>>513015617
>they never explain what Soviet V NATO doctrine is, reader is just lead to presume Soviet = meat waves and NATO = cheat code instawin
>htf are you supposed to do anything if the vanned aren't getting basic training and are then expected to implement NATO powerpoints?
The NATO doctrine is pretty hysterical and completely disconnected from reality.

The "total (conventional) war" strategy essentially builds on large arrow offensives and overwhelming air superiority and a technologically superior force.
Essentially betting hard on the assumption that they will see the enemy first, shoot them at longer range and manage to absorb the inferior enemy weapons better (essentially having iddqd and idkfa work IRL).

So as a bulletpoint, NATO will have:
>total air dominance over the entire battlespace
>first mover advantage
>better equipment in all domains (meaning that they require a smaller force)
>interoperable forces that work as on a "modular structure" on a shared communication, command and logistics chain

This was NEVER going to work, in particular since the USSR in most regards had better equipment than the west and since all NATO members did their own thing anyway.

What this meant is that NATO was set up to be a grift from the start.
More advanced stuff costs more to manufacture and is harder to manufacture.

And this is what they build all military strategy around (muh combined arms..).
So Airforce will always be able to deliver enough damage to the enemy so that the ground forces quickly can perform the blitz maneuvers (including decapitation strikes).

Naturally, this whole plan fails if the enemy has air defences and either trenches or tanks that work as well as a force willing to fight.
But that was the NATO doctrine/strategy.
Hence the need for the US to be able to send 5 CSGs with 100 fighter jets each to any place on earth (+pre deployed aircraft + 6 more carriers)

It is so retardedly optimistic that I'm actually at a loss for words.