Customer Reviews

Red Army

5 star:		(21)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I read this book when it first came out 12 years ago. I was working as a Battalion Intelligence operator at the time and was comparing doctrine of the forces involved. One main difference is that the Soviets reinforce success, wheras NATO would have to reinforce their weakest part of the line. A touted NATO advantage was their communcations system that would allow it to manouver units more quickly, which may have been a false assumption. Of all the books I've read, this is the best.
Warfare is notoriously difficult to model, as small events may have great importance. On the other hand, capabilities of equipment and units are accurately known and not likely to change much in battle. While recognizing the differences in equipment and ways of employing it, Peters realizes that most professional soldiers have common characteristics. Some leaders are daring and intuitive, some are not. Making sure they are employed in the right spot is crucial, and again Peters shows that the Soviet professional development system is much like that of the West.
By contrast, Clancy's Red Storm Rising makes it seem as if a handful of men can change the course of history by themselves. Coyle's Team Yankee makes the Americans invulnerable to Soviet attacks. Only Hackett's Third World War comes close to Red Army in what I believe could have happened. That's no surprise given Hackett's experience as NATO's ground commander.
Since the Second World War westerners have fostered and been fed the idea of Russians as backward and without initiative. We have concentrated on Patton, Rommel and Montgomery as military geniuses without recognizing Rokossovsky, Koniev and Zhukov and that the Red Army defeated the Nazis and took Berlin. Ralph Peters simply puts human beings in charge of the Red Army.

There are three major novels on the subject of World War III that I am familiar with -- Gen. Sir John Hackett's "The Third World War" Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" and Ralph Peters' "Red Army."

"Red Army" is the best of these. It should be read by anyone who wants a plausible, if not necessarily probable, scenario for a war that never happened.

The fact that the war didn't happen, and the USSR is no more, doesn't affect the readability of this book in the slightest, so if that was holding you back from reading it, don't let it. You would be missing a first-class war novel that isn't a commercial for the military-industrial complex or a propaganda pamphlet extolling the virtues of NATO.

"Red Army" is a war story told from the perspective of the Red Army, from its senior commanding general, Malinsky, to the lowliest private, the decidedly unwarlike Leonid. It is Peters' attempt to put human faces on the Soviet "hordes" we (me, anyway, since I'm old enough to remember them) grew up fearing and dreading.

Some of the characters are indeed dread-worthy, such as the bullying drunk, Struharkin, the murderous coward Seryosha, or the emotionally scarred airborne officer, Gordunov (the most unfortgettable character in the story). But they are outweighed by characters so sympathetic I was actually rooting for the Soviets to win (traitor!).

Most everybody who has posted a review here liked the book but almost all of 'em took issue with the plausibility of the ending. Without giving anything away, let me respectfully disagree and point out the following:

1) Somebody pointed out that Peters isn't impressed by the German Bundeswehr and that in real life the Germans would fight much better, if necessary to the last round. They certainly did in WWII but that was a long time ago, under a different system. The German army is the smallest comparible to its population in the European community and the German people of today are largely pacifist and anti-nationalist. Furthermore, during the Cold War the Bonn gov't insisted on a policy of "forward defense" i.e. of meeting the Soviets head-on at the border so as not to lose territory. Hitler used this as his defensive strategy in Russia from August 1943 onwards, and it failed miserably. War conditions have certainly changed since The Big One, but putting all their armies forward and making them hold a rigid defense designed to conserve territory and save German cities would cost a huge price in lives and equipment. Peters (in my opinion) was right to question whether the modern-day Germans would pay it.

2)The Soviets indeed did perform badly militarily on many occasions and Peters does not address the issue of mass desertion, raised by Suvorov in his seminal work "Inside the Soviet Army." I'm not sure, however, that he is overestimating the Red Army so much as assuming it would perform at or near its ideal. I think in a short, set-piece war, where the Soviets had the advantage of political surprise and their usual advantage in numbers, they might nearly have done this well -- maybe. A lot of things do "go the Russians' way" in this book, but a lot of things went NATO's way in "Red Storm Rising" and Hackett's "III WW".

3) Judging the Soviet army on the performance of the Taliban, Iraqi or Arab armies is a bad idea because the Soviet equipment sent to those countries was "for export only." The Soviets referred to equipment (tanks, aircraft, APCs, missles, etc.) shipped overseas as "monkey models." The monkey model was a no-frills, stripped-down version of the real Soviet model and was never the best version or even the most modern. For example, the Soviet army of the 80's would have been using T-80 tanks, not the T-72s used by Hussein. And the first echelon of Soviet forces NEVER is issued the best equipment; during WWII, the Germans did not encounter the great T-34 and KV-1 tanks which gave them so much trouble until they were hundreds of miles inside Russia proper. The Soviets believe their first echelon will be wiped out in both offensive and defensive war and see no reason to give it the best equipment. While the Abrams and Leopard are better tanks than the Sovs had, the Soviet advantage in numbers must at least be taken into consideration.

Anyway, I have my opinion, you have yours, and Peters has his: his book "Red Army" is the "alternate ending" to a war that was -- thank God -- never fought.

I have read just about everything ever written by Tom Clancy, Larry Bond, and Howard Coyle. I enjoyed this book more than any of them. Only Clancy's _Red Storm Rising_ even comes close. The author's background in NATO gives him an edge on the competition.

Of course, this is strictly a novel about war. It focuses entirely on the soldiers, not politics or technical details of specific weaponry. The fact that it's told from the Soviet point of view makes it all the more fascinating. Many war novels have had Soviet generals as characters; very few feature Soviet tank crews, infantry squads, artillerymen, etc.

Don't let the outdated topic deter you. This is one of the best novels ever written. I've read it six times. In a word: outstanding.

"You realize that we had to fight...It wasn't only the political situation. We've been through worse crises. But we had to fight them now. It was the last chance. They we're beating us without ever firing a shot. They forced us to fight so long with their weapons -- technology, economics, their entire arsenal for destroying us in peacetime. And we could not compete. We were losing, and it became so apparent that even a fool could see it..."

Those are the words from General Malinsky, the Soviet leader of the Warsaw Pact forces invading West Germany in Ralph Peters' book, "Red Army." Ah, WEST Germany... It's been a few years since we've thought about that political entity, yes? The fall of communism seems so inevitable now.

At the writing of this book, in the late Eighties, that didn't seem so inevitable, did it? What if the Russians quit fighting the Cold War our way, through the clash of economic strength? What if the USSR saw its imminent demise, and lashed out militarily?

Ralph Peters addresses that question amply in this book. I enjoy a technothriller now and then, but this novel's emphasis on the human element of a Third European War was like a fresh breeze. Completely from the Russian point-of-view, the characters live and breathe, have strengths and faults, prejudices and hobbies. NATO is treated harshly, its political fragmentation endangering its military strength.

Peters says in his Author's Note, "It is not a book about lethal gadgets. While seeking the highest possible technical accuracy for its backdrop, this book is about behavior. How would that other system behave at war -- and how might its individual members prove like us or distinctly unlike us in their responses to the stress of combat?"

I'd whole-heartedly recommend this book as a fresh alternative to flag-waving, give-all-the-breaks-to-the-wholesome-Americans contemporary war books. It will open your eyes.

This book is top class, especially when you consider the era it is written.

Not writing about your own Army has its advantages. You don't feel so compelled to portray them like saints. Maybe Ralph would not have fallen prey to this fallacy even if he wrote about the US Army, but this factor couldn't have hurt him in portraying a wide variety of characters, good and bad. I don't know whether he managed to portray Russians or just more "3D" versions of Western-stereotypes, but he definitely portrayed them as MEN, and that rises this book into a level Red Storm Rising (RSR) and most technothrillers (certainly all in my experience) could not match. If Ralph's 1st Western Front faced off Clancy's RSR NATO, the 1st Western Front would have won by sheer virtue of the characters being men instead of cardboard cutouts - the characterization is THAT different.

Ralph decides not to mention technical matters too explicitly so as to showcase the men. That's a nice strategy when the book was written, but it also means the book ages better. Even if the Cold War continued, technical perceptions change. By blurring it, the macroaccuracy (often determinable early on) will rule over the microinaccuracies (which takes years to ferret out with spies).

Some people object to the story on the grounds of American-forces doing well against Soviet-forces in the past. What is closer is that generally, at least one side is only vaguely relevant to the patron. Example: the Iraqi army is only superficially similar to the Soviet Army. T-55s are the majority. Even the T-72s are early export versions and armed with ancient, export use steel-cored sabot rounds. The maneuver war was preceded by an unrealistic (in Cold War context), multiple month fire preparation with planes. Of course, perhaps the Americans will still have gone through everything like a knife through butter anyway, but not necessarily.

Some people criticize the book for not explaining the cause of the war. However, I'd say the cause of the war is out of scope for the characters involved. Even Malinksy shouldn't have to care about why the war occurred, just to win it. Besides, the book is has too much to say as it is, and war triggers in technothrillers tend to be on the thin side. Best to leave it to the reader's random imagination.

The overall operational strategy is handled very well. With the short briefing by Front Chief of Staff Chibisov at the beginning, and a few maps (truly pictures worth a thousand words), the flow of the battle and geographical positions of all the major Soviet units are easily grasped.

Some people groan about the ending, but it is the best possible. The apparent success of the Americans suggests that NATO could have won (or at least done better) had it got its act together, which I think was a point Peters was trying to make. It also no doubt appeases the American readership. Yet, the success, beyond blowing out the foremost Soviet OMG brigade, is deliberately left vague.

Storywise, the cease fire route was the only way to go - never mind he's running out of pages, two general alternatives are plausible given the setup but they are impalatable. The Americans were apparently doing well, so he could arrange for them to win the battle for NATO (with a little help from the rest) like some reviewers suggest. That would likely lead to nuclear war on the part of the Soviets, and if that didn't happen kind of makes the whole book rather meaningless by not giving NATO the "punishment" Ralph thinks their lack of coordination and other weaknesses deserves.

Alternatively, the map shows that 7th Tank Army is about to enter the battlefield, and it is positioned to hit the American counterattack's flank or rear, depending on how far the US manages to penetrate into 3rd Shock Army's zone. So at least an equally likely scenario is that the Americans get crushed. Which will also mean nuclear war, and the whole American counterattack becomes almost as strategically (and storywise) meaningless than the local counterattacks on the Russians during Day 1 of the war.

With nuclear war being a high probability and with the warheads due to fall on their own territory (assuming the tactical nuke war does not go strategic), it is very likely that West Germany would choose a cease-fire. In fact, arguably the most unrealistic part of NATO's nuclear defense is that the Germans will let it happen.

And once the Germans decide to quit, there's really little choice for the others as far the battle in Germany is concerned. With twelve divisions, and one of the largest airforces in NATO going out, their line would utterly shatter, leaving the rest of NATO like islands waiting to be surrounded. There was really nothing to it but retreat.

Even with the rest of the Reforger divisions arriving, they would face the fresh Soviet 2nd echelon and the reorganized 1st echelon - not a particularly good correlation. In the longer run, the Soviet economy is strengthened by the acquisition of West German technology, while the Western economy is badly dented by the loss of a major trading partner. Conventional war, in the short or middle run, simply isn't the way to go.

wow. This book was absolutely amazing. I read it in four days (but only an hour or two a day!). Its all russians, which is cool. Its got every concievable character- tankers, infantryman, artilleryman, supplyers, generals, KGB officers, MiG pilots, Air-Assault Paratroopers, Reconnaissance Tankers, Engineers, Air defence troopers, and (of course) your local neighborhood political officer! ( but there are a couple who are actually good soldiers, and do their duty.). Its a great book, and a must have for anyone who likes the military or action. One definite plus is that it doesn't get into all of the technology details. The author simply says "tank" not a specific type-like Tom Clancy loves to do. Just read it, you won't be wasting your time, and it might just give you a whole new perspective on modern war!

I was a field artillery officer in the US Army in Germany during the height of the Cold War, and of course we spent a great deal of time thinking about the Soviet Army and the threat it represented. This novel does a fairly good job of presenting what a conventional war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO might have been like--using one set of assumptions. Specifically, this novel assumes that the Soviet Army would function pretty much as its leadership intended.

My personal belief is that although this book is plausible, it is unlikely that the Soviets would have had the easy run into the heart of Germany that this novel envisioned. Anywhere during the 1970s or 1980s that the Soviet military or its surrogates went up against an American-style force, the Soviet force did very poorly. Contrast the two month American liberation of Taliban Afghanistan with the utter inability of the Soviet Army to prevail over the same adversary despite trying for eight years with far more numerous forces. A modest supply of American Stinger missiles and TOW rockets immobilized and thwarted the Soviets. In Germany the number and sophistication of such weapons, and the skill of the NATO soldiers, would have been immeasurably higher. It doesn't seem likely given what happened in Afhanistan that the Soviets would have had an easy time of it against NATO's well-drilled, well-equipped forces. Similarly, whenever a Soviet-style air force went up against a US-trained one, such as Israel's, the result was a debacle for the Soviet side. In short, in the 1970s and 1980s there is not a single example of Soviet tactics or equipment coming out on top against any Western army or air force. Just look at what happened when the American Army went up against Iraq's Soviet-style, Soviet-equipped army. The Russian tanks were nearly helpless against American Abrams and British Crusader tanks. Why would Europe have been any different? It would not have been.

Despite the above opinion, which is strictly my own, this is an interesting and thoughtful novel even in the post-Soviet era. We will never be sure that the West could have prevailed against the Soviet Army. Certainly the author makes an excellent case, and weaves a fascinating story of a military-political assault against the West by the Soviets. The novel is eminently readable, never strains the reader's credulity, and I found the political dimension of the novel to be particularly interesting.

Overall, this novel in my opinion embodies common Cold War fears that the Soviet Army was stronger than it really was, and is a pretty accurate depiction of those fears. This makes the novel an insightful look at military attitudes during the bad old days of the Cold War.

Much more than just `Red Strom Rising' from the soviet side. This is easily one of the best `war' books I've ever read, fiction or non. You will not be disappointed.

This book is a wonderfully written book. It avoids the techno-jargon of the Tom Clancy books and focuses on the personalities behind the equipment and how they might respond in the absurdity of war. He creates vividly chaotic battle scenes that stupify the combatants.

My biggest objection is that the ending is so anti-climactic. After dramatic, but costly initial successes, the Soviet Forces are caught off guard by a dazzling and powerful American counterattack out of CENTAG that most strategists agree would have to happen. The men are only coming to grips with the possibility of defeat when the surprise ending is sprung on the reader.

This ending is not plausible because the US forces would never cease fire after taking minimal losses to come within 12 kilometers of cutting off a large Soviet Force at the Weser. Politically West Germany would not have crumbled when it had only yielded perhaps 25-30% of it's territory on the heels of a successful counterattack with some 8 fresh American & British divisions arriving soon as an operational reserve.

I highly doubt the American, British & French would allow the unilateral surrender of German Forces with the tide turning decidedly in their favor.

I do agree with the inherent weaknesses of NATO as a political unit. I agree that the Europeans would resort to their "see no evil" mentality and therefore allow themselves to be caught thoroughly off-guard by a Soviet onslaught. NATO's survival would hinge on the ability to establish a credible front within NORTHAG. If that failed to materialize there would be little CENTAG could do alone to stop the siezure of Germany north of the Harz Mountains. That being said, I still believe the British and Americans would carry on the fight even if the West Germans gave up.

The Soviet Union never had the economic capability to support a war lasting longer than 30 days in Western Europe. The US, UK, and other NATO partners would have the means to outlast the Soviets in terms logistics and air power.

This acknowlegement on the part of the Soviets is why they never invaded West Germany...

As a crew member on an M1 tank in Germany, in the closing days of the Cold War this was one of my Fav books. Read by everyone in my platoon, it was a facinating look at how the guys we were tasked to turn back might crash across the border and wage war. A real page turner full of combat, but with a human side to it.