What's the difference between Counterstroke and Active Defence?

[Bobjack1240]

I was reading Helion's "Never Ready" about the British Army during the Cold War and the way they describe Counterstroke seems oddly similar to Active Defense.

How are Counterstroke and Active Defense different?

[Centurian52]

10 minutes ago, Bobjack1240 said:

I was reading Helion's "Never Ready" about the British Army during the Cold War and the way they describe Counterstroke seems oddly similar to Active Defense.

How are Counterstroke and Active Defense different?

I've never heard of Counterstroke before. It may be as simple as it being the British term for Active Defense (sort of like the distinction between HESH and HEP, or using "fin" vs "sabot" as a shorthand for APFSDS). In a similar vain I remember FM100-2-1 explicitly described the Soviet concept of a "fire sack" as being almost identical to the US concept of a "kill zone". Can you describe it?

[domfluff]

The British Army's approach for essentially all of the Cold War was defence in depth and counter-attack, with the emphasis on "depth" at all levels. This is in contrast to the German approach, which had the emphasis on the counter-attack. One of the fascinating things about Cold War doctrine is that everyone was trying to solve the same problems, but going about it differently.

Active Defence wasn't about deploying in depth, but in creating depth through manoeuvre. AD had an up-front defence, with elements peeling back and rotating, creating successive kill-sacks. Counter-attack wasn't a formal part of this, and it's not clear where that element would have come from.

The issue with AD is that it's very complex, and ambitious to the point of implausibility. It's also that it lacks a real theory of victory - the best an Active Defender can do is not lose, there's no real ability to win.