineering, PMP float bridges etc.
I do like the scientific approach to their calculations.
LikeLiked by 1 person