East-West Battle of the Bean Counters

• Share

(3 of 3)

When it comes to winning battles, firepower, tactics, readiness, morale, leadership and even luck can have more to do with success than mere numbers. It is difficult to tell which side is ahead in these factors, but NATO may have an edge in some nontangible categories. Its weapons, on the whole, are more sophisticated than their East bloc equivalents. The Soviets are said to be closing the quality gap, though many Western defense experts dispute that claim, given the poor performance of Soviet equipment in recent Third World conflicts. During Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, for instance, Syria lost 80 Soviet fighter planes, while shooting down only one of Israel's U.S.-made aircraft. When it comes to tank armies, the majority of NATO's side are up-to- date main battle tanks, such as the U.S. M-1 Abrams and the West German Leopard 2, while the latest Soviet models, the T-64, T-72 and T-80, represent only about one-third of the Warsaw Pact total. As a result, East bloc tanks are generally less reliable, sophisticated and mobile than their NATO counterparts and have a lower rate of fire. "If our tanks can fire twice as fast as theirs," asks a U.S. armor expert, "doesn't that wipe out their advantage?"

Similarly, NATO may be outnumbered on paper in combat aircraft, but its pilots are superior to and its aircraft more sophisticated across the board than the Warsaw Pact's. Western aircraft can fly more combat missions because they can refuel, rearm and be repaired faster. They also operate under worse weather conditions, allowing them to provide the air superiority that would be essential for defeating the Warsaw Pact on the ground.

NATO has some genuine disadvantages as well. Allied aircraft could be shot down in droves by their own side because NATO has yet to deploy a reliable means of enabling its air defense forces to identify friendly planes. On the ground, NATO defenses could be crippled by shortages of ammunition, reinforcement problems and rear area attack by Soviet special forces. And the Soviets' new "reactive" armor, which can detonate an incoming antitank missile prematurely, could make many NATO antitank weapons obsolete. But perhaps a greater shortcoming, say some defense experts, is the Western military's tendency to promote the appearance of irremediable NATO inferiority. That perception can send dangerous signals to the East while undermining the West's will to defend itself. "INF reductions need not reduce our security, but doomsday talk about it could," warns a top alliance analyst. With Europe's nuclear missiles due for a drastic cutback, NATO defense planners will have to move from counting their beans to watching their words.