I wouldn't go as far as saying that NATO had a big advantage in technology when it comes to ground forces.
MBTs is a good example. The Abrams and Leopard II were very good but they were not the sole MBT in NATO. The Challenger I was ok. But a big number of NATOs tank force was still compromised of M60s, M48s, Leopard Is, AMX-30s and Chieftains. Taking this into account and looking at the numbers of T-64/72/80s with T-55s forming the second line and reserves in the WarPac forces it is hard to see an advantage in quality for NATO. The same applies to IFVs.
Or look at artillery/MLRS or Air Defense. Arguably NATO had neither an advantage in quality nor in quantity.
My point is that it is hard to generalize and one should refrain from doing so. The force composition in the late cold war is too complicated for this.
True, and i was not trying to say that NATO did have superiority compared to the former USSR but specially with the backing of both the UK and the US there where several key elements where NATO did have the edge in terms of tech towards the massive numbers of the W-pact.
What comes into mind is that USSR did have more nuclear weapons and a much bigger army, and vast resources stockpiled.
I honestly do sometimes wonder how long it would have taken NATO to actually bring the soviet storm to a halt IF such a disastrous war would have opened up.
And specially without the use of nukes i could see the US choosing to trade a HUGE part of Europa to stop a hypothetical confrontation from getting to the point of no return.
Because after reading some online sources it was clear that W-Pact + its resources would have been able to triple their army if push came to shove in a reasonable short timeframe.
And i cannot see the EU to withstand that amount of army for very long.
But back in topic the W-Pact was by far bigger then NATO and the capacity was largely underestimated back then by western leaders.
After the fall of the great wall documents revealed how much the USSR could bring into the fight, and according to books and such IF Russia would have gone into war with NATO that conventional there was no way that NATO could hold out.
BUT it is largely considered that in such a event the EU mainland would be occupied by W-Pac soldiers and that the UK would be the next battle ground where the US would be able to stop them for the first time.
So in terms if numbers the w-pac was huge, and NATO did have a false sense of security.