Amazon.com: Customer reviews: The Threat: Inside the Soviet Military Machine

The Threat: Inside the Soviet Military Machine

›

Customer reviews

Customer reviews

4.5 out of 5

15 global ratings

5 star		70%
4 star		17%
3 star		7%
2 star		7%
1 star 0% (0%)		0%

The Threat: Inside the Soviet Military Machine

byAndrew Cockburn

How are ratings calculated?

See All Buying Options

Add to Wish List

This page works best with JavaScript. Disabling it will result in some disabled or missing features. You can still see all customer reviews for the product.

Top positive review

All positive reviews›

Amazon Customer

Five Stars

Reviewed in the United States on October 19, 2017

Outstanding and good reading

Top critical review

All critical reviews›

John G. Hilliard

To Whom

Reviewed in the United States on June 24, 2003

After reading this book the first thing that came to my mind was how could this rag tag bunch of vagabonds get together and build any of the weapons they then tried to operate? This book is one half anti right 'strong defense' hating and one half expose on incompetence. I picked this book up because I thought it would be interesting to understand more about the Soviet weapons and set up given that the majority of the conflicts the US seams to be getting into lately are against countries that were equipped and trained by the USSR. The book did deliver a good run down of these items, but the authors also included a nice run down of the arguments made during the cold war to support certain weapons systems based on the advanced USSR versions only to find out later that the USSR version did not exist or could barely turn on.
This the arguments on the unnecessary defense purchases the author tends to let his political views slide into the text. For me this was not an issue as I tended to agree with his comments, but if you are a strong supporter of Republican 'Any weapon system is a good weapon system' group then you will probably become aggravated by chapter two. Overall I found the book to be interesting and easy to read. The only compliant I would have is that there were no pictures or illustrations of the weapons the author was talking about. The picture would have added a lot of value for me. If you are interested in military history or weapons then this is a nice overview of the best the USSR had in the early 80's.

4 people found this helpful

Sort by

Filter by

15 global ratings | 11 global reviews

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

From the United States

Amazon Customer

Reviewed in the United States on October 19, 2017

Verified Purchase

Outstanding and good reading

John G. Hilliard

Reviewed in the United States on June 24, 2003

After reading this book the first thing that came to my mind was how could this rag tag bunch of vagabonds get together and build any of the weapons they then tried to operate? This book is one half anti right 'strong defense' hating and one half expose on incompetence. I picked this book up because I thought it would be interesting to understand more about the Soviet weapons and set up given that the majority of the conflicts the US seams to be getting into lately are against countries that were equipped and trained by the USSR. The book did deliver a good run down of these items, but the authors also included a nice run down of the arguments made during the cold war to support certain weapons systems based on the advanced USSR versions only to find out later that the USSR version did not exist or could barely turn on.
This the arguments on the unnecessary defense purchases the author tends to let his political views slide into the text. For me this was not an issue as I tended to agree with his comments, but if you are a strong supporter of Republican 'Any weapon system is a good weapon system' group then you will probably become aggravated by chapter two. Overall I found the book to be interesting and easy to read. The only compliant I would have is that there were no pictures or illustrations of the weapons the author was talking about. The picture would have added a lot of value for me. If you are interested in military history or weapons then this is a nice overview of the best the USSR had in the early 80's.

4 people found this helpful

They are awesome reporters and investigative journalists with both access high level ...

Reviewed in the United States on December 14, 2016

Andrew Cockburn and his brother have been seminal in my development in understanding the Geo-Politics of western hegemony. They are awesome reporters and investigative journalists with both access high level government sources, and an indefatigable pursuit of truth which takes them to some of the most dangerous places in the world. His book on the Soviet Union and there ramshackle military exposed the Team-B propaganda for what it was, even if it took another 6 years for the US to figure it out.

Worth a read even post-USSR

Reviewed in the United States on August 11, 2017

I read this book many years ago when it was first released. It wasn't altogether surprising to me that the US defense establishment would exaggerate the military capabilities of the USSR. I'd prefer they get it right,but if they are going to make a mistake in any direction, overstating the threat is a better way to go. Still, what was stunning to me was the utter disregard the USSR had for their own fighting men. I don't agree politically with the author on almost anything, but his work here was really a public service.

for what it is, very amusing

Reviewed in the United States on July 3, 2012

I read this book and rolled on the floor, laughing. It is so very believable. Having said that, this guy is a journalist. He paints the Soviet military as Keystone Kops, with baaaaad military equipment. This is a good SUPPLEMENT to other sources of information. The legendary T-34 tank was execrably bad; it had 2 engines, made of aluminum, a breakdown in either idled the tank. OK, it had angled armor. The Russians won the war with superior numbers of equipment, and air superiority, rather the way the allies did. It doesn't matter as much that individual equipment sucks.
Russian troops and equipment were considered far more expendable, than with NATO. The author is clearly biased against the M1 Abrams. Well, ok, mistakes were made, and the F-15 is indeed underpowered- if you watch the movie Top Gun (Widescreen Special Collector's Edition) closely, you'll see the instructors admitting this. Weapons systems, however, are not as reliable as say tractors. Vickers tried to make tractors after WW I, but had to buy them all back; military quality was not up to civilian standards. So the book has faults. So what. It is a very amusing read, for all that.

2 people found this helpful

Gonna Take A Sentimental Journey

Reviewed in the United States on September 16, 2007

I read this book shortly after it came out. At that time, I found it enlightening but was a bit too young to fully comprehend what the author was getting at. I recently purchased a new copy at a local used book store. While I still find it relevant, I have some concerns over Mr. Cockburn's conclusions and his methods.

The basic theme is the Soviet military was an incompetant mess manned by poorly trained/motivated servicemen and equipped with some of the worst military equipment known to mankind. The conclusion is a tad elusive but could probably be boiled down to we should resist Western military bureaucrats' penchant for demanding more sophisticated and expensive equipment to keep up with the Soviets because its unnecessary and their stance is likely to bring about World War III.

The basic problem I see with the book is the author's credentials are limited. He is a highly educated journalist who has extensive contacts within Western military agencies. However, it appears he never actually served in any of the NATO armed forces. This doesnt automatically disqualify him to comment as he has, but it makes his knowledge base somewhat limited. Also, he is very wonkish and gets caught up in statistical/numerical data at the expense of the big picture. So what we get is a book full of fairly raw (but still good and relevant) information which poorly process said data.

How does this impact the tale? Well consider this. Mr Cockburn reveals to us NATO and Warsaw Pact forces in Western Europe were at numerical parity. While accurate, he doesnt take into account the proportion of Warsaw Pact servicemen in direct combat roles as opposed to their NATO counterparts is significantly higher. By just looking at raw numbers, Mr. Cockburn makes the fatal error of valuing the importance of a US Navy clerk/typist stationed in Naples with three Soviet Motor Rifle privates on the East/West German border. And while his revelations regarding the horrible quality and fragility of most Soviet military equipment is spot on, he doesnt seem to comprehend its not all that important given Soviet doctrine was to view men and machines as expendable resources about on par with the Western viewpoint of ammunition.

I am extremely reluctant to Monday Morning Quarterback Mr. Cockburn's work here. Given his vantage in the early 80s, his train of thought isnt completely off base. However, I feel it important to note his horribly faulty analysis of US weapons that had been deployed in this timeframe. The author is harshly critical of the M1 tank, F15 air superiority fighter and Bradley infantry fighting vehicle (to name a few) and cites them as examples of Western military bureaucrats' penchant for demanding bad equipment for personal gain. I find it bizarre in the extreme just about every US weapon system Mr. Cockburn criticizes has set the standard and have been found to be vastly superior to anything else on the markets. I suspect this could be chalked up to Cockburn's likely distrust for anyone part of "The System". If he were more even handed, perhaps he could have seen the great potential of these then newly employed tools. It also reveals a fatal imbalance in his analysis.

This all said, the book is highly useful. I only give it two stars, but do this only because of the high rating double post a few years back. If it were not for this, I would have given it 3 stars. Mr. Cockburn gives us much good data in the form of raw numbers and statistics. Even more important is his extensive application of anecdotal information from Soviet emigres. The first hand stories of former Red Army vets adds a personal touch lacking in most books of this nature and goes a long way to making the tome highly readable. In the end, I find this book a keeper. Just understand Mr. Cockburn's depth of experience in the matters he discusses here is not as deep as it should be and he seems to have an axe to grind.

10 people found this helpful

This man was right when almost everyone else was wrong.

Reviewed in the United States on October 6, 2015

At the same time every "respectable" writer and talking head was pumping up the Soviet threat, this was one of the few books that
saw how weak the country was and how the west overestimated their adversary in ways that foreshadowed the "Iraq has WMD's" debate by decades.

What ever the flaw, the man was right. That has to count for something.

2 people found this helpful

Jukka-pekka Hietaniemi

Strange analysis of soviet weapons

Reviewed in the United States on March 30, 2005

This book overall is very interesting in its subject; cold war view to soviet army and weaponry. Book is easy to read and includes many

interestening sections, such as describing the life in service of Red army. However writers approach to weapon systems is strange.

He points out many true facts about incapabilities and shortcomings of soviet war equipment, but most of the "facts" are only writers own opinions about subject.Many examples what se describes, such as engine overhaul facts etc from tanks are pure disinformation. He represents many faulty facts about soviet weaponry and writes only about the mistakes made in the design of soviet weapons. There can't be found any objective analysis of weapon systems and army tactics, only third hand information. This book gives however interesting look at view soviet weaponry at most negatively as it is possible. After reading this book, you must be assured that "many parts in t-72 don't last more than 14 hours" and so on. Well, this book is interesting reading, though heavily biased, and have to be remebered when this book was issued and many techical facts for instance were only pure guess. Much comprehensive and better descriotion from cold war soviet weaponry can be found from: D.Isby: Weapons and tactics of the soviet army.

5 people found this helpful

Outdated, but a classic!

Reviewed in the United States on January 2, 2001

From descriptions of train tracks that are of different sizes in Russia and Poland, to tanks with 2 transmissions (both manual!), to descriptions of brutal hazing of conscripts, to "estimating" the Soviet defense budget, it's clear, from this bookm that a lot of cow-dung was passed off by conservatives as "military threat analysis."
A classic!

5 people found this helpful

Bernard M. Hood

Interesting Case Studies, but Author's Cynical Attitude Prevents Full Belief in His General Thesis

Reviewed in the United States on September 9, 2014

The theme is that the Soviet threat was exaggerated as a way to justify spending on new toys for the U.S. military. Many of his examples have an interest in their own right, but his attitude is cynical and arrogant, so that he overstates his case. Occasionally amusing.

Need customer service? Click here

‹ See all details for The Threat: Inside the Soviet Military Machine

Get to Know Us

Make Money with Us

Amazon Payment Products

Let Us Help You

English United States

© 1996-2021, Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates