During the Cold War, the Red Army and Red Air Force had bigger strength than the US Army and Air Force (except maybe right at the beginning). Except for submarine operations, the Red Navy never came close to matching the strength of the US Navy.
The USSR had three-year conscription, ensuring that its standing army and trained reserves were greater than America's (it's worth noting that the USSR's population was always larger than America's). They also mass produced military equipment in large quantities, often in startling quantities. For example, the total number of T-54/T-55 tanks is at least 86,000. (though not all made by the USSR). When they were debuted, these tanks were also the greatest in the world, triggering the development of a spate of new NATO tanks in the 1960s, which were then matched by the T-62 and T-64. In comparison, their overall population surpassed 25,000, compared to 15,000 M60s.
For long of the Cold War, the Soviet Union was able to retain technical parity (more precisely the advantage see-sawed back and forth as new equipment was introduced). It is not until roughly 1980 that America's and Western Europe's technological advantages tilt the scale significantly in favor of NATO. The widespread use of computers enables significant breakthroughs in research and development, as well as the provision of technology to military systems that enhances their capabilities beyond their bare performance metrics. The USSR never produced something as good as the M1 Abrams, while the MIG-29 and SU-27 were essentially equal to the F-15 and F-16 in the air. Fortunately, American pilot training was improved in the 1980s, when the training system was reformed in response to unsatisfactory results in Vietnam. There were always areas where America had an edge, like as logistics, but in general, WW3 might have gone very badly for NATO even if no nukes were flying around.
However, if WW3 lasts long enough, industrial mobilization will very probably secure NATO victory in the end. The first world just outperformed the second world in terms of economic production.
During the Cold War, the Soviet high command's perception of the United States, particularly in terms of the armaments race.
<em>"The Soviet leadership's tough stance was supported by supplementary information it received on the escalating military plans of the West and, especially, of the United States. Thus, in August 1951, the head of the Central Statistical Administration, V. Starovskii, sent various statistical tables to Poskrebyshev (in effect, to Stalin) which included an item under the heading "Military Expenditure of the USA in Millions of Dollars." The table showed that according to the provisional plans for 1951-1952, American military spending would come to over 64 billion dollars (almost twice the amount spent in 1949-50), a sum which would account for almost 90 percent of all central state expenditure. Moreover, referring to a secondary Cominform publication, the appendix to the table suggested that the Truman government planned to exceed even these figures by a hefty margin. Without assessing the accuracy of this information, one may merely note that it was figures of this order which were circulated at the highest levels. To the country's leaders, these statistics underlined the sudden surge in military spending of the Soviet Union's archrival.</em>" - Khlevniuk, Oleg. Cold Peace: Stalin and the Soviet Ruling Circle 1945-1953.
In other words, the growth of military forces, including technology (including atomic weaponry), resulted from the buildup of American military forces/technologies and the cooling of the Cold War. The Soviets were motivated by a delusional fear of "losing out" to the Americans, and their actions in terms of arming themselves reflected this.
Thank you,
Eddie
