Conventional Warfare between NATO and Warsaw Pact in Europe

[King of Scandinavia]

Greetings, I wonder and would like to know your thought about how conventional war in Europe between NATO and Warsaw Pact will most likely to happen. Some of you might say that any war involving both sides will definitely occur with nuclear involvement, but let us assume that a war broke out and neither side will use NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) weapons no matter what’s the odd and regardless of the possible outcome.

I know there’s a book by Tom Clancy called ‘Red Storm Rising’ depicting a conventional war in Europe, however the setting was 1980s and there’s no Greek and Turkey’s involvement and a rather peace Pacific front (correct me if I was wrong). I’d like to know what if war broke out in 1960s, involving all countries of NATO and Warsaw Pact in European theatre, let’s say in 1964 during winter, around November or December. At that time Khrushchev was just ousted from power by Brezhnev, and Johnson was just elected as president. I could just ask a general question, but I decided to also include the details and analyze them.

The map of Europe during Cold War

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/8558/english301um2.jpg

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/1432/cweuropezu9.jpg

Several war plans and scenarios around 1964 which I found

http://phpdev.dev.isn.ch/collections/coll_warplan/intro_lunak.cfm?navinfo=15365

http://phpdev.dev.isn.ch/collections/coll_warplan/introduction_mastny.cfm?navinfo=15365

http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/collections/colltopic.cfm?lng=en&id=16239&navinfo=15365

http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/collections/coll_wargame/comment_nuti.cfm?navinfo=16606

http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/p/2005/national_security_archive/burr_europe/www.gwu.edu/_nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB31/

However, all these plans depict only war scenario involving use of nuclear weapon, and lack other possible battlefield scenarios (other fronts), such as in Norway, North Sea, Greek, Black Sea, and Turkey.

Assume the war happening worldwide and we limit the discussion and focus on European theatre only. With the Soviets only able to use its “European side” forces and without “Asian side” forces (again we assume the forces in Asia has to be used for war in Pacific and elsewhere), and the United States with its forces in Europe (US Forces Europe) and possible additional reinforcements from mainland US (some of its forces has to be used to fight Soviets in Pacific).

Before I ask the questions, I know there is similiar thread here but the other "total war" thread include the use of massive nuclear arsenals. Here we assume none of NBC were used. And here comes the questions:

1. Order of Battle of both sides during early 1960s (particularly 1964)?

2. Time needed for all NATO and Warsaw Pact troops to mobilize its forces and increase additional “war-time” forces?

3. Central European front:
a. Siege of West Berlin. Will the Warsaw Pact surround it, attack from East Berlin or just use bombers to strike military and other important targets, followed by ground assault afterward? How will the NATO respond? How long does it take to capture West Berlin?
b. The Baltic Sea. Some Soviet Navy important fleets and ports are located (like Leningrad) here and to reach the North Sea and Atlantic Ocean, it has to pass “NATO territory” (Denmark). Will there be Jutland-like battle occurring there? Or will there be WP paratroopers landing to capture important NATO targets in Danish territory instead, along with air battles (sort of Battle of Britain but plus paratroopers landing) ? Or will the NATO going to strike first and launch their naval forces to deny access into Denmark and North Sea? (Although I’m not really sure about the strength of both NATO and WP naval forces around the time)
c. NATO forces in West Germany. Will they retaliate fully by launching invasion into East Germany and Czechoslovakia, or will they stay on defensive position, or perhaps fall back to regroup with other forces to anticipate the incoming assault?
d. Czechoslovakia. I once saw a war plan showing that Czechoslovakia forces will focus on attacking American sector of West Germany and then continue the assault into France. Will Czechoslovakia act according to “this war plan” and let the rest of Warsaw Pact forces handle northern West Germany and East Germany? However, Czechoslovakia is attacking American sector, possibly one of the best-defended position in Germany (if not Europe)? Will the Americans try to make double-side counter-offensive in order to split and defeat the incoming enemy forces? Other possibility?
e. Austria and Swiss. Neutral during the Cold War. But will they keep their neutrality in case of “hot war”? Possibly join the NATO side? Or just support the NATO secretly without joining? Will the Warsaw Pact tempted to invade Austria and/or Swiss? Or will they just ignore it to avoid being involved in other front?

4. The Balkan front:
a. Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was one of the founder of Non-Aligned Movement and relatively neutral throughout the Cold War. But what if the war occurred? Will it be able to keep its neutrality despite being surrounded by NATO and Warsaw Pact nations and possible incursion by both sides? And what if:
a.1. Yugoslavia joined NATO? Possible war scenario? Greek and Turkish reinforcements? And Italy too, since if we assumed that Yugo joined NATO, Italy will be able to use Yugo land to support and attack Warsaw Pact nations?
a.2. Yugoslavia joined Warsaw Pact? Possible war scenario? Warsaw Pact reinforcements?
a.3. Keep its neutrality but under attack by either NATO or Warsaw Pact countries? Defensive scenario?
b. Albania. Albania unofficially left Warsaw Pact in 1961, but it really officially withdrew from Warsaw Pact in 1968. If it came under attack by any nations, will it suddenly choose to rejoin Warsaw Pact? Will Warsaw Pact (Soviet) still consider Albania their ally or will they just left it alone no matter what happened there? Will Yugoslavia invade and annex Albania, perhaps to incorporate Kosovo there and satisfy the Albanians?
c. Greece-Turkey-Bulgaria front. Will the joint Greek-Turkish forces launch the assault into Bulgaria directly in the event of war? How many Soviet troops stationed in Bulgaria and how will Bulgaria defend its position? Or will it be joint Bulgaria-Soviet forces (and maybe Romania) instead that launch the first strike? If so, where, toward Istanbul to capture and secure entrance from Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea to allow Soviet Navy to pass?

5. Norway/Northern Front front:
a. Norway-Soviet border. During November and December (assuming the war broke out at that time), the climate will be harsh and the weather is sure to be unfriendly. Will both sides stay on defensive position to avoid high casualties? What if one of the party attempt to invade another? Will the invaders had a difficult time and easily driven out by the defenders?
b. North Sea. Will the Soviets heavily emphasize the use of submarines due to frozen sea on most of their northern ports? What’s the NATO strategy on North Sea?

6. Turkey/Caucasus front:
a. Turkey-Soviet border. What’s the strength of both Turkey and Soviet near the border? The Soviet might invade Turkey and attempt to capture southeastern Turkey first and attempt to persuade Kurds to rise with promise of liberation? But with some US air bases there, the Turkey might be able to hold any attack coming North from Caucasus?
b. Black Sea. Soviet and some Warsaw Pact nations have fleet here. Are they going to use their navy to bombard and blockade Turkish ports? Attempt to launch assault into the strait between Black Sea and Mediterranean to gain access? Will there be possibility of paratroopers landing to capture strategic points?

7. Others
a. United States reinforcements from continental US. How many reinforcements are possible? And for how much period of time? Where and how these reinforcements are most likely to be deployed?
b. Portugal is located on the western edge of Europe, relatively safe for some time from Soviet attack. Where and how Portugal is most likely to send their forces?
c. Neutral countries in Europe. How they will react to the war? Countries such as Austria Ireland, Spain, Swiss, and Sweden. Will they join NATO or Warsaw Pact? Or stay neutral?
d. Unrest and rebellion at certain regions. With war broke out, there are possibility of rebellions against government either of NATO or Warsaw Pact nations. Where they are most likely to appear? Hungarian rebel, when 8 years ago (1956) they were suppressed by the Soviets? Or the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania)? Armed uprising at Northern Ireland? Maybe the Kurds at southeastern Turkey? Leftist and communist supporters at certain NATO country?

[martinexsquaddie]

always remember the polish i met in the event of world war 3 were planning on "killing the germans first and then the russians:)"
business before pleasure or might have been the other way round.
there were rumours that Some TA sas types had been sent on polish course in the event of war they'd act as liason officers

[Hydro]

Reference Yugoslavia, I remember their thinking was to wage war on whomever invaded Yugoslavia. If WP invaded, then they'd fight against them. I don't know if that would mean they'd automatically appeal for NATO help though, or if they'd appeal for WP help if NATO invaded.

[XASA]

I was stationed in West Berlin from 1966 to 1969 in an intelligence unit. The Warsaw Pact led by the Soviet Third Shock Army definitely had plans to attack us from all sides. We were trained to be a "speed bump" or "trip wire" force. It was pretty clear that we-- the three American, British and French brigades-- would have probably have held them off for about three hours, or about the time it took them to drive from one end of town to the other since we were outnumbered 20 to one. We were trained to avoid capture and then escape and evade back through 110 miles of East Germany to NATO front lines-- if they were still there after the Soviet blitz through the Fulda Gap.

We were too young and dumb and having such a great time partying off-duty in Berlin to realize we were just Cold War hostages. There was no way we would have stopped them without the use of tactical nukes.

[haze99]

oohhh, all the possible scenarios!
What is this predicated on? Is it NATO that moves on the green light? Or is it the Kremlin that makes the first goose-step? And where does the assault begin?
Well, as stated Albania removed itself from the Warsaw Pact (I think the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia had something to do that?) If you recall Albania aligned itself with the PRC after that. Would depend on Enver Hoxha being preimer!
Yugoslavia removed itself from the WP after the 1956 "intervention" in Hungary. I believe Josep Tito would have had his forces on alert. But, would not have gotten involved. Of course, he may have chosen a side depending on the tide later?
Any offensive begun by the WP would have involved civilian-clothed KGB/MfS/SB operatives, which would have open the door to paratroopers.

[Kieran :(]

Lets say if there were no nukes or wmds and only conventional weapons.Who would win?

[kutter]

I remember when I went to the Canadian War Museum they actually have a simulation of how a Nato vs. Warsaw Pact war would look like. It was in a "command centre" looking room with a large video map of Europe displaying troop movements and so on.

Needless to say we lost, which was kind of a downer.:|

Also, IIRC, nukes weren't in the equation. This was in a conventional war.

[ase290406]

If we're talking about a conventinal war only, then we could see a Warsaw pact (Including Soviets) armoured blitzkrieg into West Germany/West Berlin.

Now the thing is that the Soviets had three echelons of forces- If Nato stop the first one, the second one will appear from the USSR by that time, and so on. For Nato it will be harder to reinforce by sea from mainland U.S than for the Soviets to roll from East Europe.

So if the Soviets take Germany, Nato will attempt to use it's superior navies (Soviets had no Aircraft carriers or a big dedicated landing force like the USMC) to force landings in WP territory, with the objective of splitting and exausting the WP forces. Also strategic bombing on Soviet territory would probably be used. Nato might also try to use Greece and Turkey to "envelop" the enemy and attack from the south towards Bulgaria and Romania.

I guess that the westren neutral countries (Including the Swiss and Austrians) would go over to Nato as war nears their territory, and Yugoslavia+Albania to the Warsaw pact. Sweden will join Nato and the Finns will have a hard time deciding as they border the USSR. I guess they would allow the Soviets to use their territory (Like in "Red Dawn") but won't actively engage in combat.

About rebelions- When WP forces enter westren countries and see the standart of living there, it might make some of the question their own idiology. But a number of public executions will quell this pretty soon I guess.

[bluffcove]

It was war gamed a few years after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

The soviet generals veruss the Nato Generals. Whilst Britian had been relying on an increase of military movement and radio traffic to suggest the invasion was immininet and prepare themselves. The russians were going to form up seperately well isnide Russias Borders, then congregate and combine with their soviet allies as they travelled west, Inteding to be sat in Calais within 24 hours of leaving Russian soil.

Cant remember the source so it might all be balls!

[chaseballs]

didn't the USMC have a role on NATO's northern flank in Norway?

[Mastermind]

I know the post is for "Non-nuclear" engagement. but, there is just no scenario I can imagine between NATO and WP that would not quickly go nuclear. The only hope would have rested with the new tank busting weapons, helicopter borne, A-10, infantry fire, etc. with absolute air superiority over Europe to protect the AT sites. The WP were all heavy in fast tank assaults supported by masses of mech infantry...softened up by very direct FB attacks along the axis of movement. If they had been able to successfully deploy in surprise assault, there would have been no conventional hope for standing NATO forces. However, that said...I doubt very seriously the WP could have been successful in any surprise assault preparations considering the vast array of imbedded NATO operatives inside the WP operational areas and satellite observation.

If the west was well prepared for an assault, it might have come as a slow roll up by the WP of the NATO forces, taking at least a few months for them to reach the French border...I strongly believe that well before then, the NATO countries would have completed a quick negotiated settlement....or engaged the obvious ultimate solution...nukes. (Also, forgive me about the A10 remark ...it was not in operational use in 1964...I was stationed in Mannheim with 2nd CAV in 1965...we were receiving some heli-borne AT rockets...and the best AT weapon we had was the 106 Recoiless Rifle and the M-60-A1 with 105mm)...believe me...we were totally ill prepared to fend off a serious WP assault.

[ase290406]

We have to remember that WP also had many agents in the west. East-Germany had an excellent intellegence service by all accounts, and the KGB was also more than capable of any operation.

Adding to my previos post, NATO wasn't the only one concerned about air superiority. A very important part of Soviet doctrine was massive airborne landings in the enemies rear, disrupting supplies, command and control.
NATO would have probably used heli's to for rapid reinforsments, and raids. Just like the U.S did so effectively in Nam.
In any case the overwhelming role of air superiority was only fully understood IMO a after the Israeli victory in 1967.

According to the book "Tales of a Liberator" by Victor Suvorov, (a Soviet defector) in the 1960's the USSR had 7 Airbrone divisions. Though I'm not sure if they had their BMD-1's operational at the time.

[Lokos]

1) Soviet doctrine relied on a NATO attack, or an impending NATO attack as the basis of any Soviet action - which was to be an immediate, all-out counter-offensive (or preemptive offensive) with the aim of penetrating into Germany's interior through the Fulda Gap, and achieving operational freedom. There were to be sideshows, feints and other thrusts, but the Fulda Gap was to be the battlefield of the best, most lavishly equipped and most experienced WP formations.

2) This doctrine absolutely relied on a massive, zero hour release of tactical nuclear arms. Over three hundred and twenty on the first day alone. This particular facet of the doctrine reared its head in the early 60s, and continued unto the end of the Cold War.

3) From 1948 until 1980 Soviet conventional superiority in Europe was near-absolute. By the mid-80s a breakthrough meant Soviet victory, and stalemate signaled Soviet defeat. By the late 80s, NATO had significant advantages - even conventionally.


2. Time needed for all NATO and Warsaw Pact troops to mobilize its forces and increase additional “war-time” forces?

It really depends on the context. If the Soviets were about to launch a perceived 'preemptive' strike, mobilization time was low. The WP forces in East Germany were considered an elite. It would take days and weeks for other A-grade formations to enter the fight, and the same period for secondary and tertiary formations. Each successive wave would be of a lesser quality.


b. The Baltic Sea. Some Soviet Navy important fleets and ports are located (like Leningrad) here and to reach the North Sea and Atlantic Ocean, it has to pass “NATO territory” (Denmark). Will there be Jutland-like battle occurring there?

No, the Soviet surface navy was designed with coastal protection in mind. It was, for all intents and purposes, doctrinally a brown-water navy.


c. NATO forces in West Germany. Will they retaliate fully by launching invasion into East Germany and Czechoslovakia, or will they stay on defensive position, or perhaps fall back to regroup with other forces to anticipate the incoming assault?

With what forces would they 'retaliate fully'? WP force superiority was significant. 'Falling back' from the Fulda Gap meant being rolled up by Soviet exploitation forces. Clancy had it all wrong. Even the significantly mechanized forces of the mid-80s weren't going to simply re-establish full blown defensive lines just by driving a few miles back. Defensive lines are sighted - in a modern context - primarily according to terrain features. The German plains weren't going to provide sufficient defensive potential. A loss in the Gap meant hasty reshuffling of forces at best - a rout at worst.


Will the Warsaw Pact tempted to invade Austria and/or Swiss? Or will they just ignore it to avoid being involved in other front?

The latter in some plans, the former in others. Most likely the latter.


However, Czechoslovakia is attacking American sector, possibly one of the best-defended position in Germany (if not Europe)? Will the Americans try to make double-side counter-offensive in order to split and defeat the incoming enemy forces? Other possibility?

A counteroffensive? That's akin to jumping into the jaws of a leaping tiger. The NATO conventional strategy was always to wear out successive waves of Soviet units - letting them batter themselves to death against dug-in NATO heavy tanks and defensive emplacements.

However, the Czechoslovak forces were not given the task you describe.


Will the joint Greek-Turkish forces launch the assault into Bulgaria directly in the event of war

No. Both nations would assume defensive positions.


Yugoslavia was one of the founder of Non-Aligned Movement and relatively neutral throughout the Cold War. But what if the war occurred?

It would mobilize, but stay neutral.


a. United States reinforcements from continental US. How many reinforcements are possible? And for how much period of time? Where and how these reinforcements are most likely to be deployed?

1. Plenty of reinforcements are possible.
2. They would begin their strategic redeployment to Europe most likely before the first shot was fired. Several weeks to effect strategically significant formations.
3. Thrown directly into the fighting where it would be the hardest: Central Germany.


Turkey-Soviet border. What’s the strength of both Turkey and Soviet near the border? The Soviet might invade Turkey

The Soviets would not invade Turkey. Look at the terrain involved. Not all NATO countries were deemed 'strategic objectives'.


So if the Soviets take Germany, Nato will attempt to use it's superior navies (Soviets had no Aircraft carriers or a big dedicated landing force like the USMC) to force landings in WP territory, with the objective of splitting and exausting the WP forces. Also strategic bombing on Soviet territory would probably be used.

Superior navies, yes. On the open seas. Where would you effect these landings, exactly? How would you support them? Black Sea? The Baltic coast? The Soviet navy, and naval aviation, with support of air defense regiments, coastal artillery, tactical missile forces, second echelon mechanized forces etc. would very likely mince any attempted amphibious operation. And NATO carriers operating in the Baltic or the Black Sea would be tempting fate.

Also, not that it matters, but the Soviets did, in fact, have a large force like the USMC to force landings - they called it marine infantry. There were plenty of those guys.


When WP forces enter westren countries and see the standart of living there, it might make some of the question their own idiology.

It didn't happen in WW2, when Soviet forces entered the opulent Western country of Germany, so why would it happen in WW3?


According to the book "Tales of a Liberator" by Victor Suvorov

Don't credit Victor Suvorov too much, please.

Lokos

[Snoshi]

Lokos came,saw and conquered.

[ase290406]

The naval infantry was never as big or well developed as the USMC. They were/are considered a small elite corps. The Soviet equivalent of the USMC as a rapid reaction force was and is, the VDV. Only they wanted their "stormtroopers" behind enemy lines instead of storming beaches.

About the landings, it's possible to land in Eastren Germany trough Denmark. This can help encircle Soviet units near the beaches and give NATO an opportunity to flank from the north. Obviosly that won't break the Soveits, but the objective is to split their forces, confuse them, make them feel that they are facing a larger force than there actually is.
If you are attacked from multiple directions you might just get this feeling.

[Lokos]

The naval infantry was never as big or well developed as the USMC

In 1989 Soviet Naval Infantry consisted of 18,000 men in one division and three brigades - armed with naval versions of many heavy weapons systems including tanks, self-propelled guns etc. Their transportation arm included more than eighty landing ships and two Ivan Rogov-class assault docks.

Now, of course, that is not even close to the USMC in size. But the Naval Infantry was never intended for the same task. In that sense, you are correct, they were considered more of an 'elite'.

But this was a 'big, dedicated landing force'.


it's possible to land in Eastren Germany trough Denmark. This can help encircle Soviet units near the beaches and give NATO an opportunity to flank from the north.

With only the East German and Polish armies in the way, it would have been a cakewalk, yes? Landing troops in East Germany, encircling Soviet units (I'm not sure what you mean by 'near the beaches) in East Germany and flanking from the north (near-impossible due to the terrain and the immense difficulties of supplying an amphibious advance under those logistical conditions)? Very unlikely.

Lokos

[James]

Lokos came,saw and conquered.

Indeed. Well done! ;)

Has anyone ever read the novel "Red Army" by Ralph Peters?

[kawaiku]

Hey Lokos, how would air power come into play? Also, when would the war would have most likey occured(began), considering the Korean and Vietnam wars and how would these play into the war if it started while one of these war/conflicts was going on?
O and I really enjoyed reading your answers.

[James]

I can't believe that this whole thing would happen in a bubble (Europe).

[Asheren]

There is also one more thing you need to put in concept. Logistic such war would be a humanitarian disaster. It would be more than usefull for soviets to aim at civilian infrastructure like oil refineries and such to force NATO to provide supplies from USA. If any one read "Conventional war in europe?" i consider author belief that war in europe is impossible as a wishfull thinking, but it showed for example what can one plane with cluster incedentary munition do to a large city. Not to mention destruction of chemical plant that could contaminate large portion of city creating humanitarian disaster.(Production output in such plants incrased many times since WW2 amount of toxic components stored also incrased.) Considering fact that western nations are used to much bigger living standards than peoples from WP countries, their minimal level of supply in first need articles would be higer than in WP countries .I must aggre with writer on one topic conventional war bewen WP and NATO would quickly cause public opinion to make pressure on politicians to end it fast. It would more than propably lead to fast escalation in to nuclear war.

[Ivo]

What about the WW3 series by Ian Slater how realistic do you all feel about it?? The first 4 were pretty interesting but the later ones aren't as great

[zulu261]

I see no chance for a non-nuclear war. Forces were too big and so the conventional war would have lasted for ever, so nukes would have been used anyway.

[Lokos]

Hey Lokos, how would air power come into play?

NATO airpower would be utilized to achieve air dominance as quickly as possible, and would then shift emphasis to CAS. Soviet airpower would, initially, target NATO airfields, ports and other items of strategic importance, whilst contesting NATO control of the skies. The awesome rates of expenditure (personnel and materiel expenditure) and movement expected in WW3 meant that victory or defeat was a matter of maintaining singular advantages over a period of several weeks. In other words, Soviet airpower was to 'hold the line' in the skies, until Soviet ground forces could storm Germany and break the spine of the NATO defensive line, achieving operational freedom. Once that happened, NATO would have been in severe trouble.


Also, when would the war would have most likey occured(began), considering the Korean and Vietnam wars and how would these play into the war if it started while one of these war/conflicts was going on?


From about 1948 until the late 70s Soviet conventional forces were vastly superior to their NATO equivalents. It was more a quantitative advantage - though it was coupled with certain technical advantages, especially in the realm of tanks, IFVs and APCs. This is the period during which the Soviet Union, presented with a perceived threat or the opportunity for a 'short, victorious war', would have been most likely to initiate a conflict.

This danger was evident, especially, in 1951-1952 and during the Cuban Missile Crisis. At both points, NATO would have faced extreme difficulties in holding off the Soviet onslaught.

NATO was more likely to take comfort in its own rising potential by the mid-1980s, when even conventionally it could stand toe to toe with the WP and, perhaps, pull off a decisive victory - though the most likely conventional result would have been a bloody stalemate.


It would be more than usefull for soviets to aim at civilian infrastructure like oil refineries and such to force NATO to provide supplies from USA

Oil refineries aren't useful targets in a war expected to take between two and six weeks. Resupply depots and other logistical bottlenecks would have been hit hard - but there would have been no point in expending precious munitions on civilian targets during a conventional WW3. Rates of expenditure just don't justify it.


It would more than propably lead to fast escalation in to nuclear war.

We're keeping it conventional in this hypothetical scenario. What would likely have happened is a zero hour release - on both sides.


Forces were too big and so the conventional war would have lasted for ever

On the contrary. NATO/WP conventional potential was to be deemed exhausted within weeks. Months, at the latest. Munitions were going to be a massive problem - especially missiles and artillery rounds of all classifications. It would have gone nuclear so as to preserve as much conventional potential as possible, as long as possible. At least, long enough to either blunt the Soviet advance decisively, or to punch a hole in the Fulda Gap defences and pour through.


What about the WW3 series by Ian Slater how realistic do you all feel about it??

Let us just say that I am not a fan. 'Douglas Freeman'? Yikes. Pass.

I try not to read novels when looking at WW3 hypotheticals. Hackett's work comes close to on the dot, but the enemies (Soviets) are always too predictable, the luck of the draw always stacked and the end never in doubt. That's not war, that's entertainment.

Lokos

[foxtrot023]

Let us just say that I am not a fan. 'Douglas Freeman'? Yikes. Pass.

I try not to read novels when looking at WW3 hypotheticals. Hackett's work comes close to on the dot, but the enemies (Soviets) are always too predictable, the luck of the draw always stacked and the end never in doubt. That's not war, that's entertainment.

Lokos

try Red Army by Ralph Peters

[Atlantic Friend]

Hackett's work comes close to on the dot, but the enemies (Soviets) are always too predictable, the luck of the draw always stacked and the end never in doubt. That's not war, that's entertainment.

Lokos

A-men, Lokos. WW3 hypothetical scenarios rarely go beyond that rather lame plot :

At the beginning, the bad guys are immensely clever, and the good guys are in a desperate situation.

As everything seems to be lost and weak-minded leaders begin to think about negociating peace, then step in the Good Guy's miracle weapons (if this is a techno-thriller) or miracle soldiers / special operatives (if it's a political thriller).

Suddenly the Bad Guys lose a hundred IQ points and start out-caricaturing themselves, taking enormous risks for no visible gain, and frittering away all their advantages. Alternatively, they get so intoxicated with victory they fail to identify any possible threat and base their whole strategy on the assumption than the other side is weak-willed and no more than a paper tiger.

After initial setbacks made all the graver by the Bad Guys' demented leadership, any brave/decent soldier fighting for the Bad Guys' Nation ultimately turn against them. As for the die-hard partisans, they soon prove to be either incompetent or cowardly, and are swiftly disposed of.

Good Guys win an overwhelmingly victory, the Bad Guys are vanquished forever, never to be heard of again.

Heroes ride into the sunset.

[Asheren]

Well Locos I don't think that war would last two to six weeks. Russian advance would slow down in France(need to secure flanks) while NATO one would be slowed around Poland eastern border by second wave troops from USSR that would have enough time to prepare defensive possitions.
Considering both sides after first three to four weeks facilities producing war materials would became a viable target.

[Atlantic Friend]

I wonder if the war plans, in this kind of conventional WW3, would have been a bit like the war plans of WW1, that is, immuable regardless of the political situation. If the Soviet thrust called for operations taking place in Scandinavia, for example, would the Kremlin have gone with the plan regardless of the political leanings of Sweden, Finland or Norway regarding the crisis that would have sparked the war ? Conversely, how would have NATO reacted if, say, Greece or Turkey (or France or Portugal or whatever) had let it known their nation would not get embroiled in the crisis that developed ?

In other words, would the political situation have commanded changes of the military plans, or would military plans have dictated the political stance of the two alliances ?

[kawaiku]

Hey Lokos, considering that both sides knew the consequenses of using nuclear weapons. Do you think they really would have gone nuclear? I don't really know if they were willing to bring that kind of devestation onto themselves just for the sake of shooting off several of their own.

[rhinoheartbatjuice]

wow.........so many angles and broken down to minutia.........and I think y'all have covered nearly every scenario.........my take is that the capability was available to the Warsaw Pact forces but if deployed.......... NATO forces even in defence or in response to chem or bio attack probably would not respond in kind......thats why the development of neutron weapons was allowed to proceed

[Koen]

As for the length of a conventional NATO/WP conflict in central-europe, not long...

- The belgian army corps in Germany had munition and supplies for only 14 days of combat... I remember that Nato asked belgium repeatedly for more munition and stores, so this was not nato policy.

- it seems that the french planned to delay a warpac offensive in the black forest with the french forces in germany, and would then hold on the rhine for three days only.. then tac nukes would have to be used

I don't have more such info on other nato forces in central europe, would be interesting to know though.

[Lokos]

Russian advance would slow down in France(need to secure flanks)

The 'flanks' are largely irrelevant. Once the major logistical bottlenecks are out of comission, the units 'nudged' to the flanks by Soviet penetrations are going to either a) withdraw in fighting order as rapidly as possible in order to, ideally, man secondary, then tertiary positions or b) rout. An offensive (counter-offensive) mobility battle played into Soviet advantages and largely eliminated NATO's. The Soviet plan wasn't simply a penetration operation and then a race for the Canal. It was a strategic cascade of envelopments that sought to break NATO resistance up and down the line.


If the Soviet thrust called for operations taking place in Scandinavia, for example, would the Kremlin have gone with the plan regardless of the political leanings of Sweden, Finland or Norway regarding the crisis that would have sparked the war ?

WWI plans were mired in the absolute intricacy of mobilization timetables, and the inordinate difficulty with which those plans could be remodulated. The rail system had to be precisely configured for an exacting strategic redeployment en masse. The Russians (in WWI) had plans for a main effort against Germany, or a main effort against the AHE. But once one was set into motion, there was no way to make significant changes to it, lest the whole mobilization fall to pieces.

The Cold War belligerents were not hampered by such limitations.

However, the rate of expenditure for the hypothetical war was such that reinforcement schedules would require precision and co-ordination - and could only be modified in a situation of extreme need to do so. The Soviets, especially, absolutely relied on the introduction of fresh units to the fighting according to a very complex timetable. Failure to introduce a fresh unit to the fighting at the postulated time would result in the peetering out of the offensive effort, and held the potential for disaster.

So, yes, in a way, strategic plans were always going to be difficult to modify - once the balloon went up.


Considering both sides after first three to four weeks facilities producing war materials would became a viable target.

Refined fuel at a civilian refinery isn't 'war materiel'. It's got the potential to be, but first it must end up at a logistical bottleneck/resupply depot. Those would be hit hard. The refineries themselves, however, not likely.


Do you think they really would have gone nuclear?

Absolutely, if they both blindly believed that they could keep nuke use tactical; which they both did, to an extent, knowng the dangers of strategic nuclear warfare.


NATO forces even in defence or in response to chem or bio attack probably would not respond in kind......

What would stop them?


- The belgian army corps in Germany had munition and supplies for only 14 days of combat... I remember that Nato asked belgium repeatedly for more munition and stores, so this was not nato policy.


In depots. Remember, those were going to be hit hard. The units at the front, themselves, would have eaten up their available ammunition in a few days, at the most. Hours, likeliest. And any unit that broke... was likely to stay broken if penetration was achieved.

One of the good points that Clancy made in Red Storm Rising is that NATO command always underestimated ammunition expenditure in their hypothetical studies - as did the Soviets.


.. then tac nukes would have to be used


In reality, both sides would have gone nuclear Day 1.

Lokos

[Snoshi]

Lokos. I am not professional in the nuclear matters.. But wouldn't a nuclear strike on WP forces stop the assault?

[Lokos]

I am not professional in the nuclear matters.. But wouldn't a nuclear strike on WP forces stop the assault

Yes, and no. It would stop a part of it. Other units would drive through the gap. Unless more strikes were employed. But, by that stage, both sides would simply be lobbing tactical nukes at each others' operational groupings and key facilities.

The first tactical nuke to be employed would be the first of many.

Lokos

[foxtrot023]

In reality, both sides would have gone nuclear Day 1.

Lokos

which is probably why no WW3 was fought between Nato-WP

[Lokos]

which is probably why no WW3 was fought between Nato-WP

That, and the fact that both alliance systems were defensive, in nature. :)

Lokos

[lightfire]

WP - a defensive system in nature? In what meaning? Best defence is and offencive?

[bluffcove]

Lightfire grow up.

[Lokos]

WP - a defensive system in nature? In what meaning? Best defence is and offencive?

Yeap, because the Cold War totally culminated in a WP offensive. Sheesh, get over it.

Lokos

[lightfire]

not that, noone claims it ever happened,but of what was prepared.
Just to be clear-all those WP offencive plans to drive massed collums of tanks etc. to the Western Europe should be concidered as defencive? Or WP commitments in spring 1968?

[kawaiku]

I'm no real expert about this theory and what-not so please forgive me for the next question. It is, what is the Fulda Gap(I think I spelled it wrong), why wasn't is a gap in the first place, and besides the gap where else would the WP create a main effort if the Gap didn't exist persay?

[Ed the bumbling fool]

The Fulda gap is a Geological feature not a whole in the defence line which would be more suitable for armour and quick advance than the hills and forests either side of it.

[kawaiku]

The Fulda gap is a Geological feature not a whole in the defence line which would be more suitable for armour and quick advance than the hills and forests either side of it.
Ahhhh... okay thanks. I never quite figured that out. So did NATO deem this area as important as the WP because it seems that(from what you guys have said) the WP looked at it with high priority.

[Lokos]

all those WP offencive plans to drive massed collums of tanks etc. to the Western Europe should be concidered as defencive?

Ever heard of preemption? The doctrine of preemptive strike is not simply a Soviet anachronism. The US employs it today. If the leadership of the Soviet Union had perceived that conflict was unavoidable, they would have launched an offensive before NATO made preparations. Why not? Taking the strategic initiative and disrupting the planning of the enemy is key to victory.

To their credit, even when it seemed certain that conflict was due to begin, such as during the Cuban Missile Crisis, no sweeping Soviet armoured offensive took place.

The WP was a defensive alliance. Unless you can prove they ever took to the offensive, that's just how it is.

Lokos

[foxtrot023]

To their credit, even when it seemed certain that conflict was due to begin, such as during the Cuban Missile Crisis, no sweeping Soviet armoured offensive took place.

Lokos

due to a certain knowledge of the US having more nuclear weapons (ICBM specially) than the USSR at that point, Kruschev ¨we are making missiles like sausages¨ remark nonwithstanding ;)

To give credit to soviet leadership, they were by far, the most logical of the 2. They knew any war would go nuclear in no time, hence for them the WP was defensive, not offensive, as they knew that a nuclear war was basically unwinable.

[Lokos]

due to a certain knowledge of the US having more nuclear weapons (ICBM specially) than the USSR at that point

Well, there was that, too... :)

Lokos

[lightfire]

The WP was a defensive alliance. Unless you can prove they ever took to the offensive, that's just how it is.

I'm sure you've heard of 1968 Czechoslovakia.

As for preemptive possition, that's what I was asking for.Thanks. Concidering the principe I have mentioned - "best defence is an offencive"...or in other words, preemtive strike in the face of imminent attack (what was believed to happen for instance in 1983 NATO exercises) it is still concidered to count WP as a defencive in nature..ok, that's your point.

I am not sure of the folowing..
Did NATO in the cource of the Cold War invade any country or had any plans of preemptive strike with conventional forces towards SU/WP teritory? And how about contrary?

[Lokos]

Did NATO in the cource of the Cold War invade any country or had any plans of preemptive strike with conventional forces towards SU/WP teritory?

NATO was also a defensive alliance. No one has said otherwise. Pull your neck in.

Lokos

[King of Scandinavia]

1. Order of Battle of both sides during early 1960s (particularly 1964)?


I can't find any Order of Battle of either NATO and Warsaw Pact from this period, not even the composition of both forces during 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis (at least not yet). Only description of Warsaw Pact military excercise just during the Cuban Missile Crisis (http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/collections/coll_milex/introduction.cfm?navinfo=22632). Probably someone know more about the ORBAT during Cuban Missile Crisis. Therefore, I instead compiled the list of armaments of American and Soviet forces at the time. However these are in no way the completely accurate list as I only included notable armaments of both countries found from Wiki...

Soviet Union

Aircraft
List_of_military_aircraft_of_the_Soviet_Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aircraft_of_the_Soviet_Union_and_the_CIS)
MiG-9 'Fargo' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-9) Built: ~600 units
MiG-15 'Fagot' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-15) Built: ~12,000 units
MiG-17 'Fresco' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-17) Built: ~10,000 units
MiG-19 'Farmer' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-19) Built: ~8,000 units
MiG-21 'Fishbed' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-21) Built: ~6,000 units
La-15 'Fantail' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavochkin_La-15) Built: ~200 units
Yak-25 'Flashlight' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-25) Built: ~600 units
Su-7 'Fitter-A' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-7) Built: ~1,100 units
Su-9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-9)/11 'Fishpot' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-11) Built: ~1,100 units
Tu-28 'Fiddler' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-28) Built: ??Armored Personnel Carriers (APC)
BTR-50 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-50) Built: ??
BTR-152 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-152) Built: ~15,000 units
BTR-40 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-40) Built: ??
BRDM-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRDM-1) Built: ~10,000 units
BTR-60 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-60) Built: ??
BRDM-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRDM-2) Built: ??
BMP-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP-1) Built: ??Helicopters
Mi-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-1) Built: ~1,800 units
Mi-4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-4) Built: ~3,500 units
Mi-6/Mi-22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-6) Built: ~800 units
Mi-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-10) Built: ~50 unitsTanks
List_of_Soviet_tanks after_World_War_II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_tanks#After_World_War_II)
PT-76 Light Amphibious Tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PT-76) Built: ~5,000 units
T-34 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#After_World_War_II) Built: ++40,000 units
T-44 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-44) Built: ~1,800 units
T-55 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-55) Built: ++60,000 units
T-62 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-62) Built: ??
T-10 Heavy Tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-10) Built: ~6,000 units
IS Heavy Tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iosif_Stalin_tank) Built: ~300 unitsUnited States

Aircraft
List_of_military_aircraft_of_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aircraft_of_the_United_States#Unified_System.2C_1962-present)
P-80 Shooting Star (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-80_Shooting_Star) Built: ~1,000 units
F-86 Sabre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-86_Sabre) Built: ??
F-89J Scorpion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-89J_Scorpion) Built: ~1,000 units
F-8 Crusader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-8_Crusader) Built: ~1,200 units
F-11 Tiger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-11_Tiger) Built: ~200 units
F-105 Thunderchief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-105_Thunderchief) Built: ~800 units
F-100 Super Sabre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-100_Super_Sabre) Built: ~1,700 units
F-102 Delta Dagger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-102_Delta_Dagger) Built: ??
F-104 Starfighter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-104_Starfighter) Built: ??
F-106 Delta Dart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-106_Delta_Dart) Built: ~340 units
F-4 Phantom II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-4_Phantom_II) Built: ??
Northrop F-5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-5) Built: ??Armored Personnel Carriers (APC)
M3_Half-track (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Half-track) Built: ~4,000 units
M113 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M113) Built: ~10,000 units
LAV-100 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Gage_Commando) Built: ??Helicopters
UH-1 Iroquois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UH-1_Iroquois) Built: ??
SH-2 Seasprite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SH-2_Seasprite) Built: ??Tanks
M26_Pershing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M26_Pershing) Built: ??
M41 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M41_Walker_Bulldog) Built: ??
M46 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patton_Tank#M46_Patton) Built: ~1,100 units
M47 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patton_Tank#M47_Patton) Built: ??
M48 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patton_Tank#M48_Patton) Built: ~10,000 units
M60 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patton_Tank#M60_Patton) Built: ~10,000 units
M103_Heavy_Tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M103_heavy_tank) Built: ~400 units

3. e. Austria and Swiss.

Since Austria is very much pro-NATO, is it correct to assume that in event of war, it will allow NATO forces from Italy to pass through Austria to be able to provide support to the main forces at West Germany instead of Austria 'being invaded' by NATO?



5. Norway/Northern Front

Sweden will most likely to support NATO, yes? Can we expect some kind of NATO deployment forces sent into Sweden and use Swedish airbases to launch airstrike against key points on the Baltic?



7. d. Unrest and rebellion

Forest Brothers will rise?

[King of Scandinavia]

Greetings,

Reference Yugoslavia, I remember their thinking was to wage war on whomever invaded Yugoslavia. If WP invaded, then they'd fight against them. I don't know if that would mean they'd automatically appeal for NATO help though, or if they'd appeal for WP help if NATO invaded.

It would mobilize, but stay neutral.
Yeah, exactly my thought. What's Yugoslavia general strategy in case of being attacked by 1.NATO or 2.Warsaw Pact?

My guess is that Yugoslavia will take advantage of most of its mountainous terrain, its ground forces will conduct a lot of guerrilla battle, while the air force might perform retaliatory air strikes against bases/targets at nearby invaders country. Since many Yugoslav air bases are hidden beneath the mountain, it will be difficult for the invaders to really disable air force capability (although I'm not sure whether by 1960s there has been a lot of these hidden airbases). They will force the invading forces into some sort of war of attrition in order to inflict very high casualties and try to convince the invaders that taking Yugoslavia isn't worth the cost, therefore discouraging further invasions.


oohhh, all the possible scenarios!
What is this predicated on? Is it NATO that moves on the green light? Or is it the Kremlin that makes the first goose-step?
Either one, or one side trying to launch "pre-emptive" strike but failed, as the other side discovered the enemy plan.


Well, as stated Albania removed itself from the Warsaw Pact (I think the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia had something to do that?) If you recall Albania aligned itself with the PRC after that. Would depend on Enver Hoxha being preimer!
Exactly, Albania left officially in 1968 but had already said so (unofficially) 7 years earlier, would be interesting if between those 7 years war occurred near its border.


Any offensive begun by the WP would have involved civilian-clothed KGB/MfS/SB operatives, which would have open the door to paratroopers.

We have to remember that WP also had many agents in the west. East-Germany had an excellent intellegence service by all accounts, and the KGB was also more than capable of any operation.
What about the civilian-clothed CIA/MI6 agents or operatives? Aren't there were a lot of them in the East as well?


I remember when I went to the Canadian War Museum they actually have a simulation of how a Nato vs. Warsaw Pact war would look like. It was in a "command centre" looking room with a large video map of Europe displaying troop movements and so on.

Needless to say we lost, which was kind of a downer.:|

Also, IIRC, nukes weren't in the equation. This was in a conventional war.
Did it tell all possible fronts in Europe, like in Scandinavia, Balkans, Italy, and North Sea? In what year was it assumed to happen?


Now the thing is that the Soviets had three echelons of forces- If Nato stop the first one, the second one will appear from the USSR by that time, and so on. For Nato it will be harder to reinforce by sea from mainland U.S than for the Soviets to roll from East Europe.
Aren't the second and third took longer time to mobilize and has inferior equipments and trainings than the first? Or was it some other reserve forces than I thought


The russians were going to form up seperately well isnide Russias Borders, then congregate and combine with their soviet allies as they travelled west, Inteding to be sat in Calais within 24 hours of leaving Russian soil.

Cant remember the source so it might all be balls!
Perhaps you meant 24 days, because 24 hours seem too fast. Logistic will be nightmare, and also the resistance


If the west was well prepared for an assault, it might have come as a slow roll up by the WP of the NATO forces, taking at least a few months for them to reach the French border...I strongly believe that well before then, the NATO countries would have completed a quick negotiated settlement....or engaged the obvious ultimate solution...nukes. (Also, forgive me about the A10 remark ...it was not in operational use in 1964...I was stationed in Mannheim with 2nd CAV in 1965...we were receiving some heli-borne AT rockets...and the best AT weapon we had was the 106 Recoiless Rifle and the M-60-A1 with 105mm)...believe me...we were totally ill prepared to fend off a serious WP assault.
How's the condition of your British, French and West German fellows? Wasn't NATO had definite air superiority to counter this?


No, the Soviet surface navy was designed with coastal protection in mind. It was, for all intents and purposes, doctrinally a brown-water navy.
I'm not sure if I understand correctly this, Lokos, but why the Soviet built a huge fleet of submarines then? Were they there for coastal protection?


However, the Czechoslovak forces were not given the task you describe.
I thought it was to support the main Soviet forces attacking the American-sector West Germany. What exactly are the task of Czechoslovak forces?


The Soviets would not invade Turkey. Look at the terrain involved. Not all NATO countries were deemed 'strategic objectives'.
What about Greek or Turkish European part? Didn't the Soviet have to "secure" Bosphorus strait to allow its Black Sea fleet to reach Mediterranean?

[California Joe]

I enjoy reading Lokos' posts. He could be completely full of sh*t and I'd believe him. :)

Has anyone come across any old info from the cold war of the targeting hit lists in the US compiled by the Soviets? I was told by some analysts where I used to work that declassified documents had placed the base I was working at in the top ten because of certain tenants there of strategic importance besides a close proximity to DC....

[Lokos]

What's Yugoslavia general strategy in case of being attacked by 1.NATO or 2.Warsaw Pact?


Your guess was correct on both accounts. Though a WP assault would have been more difficult to deal with, due to the terrain of central northern Yugoslavia, at the time. Too much flat, rolling ground.


Perhaps you meant 24 days, because 24 hours seem too fast. Logistic will be nightmare, and also the resistance

Most likely twenty four days - though that timeframe would signal the end of conventional capability on both sides. And they'd mostly have left German soil, not Russian, for the jump-off. :)


Wasn't NATO had definite air superiority to counter this?


No. Not even at the close of the Cold War. The air war might have definitely been in favour of NATO, but if it took two weeks to gain air superiority, then that's a problem. And it would have. The Soviet doctrine was always to contain the NATO airforces until Soviet armoured formations broke through and began exploiting operations.


but why the Soviet built a huge fleet of submarines then? Were they there for coastal protection

The submarine fleet consisted of anti-shipping submarines, sealane interdiction submarines and missile launching platforms. All of the above would deploy defensively. Just farther out than the rest of the fleet. The Soviet intent was to establish favourable firing locations for the missile launching platforms, and to hurt any NATO logistical train from North America, as well as to halt any incursion into the Black Sea or the Baltic Sea.


I thought it was to support the main Soviet forces attacking the American-sector West Germany. What exactly are the task of Czechoslovak forces?


They were not tasked with defeating the strongest American forces on the continent, because those weren't the strongest American forces on the continent. Heh. Or, at least, they wouldn't be, as the conflict opened up.


What about Greek or Turkish European part? Didn't the Soviet have to "secure" Bosphorus strait to allow its Black Sea fleet to reach Mediterranean?

That kind of assumes that the Soviet Black Sea Fleet was intended for the Mediterranean. It was intended to protect the Black Sea from incursion. Soviet operations outside of Central European would have been, suffice it to say, extremely limited.


I enjoy reading Lokos' posts. He could be completely full of sh*t and I'd believe him

I try not to be completely full of sh*t! :D

Lokos

[kawaiku]

So how did the Allies view the Fluda Gap? Did they put as much emphasis on it as the WP?

[chaseballs]

26567

found this old target map from 1960. I have seen another one, though, that shows my location as a target (in the Finger Lakes of Upstate/Western NY because of Seneca Army Depot). Maybe what I'm thinking of is newer. These targets were obviously compiled by US Civil Defense and not the Soviets, but I'm sure there are some similarities.

[Indiana Jones]

So how did the Allies view the Fluda Gap? Did they put as much emphasis on it as the WP?
Defending the Fulda Gap did play a fundamentally important role in NATO planning. The Bundeswehr was doctrinally and tactically essentially contrived to stop an eventual Soviet incursion along this axis. (For the tactical precedent, look up Târgul Frumos.)

[Snoshi]

Lokos. What did Soviets think about tanks and tank combat? Ive heard that Soviets said that the tanks would be very short lived.

[foxtrot023]

Lokos. What did Soviets think about tanks and tank combat? Ive heard that Soviets said that the tanks would be very short lived.

soviet doctrine was for the tanks to race to strategic objectives, not to go into tank on tank action

[Lokos]

Lokos. What did Soviets think about tanks and tank combat? Ive heard that Soviets said that the tanks would be very short lived.

Your stock Soviet assault to breach a defensive line is going to be led by recce forces to probe along the line looking for a weakness, closely followed - some time later - by a preparatory barrage of varying length and intensity, and finally culminates in a penetration achieved by mechanized rifle divisions. There were some specialized tanks in such formations, but the tank divisions themselves were destined for the exploitation phase of operations.


(For the tactical precedent, look up Târgul Frumos.)

I would have hoped, for their own sake, that the Bundeswehr did not use Targul Frumos as the tactical standard for defeating a Soviet Army penetration operation. Especially since Targul Frumos has, since prior to the conclusion of the engagement during WW2, been considered a recce in force by the Soviets.

They would have prepared for a thunderstorm and been hit by a tornado.

Examine Targul Frumos and compare it to Soviet penetration operations in 1944-1945. The differences are... severe.


Did they put as much emphasis on it as the WP?

If you look at a map of central Germany and examine the Fulda Gap, you'll notice that there are rivers running on either side of it, as well as heavily forested areas and hilly terrain. The gap is, essentially, the only sensible place to conduct mobile operations. Now, most sensible men know the operation penetration would likely have been centered on the Fulda Gap. BUT, we have historic precedents in terms of the eccentric practice of the Soviets to come from unexpected angles during WW2 (see the Belarussian Operation and Operation August Storm, especially) that suggest... well, who knows, really? They wouldn't have just come at NATO positions in endless waves, that's for sure.

Though it is certain that, one way or the other, the Gap was to be the focal Soviet transit point for most, if not all, highly mobile formations.

Lokos

Lokos

[Koen]

Yes, the Fulda gap was a focal point, but is was also defended by the strongest NATO corpses : the westgermans and americans.


General Sir John Hackett saw it different in his book on WWIII ; he saw the main WP assault up north, to take hamburg and race across the Luneburger Heide to Bremen and cross the Weser there, eventually on bridges secured by paratroops. The offensive would continue westwards, to the north of the netherlands before turning south.
A second assault focused on penetrating to the east and north of the Ruhr Area.

WP would cross the big rivers there (Rhine/Maas) and continue south to crush the allied/american bases and depots in the Rheinland and thus take out the US army in europe, Bundeswehr and Northag...

The american divisions would be under pressure so that they could not be moved, and would end up encircled without supplies or logistic support, instead of being attacked frontally.

The main reason for this option would be that attackers focus on the weakest points in a frontline, and Northag was weaker than Centag.

[Atlantic Friend]

I can't find any Order of Battle of either NATO and Warsaw Pact from this period, not even the composition of both forces during 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis (at least not yet). Only description of Warsaw Pact military excercise just during the Cuban Missile Crisis (http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/collections/coll_milex/introduction.cfm?navinfo=22632). Probably someone know more about the ORBAT during Cuban Missile Crisis. Therefore, I instead compiled the list of armaments of American and Soviet forces at the time. However these are in no way the completely accurate list as I only included notable armaments of both countries found from Wiki...

Since Austria is very much pro-NATO, is it correct to ass-me that in event of war, it will allow NATO forces from Italy to pass through Austria to be able to provide support to the main forces at West Germany instead of Austria 'being invaded' by NATO?


Sweden will most likely to support NATO, yes? Can we expect some kind of NATO deployment forces sent into Sweden and use Swedish airbases to launch airstrike against key points on the Baltic?


Forest Brothers will rise?

Add to that, for France, around 500 fighters, a mix of Mirage III of F-1 (depending on when the balloon would have gone up), along with 800 to 1,000 AMX-30 medium MBTs. The French Army of the 1960s-1970s was starting to be geared towards "manoeuver deterrence", that is, a situation where it could intervene quickly on a central European battklefield, and where its possible intervention would have altered enemy plans, hopefully adverting open conflict. Only the units of the Westernmost districts were lagging behind - with the notable exception of the 9th Marine division, slated for forward operations and amphibious assaults.

France would have added a sizeable conventional navy to the mix - but NATO would have had the upper hand at sea already anyway - and three to four SSBNs which would have stayed under French authority until it was decided to use nuclear fire. Interestingly, the 1960s-1970s was when some French generals criticized the concept of graduated retaliation and argued that the best deterrent for France was to let any potential foe know that even a conventional attack on its vital interests (and West Germany would have ranked as such) would be met with nuclear weapons, both at the tactical and strategic levels. French politicians did not choose that option, but if a serious crisis had threatened the country, maybe these officers would have met more sympathetic ears...

Anyway, the idea in the 1960s-1970s was that the Red Army could reach the Rhine pretty fast, even if for that it faced horrendous losses, leaving the government in Paris (supposing the war wouldn't have gone nuclear already)with Nuclear Option / Surrender as the only options on the table. The underground nuclear HQ at Taverny was supposed to survive long enough to order a strike.

[AK-Lover]

I have read somewhere (don't remember where) that if the Soviets/WP were to make the initial incursion into West Germany, NATO's plan would have been to use tactical nuclear weapons to stem their offensive. But that this would have required permition from the West Germans to deploy the tactical nukes on their soil and their was a possibility they would refuse if a large number of their civilians had not fled or been evacuated.

[Amethystfretchen]

Try to find out what was (in a way even "is"!) the "Besatzungsrechte" and UN-"Feindstaatenklausel". Than think about whould have happened if things where to go hot. Germans would have been the delicates cannon fodder for both sides.

By the way, if Cold War would have gone hot, I would have been sitting right on the NE end of Fulda Gap in East Germany. I remember the sound of the Russians tank and artillery fire, when they where practicising on the Ohrdruf proving grounds, when I was a kid in the 80's.

[Indiana Jones]

I have read somewhere (don't remember where) that if the Soviets/WP were to make the initial incursion into West Germany, NATO's plan would have been to use tactical nuclear weapons to stem their offensive. But that this would have required permition from the West Germans to deploy the tactical nukes on their soil and their was a possibility they would refuse if a large number of their civilians had not fled or been evacuated.
Amethystfretchen is correct; Technically, the FRG was not sovereign nation until the reunification.
It is highly unlikely that NATO would have bothered for permissions of the civilian leadership to employ nuclear weaponry, given that the use of it was an indispensable component its strategy and the exchange of nuclear niceties would have begun in the very first seconds, or to put it another way, would have constituted the beginning of warfare.
In case of a war between the Alliance and the WP, Germany would have certainly ceased to exist as political und cultural entity along with the vast majority of its population during the first few days of the conflict.

[Indiana Jones]

I would have hoped, for their own sake, that the Bundeswehr did not use Targul Frumos as the tactical standard for defeating a Soviet Army penetration operation. Especially since Targul Frumos has, since prior to the conclusion of the engagement during WW2, been considered a recce in force by the Soviets.

They would have prepared for a thunderstorm and been hit by a tornado.

Examine Targul Frumos and compare it to Soviet penetration operations in 1944-1945. The differences are... severe.

If you look at a map of central Germany and examine the Fulda Gap, you'll notice that there are rivers running on either side of it, as well as heavily forested areas and hilly terrain. The gap is, essentially, the only sensible place to conduct mobile operations. Now, most sensible men know the operation penetration would likely have been centered on the Fulda Gap. BUT, we have historic precedents in terms of the eccentric practice of the Soviets to come from unexpected angles during WW2 (see the Belarussian Operation and Operation August Storm, especially) that suggest... well, who knows, really? They wouldn't have just come at NATO positions in endless waves, that's for sure.

Though it is certain that, one way or the other, the Gap was to be the focal Soviet transit point for most, if not all, highly mobile formations.

Lokos

Lokos
Lokos Lokos,
In this case not the scale but the scheme of the operation is decisive, especially the fluid character of the defence.
Furthermore I have never heard Târgul Frumos referred to as a "recce in force" from the Soviet side. As far as I am aware it was either branded as an exploitation operation or as strategic diversion (if we follow Glantz that is), so I would appreciate it if you could point me to some sources.
On top of my hat, according to German accounts (von Manteuffel), the Soviets lost over 350 AFVs permanently and suffered correspondingly heavy in infantry which would put it on the same scale as Prokhorovka, casualty-wise. Even if you cut this figure in half, it still qualifies this engagement to be more than mere reconnaissance. It certainly was not a major battle by Eastern Front standards however.

[Lokos]

Furthermore I have never heard Târgul Frumos referred to as a "recce in force" from the Soviet side.

My source, and that of David Glantz, is the official history of the 2nd Tank Army - which states that the 3rd Tank Corps, in conjunction with the 35th Rifle Corps attacked in the Iasi sector with the goal of establishing a springboard into Romania. The fact that the presence of the 16th Tank Corps was mentioned in German accounts but not in the official Soviet reckoning of the battle is telling. Those '350' lost AFVs is a dream. Altogether the battered 2nd Tank Army might have had something like that number of vehicles, pre-Bagration. Perhaps you would postulate that they lost them all, when Soviet sources don't even mention the involvement of an entire tank corps.

What we have, in effect, is a relatively unsupported Soviet armoured thrust that sought to establish a more favourable axis of later operations by securing a specific, localized objective. A strategic recce in force (Soviet recce forces were often used, in battalion strength, to capture forward objectives), if anything. In this case, the 3rd Tank Corps was used to probe the Axis line, and was repulsed with heavy loss.

Allow me to quote, however:


Historians are thus left with the question of whether the Soviet offensive was a major effort to penetrate into Romania or simply a local assault to improve the Soviet operational posture and opportunities for a renewed offensive in the future. The Germans maintain it was the former. This author has argued that it was the latter and was also associated with deception planning for future operations in Belarus (to fix the future presence of 2d Tank Army in Romania, while it was shortly moved elsewhere).

Glantz, Slaughterhouse

And why would the Bundeswehr train its armoured force to conduct a battle of mobility with a foe so heavily invested in that very doctrine? The NATO advantage was fixed positions, established lines, configured target reference points, assembled caches, effective kill zones, etc. An 'elastic defence' was most likely the road to a not-so-elastic rout.

Lokos

[kawaiku]

Please ingnore

[kawaiku]

I might be reading this wrong, but did the West German forces have an effective military force to be able to deal with ,decently, the more advanced Russian forces that were arrayed against them considering that they were devestated in WWII. I don't really know much about their military's reconstruction by the Western Allies, but reading the posts that discussed the WG forces in the Faluda Gap, I figured they would be positioned in other not so threatened sectors or as a second line of defense for the Fulda Gap but not right in front on one of the most important sectors. I figured that the better, equiped, trained, and experienced army/force would be positioned there instead of a force that was recently created.

I am not aiming to downplay their West Germany's military or anyone's military for that matter, I just find it interesting that a brand new military would be positioned in such an important sector up against one of the strongest and most advanced militaries in the world.

[Kippari]

I'm obviously more interested about the northern front. So Lokos, what can you tell about the Soviet plans on Scandinavia? Sweden would have probably joined forces with NATO. Situation here in Finland would have been very tricky. IIRC Soviets named the Finnish defense doctrine the hardest to overcome during the Cold War. Although we had a mutual assistance treaty with the Soviets and it was to take effect if Germans ever invaded Finland, so that we could have called the Red Army for help. Also our AF intelligence had connections to some US intelligence units during the cold war, in secrecy ofcourse.

[Bahamian]

What was it like for the Soviet soldiers who remained in Germany even after the USSR collapsed?

[Lt.Havoc]

What was it like for the Soviet soldiers who remained in Germany even after the USSR collapsed?

All Russian Soldiers where pulled out from Eastern Germany by 1993.

[Amethystfretchen]

Some other guys stayed...
...and are driving east.

[Lt.Havoc]

What do you mean? You mean the intelligence agencies, the replacment of the KGB? I just know, that all Troops where pulled out by 1993, that was agreed on a conference between the USA and the Soviet Union. After all Russian troops left, the USA, France, Britan and other states removed thier troops also.

[Amethystfretchen]

http://www.amazon.com/NATOs-Secret-Army-Operation-Contemporary/dp/0714685003/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-2337723-9228124?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178971933&sr=8-2

[Amethystfretchen]

What do you mean? ,[...] the USA, [...] removed thier troops also.

!!!.............

[Lt.Havoc]

You are confusing me. Does that mean, the US did not removed her troops? Ok, I admin, there are troops left in Bavaria, but thats about it. There are plans to even give up that base too. But the overall US troops in Germany after the end of the Cold War where tiny, compared to what they had here during that time.

Also, germany was united again, so no needs for Russian Troops in the east. That the US troops stayed was just do to NATO and while our goverment wished that there was still a presence of them. A lot of jobs where and are tied with the US bases here and they didnt want to loose them and all.

The Warsaw Pact eased to exist, so all troops where pulled out. I´m rather glad about the End of the Cold War, that everything wend rather peacefully and that no war broke out.

I live in a small town right now and even back in the late 80s, early 90s, I was just 30 to 50km away from the possible frontline druing such a War between NATO and Warsaw Pact forces. Its not that much, wehn you think about the use of Nuclear Weapons and that these 50km would shrink down with every battle the WP forces would have won, until they could be driven back.

I´m very glad that the horror of such a war never happend at all.

[Amethystfretchen]

You are confusing me. ...

Ok. See clear: "Volksgemeinschaft", "Friedens-Sozialismus","!Demokratie" sind die selbe Lüge!

Just check the Nazis (Neo or so):http://de.altermedia.info/general/national-journal-merkel-versucht-vergebens-das-ende-usraels-abzuwenden-us-verteidigungsminister-putscht-gegen-bush-110507_9542.html

(And Beware!...just "everyone" will use fresh new young souls for his own propaganda...)

88! (fiabonacci-spiral doubleded....or what does it mean...?)

[Lt.Havoc]

You say, Democracy is a lie? How so? Also, what is that for a site? Never heard of it.

This makes no sense at all. Dont come with any conspiracy theroys and the end of the world thing. I dont belive in such foolish humbug.

[Amethystfretchen]

Dann bist Du seelig! Glücklicher Wessi aber auch...
(Wer hat denn gewonnen beim Suchen beim Superstar oder so ähnlich...)
_> Beware.!!! Propaganda!

[Lt.Havoc]

I dont know what this is all about, but I just dont belive that the conecpt of communism works and that our current demoratic system works pretty well. Its not perfect, but its pretty decent.

Also, better stay at speaking english, then thats the main language here. Talk german in a PM to me, but not on the board. Thing is, you can get a infrection for that.

Also, we are way off topic here. The topic is, how a conflict between NATO and WP could have looked like.

Question is, wehn would such a thing happen? In the 60s or 70s? Ot the 80s? If the War have been borken out in the mid or late 80s, then I doubt the WP forces could have won the war, the west was technological ahead at this time and a lot of modern weapons where fielded that had no counterpart in the east.

Tanks for example: the T-80 is no match for a M1A1 or Leopard 2. Traning is another factor. I had a thread a while ago, where we discussed how more advanced the Soviets where compared to the west. My impression was, that tactics and traning lacked behind the west. A Mass army like those of the Soviets couldnt have such a good traning like the US, Brits or germans had.

It was always stated, that EAst German may have been one of the best fighters during such a war, due to better traning and tactics.

Another question is, how far would both sides go? As soon as Nukes come into play, no side can win. Both sides would have annhilated each other.

I do belive, a conventional war between NATO and Warsaw PAct could have been won by NATO, even with great losses.

[Amethystfretchen]

I dont know what this is all about ....

Bottom line is: --> if WWW III -> Germans dead! (if the "rest" likes it, or not)
End of story (for us). (let them cheese (hunt!) after tanks or rats...)

[LEGEND]

Tanks for example: the T-80 is no match for a M1A1 or Leopard 2.

no match? why is that? You could argue that one has benefits in certain scenarios over the other while the other has advantages in some different situations but to say no match just shows that you either don't know anything about tanks and how they fight....

[Amethystfretchen]

PS: WWW = World War worldwide ! (... has already begun)
(ooohhh - that terror!)

[Lt.Havoc]

no match? why is that? You could argue that one has benefits in certain scenarios over the other while the other has advantages in some different situations but to say no match just shows that you either don't know anything about tanks and how they fight....

The T-80 is a much lither tank compared to the M1A1 for edxample and in the late 80s, the T-80 appeared with ERA blocks, that indicated that the armor of the tank was not that advanced then those in western tanks.

The AT-8 missel of the T-80 is a good idea on paper, but the reality is, that it uses a shaped-charges warhead, but the armor of the Abrams is known to delect shaped-charges to a caliber up to 350mm. That was tested several times.

The Soviets Tanks also didnt have such a advanced shighting stytems like FLIR or laser rangerfinder and 3 axis gun stabilisators etc.

Then there is the Crew traning, wihch was said that Soviet crews had a more regulated and standardised then in the west. However, how much all those factors would play a role wehn the Svoiets attack with thier Army, could never be fully cleared.

In the Book "Tank War-Central Front: NATO vs. Warsaw Pact" it was stated, that the western tanks, at least the newer types like the Challanger, Leopard 2 and the Abrams would have good chances against the Russian T-80 tanks.

Of course, the view is a bit baised from the fact how Russian tanks have prefomed in the last 30 years against western ones. But all those Russian tanks where not crewed by Russians, so it can be never fully cleared how well a Soviet Tank crew would have preformed in a all out war in europe.

I nkow that Tank war is a rather coplex thing, then as we know from Israel, its also possible to beat tanks like the T-62 with a upgraded Sherman or M-48.

The soviets would also carefully mass thier troops in certain regions. It was stated, that the Tank ratio was 1 western tank to 4 Soviet tanks, but that wouldnt mean that this is the norm. At some front part, the ratio would have beeb diffrent. Some would face 5 or 10 tanks, some would face non at all.

Thats what the Soviet did in WW2: they didnt had more tanks then the Germans all the time, they just carefully massed thier Tanks at one point, so they have more tanks then the nemey at the moment, so they can break through the enamy lines.

Well, in the end, it depends on a lot of factors. But we totally ruled out the use of other military branches here, then NATO would have used thier Helicopters and ground attack aircrafts to destroy as many tanks as possible so thier tanks dont have to face all of them.

[Lokos]

T-80 appeared with ERA blocks, that indicated that the armor of the tank was not that advanced then those in western tanks.


Is that so? Why don't you research the 'Silver Bullet', and why it was necessary, hmm?


but the armor of the Abrams is known to delect shaped-charges to a caliber up to 350mm. That was tested several times.


It was tested against the AT-8?


that the western tanks, at least the newer types like the Challanger, Leopard 2 and the Abrams would have good chances against the Russian T-80 tanks.


Did the book happen to mention that the aforementioned Soviet tanks were never supposed to 'duel' with NATO tanks? That this was not their design purpose?


I nkow that Tank war is a rather coplex thing, then as we know from Israel, its also possible to beat tanks like the T-62 with a upgraded Sherman or M-48.

If the Arabs of '67, '73 etc. had M1A2s, and the Israelis T72s, I'd still bet on the Israelis. You need to read a bit about Arab forces' tank tactics, regulations, practices and initiative...


Thats what the Soviet did in WW2: they didnt had more tanks then the Germans all the time, they just carefully massed thier Tanks at one point, so they have more tanks then the nemey at the moment, so they can break through the enamy lines.



The Soviets wouldn't use tanks to achieve breakthroughs... They didn't do so in WW2, they wouldn't have done so in a hypothetical Cold War gone hot.


But we totally ruled out the use of other military branches here, then NATO would have used thier Helicopters and ground attack aircrafts to destroy as many tanks as possible so thier tanks dont have to face all of them

And the Soviet tactical air force, mobile SAMs and AA etc. would have sat around doing absolutely nothing whilst this was happening, yes?

Lokos

[Lt.Havoc]

Well, I can only tell what I read. While this conflict is all hypotetical anyway, we cant get real reasults out of it. Of Course, the ERA on the T-80 was meant against Anti-Tank weapons from the infantry.

I´m not sure, but didnt the soviet Doctrine was to use Tanks, Helicopters and Air support, to break through the weakest NATO defence line in force? Thats what I read somewhere.

Also, nonless, the Soviet Tanks would have to face NATO tanks and it would come to Tank vs. Tank engatments, so whatver use the Tanks in the eyes of the Soviets had, they would be hard pressed to win such a battle.

Well, the AT-8 has only a valiber of 125mm and shaped-charges are shaped sharges, there isnt a diffrent if you have it in 125mm or 350mm, wehn your Abrams can withstand a 350mm shaped sharge warhead, then it can withstand a 125mm one easily. Also, the AT-8 was not a top attack weapon.

Of course, the Soviets would use AAs and SAMS, that out of question. I also dont doubt that they would have tried to shoot any helicoper and figher bomber down that NATO has. Then gain, the USA had the F-117 Stleathfighter, the Soviets didnt had such a thing, so it would be used to destroy the SAM battaries.

I also think, our troops would be hard pressed against the Societ Mi-24 Hinds, that would swarm over the battlefield and wihch main priority is to destroy enemy tanks and vehicels. Also not to forget are the bombers like the SU-24 Fencer and TU-22M Backfire who would use all kinds of missels and bombs to blow everything up that could be a threat to a Soviet advance.

Ya know, I just would love to simulate that in a RTS game. Too bad Cold War Crisis for Generals isnt done yet, it would have all those weapons and gear and enough realism to make you sweat. Would love to play a match against you Lokos.

Anyway, games aside, such a war would be really complex and the chances that the Soviets could win are very high. But the question is, will quanity win over quality? Can quality overcome quality? My stand is, that NATO forces would have a good chance to drive the WP forces back. Of course, if WP forces would attack all by surprise, that thing would shift.

In the documentation World War 3, there was showed a picture of a very likley scenario, where at the end of the 80s beginning of the 90s, some hardline Soviet General takes over and tries to hold the empire together. In that scenario, NATO would be warned due to several actions and icedents that happen and could deploy troops early.

Its also estimated, that a lot of the soviet force would be stopped simply to mechanical breakdowns and fule problems. But in the end, even if NATI sucsseds and frees Berlin, the Soviets push the red button, fearing that NATO would invade Russia and thus, the world ends in a nuclear fireball.

I have to say, I enjoy those conversation with you Lokos. It shows me that I can still learn and still have a lot to learn and that we both have mood points. Your vast knowledge is really impressive.

[foxtrot023]

I´m not sure, but didnt the soviet Doctrine was to use Tanks, Helicopters and Air support, to break through the weakest NATO defence line in force? Thats what I read somewhere.

Also, nonless, the Soviet Tanks would have to face NATO tanks and it would come to Tank vs. Tank engatments, so whatver use the Tanks in the eyes of the Soviets had, they would be hard pressed to win such a battle.



The soviet doctrine was to attack with motor rifle divisions (Mech. Inf.) and slip the tank divisions once a hole was created in NATO defenses. Said divisions would in turn race for strategic objectives. As such, for the soviets a tank on tank duel would have been a failure of doctrine, since those tanks should had not been battling other tanks but racing to their objactives.

[Lt.Havoc]

The soviet doctrine was to attack with motor rifle divisions (Mech. Inf.) and slip the tank divisions once a hole was created in NATO defenses. Said divisions would in turn race for strategic objectives. As such, for the soviets a tank on tank duel would have been a failure of doctrine, since those tanks should had not been battling other tanks but racing to their objactives.

Yeah, but every Motor Rifle Division was also equitted with Tanks for support, they would have been engaments with other tanks then. So, in the first thrust, both Mech.Inf. supported by Tanks, that would face NATO Mech.Inf. and Tanks. So, Tank vs. Tank battles would most likely happen.

[Lokos]

both Mech.Inf. supported by Tanks, that would face NATO Mech.Inf. and Tanks. So, Tank vs. Tank battles would most likely happen.

In WW2 StuGs were also often involved in tank vs tank battles - but this did not make tank vs tank battles the design purpose of those vehicles. The point is simple: yes, Soviet T-72s, T-64s, T-62s, T-80s and, perhaps, even the PTs would have entered 'tank vs tank' engagements. Soviet Motorized Rifle Divisions were quite well equipped, and tanks were an organic component.

However, do not delude yourself into thinking that the advantage held by NATO tanks in such 'duels' makes the designs themselves and the technology involved 'superior' to Soviet vehicles. Said vehicles were doctrinally designed to exploit penetrations. Speed, cross-country especially, was paramount. As was a range of capability. Soviet tanks, as such, could engage infantry, soft vehicles, armoured vehicles and even fortified positions (both with HEGMs and the primary cannon). Simplicity of maintenance, given the nature of the tasks befalling the vehicles in question, was of singular, vast importance. That also entailed simplicity of design, in a relative sense.

The average Soviet tank was, given these parameters, a mere 40-odd tonnes. It was outweighed by roughly 20 tonnes, when compared to the M1. It is small wonder that the M1 had superior armour. As for the ERA, it was added on as a low-cost expansion of Soviet armoured capability. It was not an acknowledgement of NATO superiority in any specific aspect of armoured warfare.


so whatver use the Tanks in the eyes of the Soviets had, they would be hard pressed to win such a battle.


1 vs 1, in an open field, with no support? Certainly. But reality is not so pleasant.


Well, the AT-8 has only a valiber of 125mm and shaped-charges are shaped sharges, there isnt a diffrent if you have it in 125mm or 350mm, wehn your Abrams can withstand a 350mm shaped sharge warhead, then it can withstand a 125mm one easily

You need to take another look at this, and think about it.


Of course, the Soviets would use AAs and SAMS, that out of question. I also dont doubt that they would have tried to shoot any helicoper and figher bomber down that NATO has. Then gain, the USA had the F-117 Stleathfighter, the Soviets didnt had such a thing, so it would be used to destroy the SAM battaries.


The last of the 59 F-117s was delivered in the summer of 1990, after achieving operational capability in 1983... And it was proven in 1999 that, with enough ingenuity, training and somewhat favourable circumstances even an SA-3 Goa could take one down. A layered SAM/AA defence like that possessed by the Soviets would have engaged the F117A more capably. In 1978 the S300P was introduced. The SA8 Gecko/9K33 Osa AKM was already in service by 1980. The 2K11 Krug and 2K12 Kub complete the picture...


I also think, our troops would be hard pressed against the Societ Mi-24 Hinds, that would swarm over the battlefield and wihch main priority is to destroy enemy tanks and vehicels. Also not to forget are the bombers like the SU-24 Fencer and TU-22M Backfire who would use all kinds of missels and bombs to blow everything up that could be a threat to a Soviet advance.


I'll play Devil's Advocate: NATO also had answers to such threats.


Too bad Cold War Crisis for Generals isnt done yet, it would have all those weapons and gear and enough realism to make you sweat. Would love to play a match against you Lokos.


The closest, in terms of realism, that a commercial game has approximated 'reality' is the Combat Mission series - and even that has plenty of unrealistic parameters. A truly realistic real-time wargame in a Cold War setting would be frightful to design and code, and even more frightful to play.


My stand is, that NATO forces would have a good chance to drive the WP forces back

During the period of 1952-1980? I think not. From 1980 until 1985, however, the scales shift, somewhat, and a NATO victory or stalemate (more likely) become more probable. From 1985 until 1990, however, NATO victory is more certain.


Its also estimated, that a lot of the soviet force would be stopped simply to mechanical breakdowns and fule problems

Who estimated this?


But in the end, even if NATI sucsseds and frees Berlin, the Soviets push the red button, fearing that NATO would invade Russia and thus, the world ends in a nuclear fireball

Soviet planning included 320+ nuclear strikes on the first day, regardless of the conventional situation. Tactical nukes on NATO troop concentrations and logistical bottlenecks, primarily.


I have to say, I enjoy those conversation with you Lokos. It shows me that I can still learn and still have a lot to learn and that we both have mood points. Your vast knowledge is really impressive.

Sorry if I appear moody. I've had these conversations more often than you think.

Lokos

[Blumenteufel]

It is a pleasure to follow this conversation, would it be asked too much if you guys posted some links or literature you could recommend?


/me sneaks back to his cave above Milhotosnet-Valley and lurks some more.

[Jaguar]

Always wanted to know more about NATOxWP at sea scenario. All that I got was Clancy and some little usefull links.

Specially sub and air Soviet doctrine since, I guess, Soviet blue water force wouldn´t stand much chance without land based air support.

Anyway, I read an excelent article about soviet sea-based ASMs. They were/are much more dangerous than I expected.

[Tran]

I found this war plan from the other message board, I don't understand Polish so someone else may translate

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b356/cegorach/wprost_bild_1000.jpg

I'm not exactly sure, but according to the source it is supposed to be based around 1970s. The Polish Army was supposed to invade these "minor areas" (ironically, these are the same territory liberated by Poles during WW2) because the Soviet never fully trust them.

[Ivo]

I dont undrstand Poils either but I'll have to say I wouldn't want to be anywhere near those red mushrooms!!

[Amethystfretchen]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b356/cegorach/wprost_bild_1000.jpg


I see Helgoland would get his own Red Mushroom. Now, why would it be THAT important?

http://www.marinefunker.de/deu/images/helgoland1_g.jpg


...Under the German Empire, the islands became a major naval base, and during the First World War the civil population was evacuated to the mainland. The first naval engagement of the war, the Battle of Heligoland Bight, was fought nearby in the first month of the war. The islanders returned in 1918, but during the Nazi era the naval base was reactivated. Lager Heligoland, the Nazi labour camp on Alderney, was named after the island.

Werner Heisenberg first formulated the equation underlying his picture of Quantum mechanics while on Heligoland in the 1920s.

During World War II the islanders remained on the main island. The first bomb dropped on German soil during the war landed here on 3 December 1939 by mistake from a British bomber.[citation needed] There was also a large allied air raid on the island on 15 October 1944, destroying many of the buildings of the Unterland. Then, on 18 April, 1945, over a thousand Allied bombers attacked the islands, leaving nothing standing. The civil population was protected in rock shelters; most of the 128 people killed being anti-aircraft crews. The islands were evacuated the following night.

From 1945 to 1952 the uninhabited islands were used as a bombing range. On 18 April 1947, the Royal Navy detonated 6,800 tonnes of explosives in a concerted attempt to destroy the island ("Big Bang" or "British Bang"), creating the biggest non-nuclear single explosion in history.[1] While aiming at the fortifications, the island's total destruction would have been accepted. The blow shook the main island several miles down to its base, changing its shape (the Mittelland was created). The attempted destruction of Heligoland ranks as "the largest single conventional explosive detonation" in the Guinness Book of Records.

In 1952 the islands were restored to the German authorities, who had to clear a huge amount of undetonated ammunition, landscape the main island, and rebuild the houses before it could be resettled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helgoland

[Stormovik]

T-80 has been tested in Chechnya and the result was horrible. Not to forget the experience with T-72 in Iraki or Syrian hands. The design of soviet tanks suffered severe shortcomings, their main guns are quite deceptive, you only can fire about 200 round before you have to change it, the fire control sistem is not very acurate, the autoloader sistem is slowier than a well trained human loader, it´s ****e to catastrophic internal explosion because there aren´t any compartimentation, so ammunition and fuel are stowed together. So there weren´t match to M1-A1, Leopard II or Challenger, unless you use the classical human and tank wave tactic, so loved by Soviet army.

[Lokos]

T-80 has been tested in Chechnya and the result was horrible. Not to forget the experience with T-72 in Iraki or Syrian hands. The design of soviet tanks suffered severe shortcomings, their main guns are quite deceptive, you only can fire about 200 round before you have to change it, the fire control sistem is not very acurate, the autoloader sistem is slowier than a well trained human loader, it´s ****e to catastrophic internal explosion because there aren´t any compartimentation, so ammunition and fuel are stowed together. So there weren´t match to M1-A1, Leopard II or Challenger, unless you use the classical human and tank wave tactic, so loved by Soviet army.

You clearly know nothing about Soviet tank design, military history, Soviet doctrine or military studies in general. I suggest you take a step back, and breathe, unless you have a clear and present wish for me to tear you a new one on these very public boards. Let me assure you, your arguments are as nothing, your counterarguments will be even worse, and your embarassment will be complete.

You choose.

Lokos

[VarSity]

T-80 has been tested in Chechnya and the result was horrible. Not to forget the experience with T-72 in Iraki or Syrian hands. The design of soviet tanks suffered severe shortcomings, their main guns are quite deceptive, you only can fire about 200 round before you have to change it, the fire control sistem is not very acurate, the autoloader sistem is slowier than a well trained human loader, it´s ****e to catastrophic internal explosion because there aren´t any compartimentation, so ammunition and fuel are stowed together. So there weren´t match to M1-A1, Leopard II or Challenger, unless you use the classical human and tank wave tactic, so loved by Soviet army.

Soviet tanks are not designed to fight other tanks I think.
This has prob been covered before so I wont go into what limited knowledge I have. But its enough to say whilst soviet tanks may not be 'better' tank vs. tank, they don't need to be.

P.S **** hot posts Lokos!!! Excellent info, very informative.

[Stormovik]

Lokos your words are as empty as your head. "Rapira" guns and their autoloader sistem is cr*p, the fire control sistem was anticuated, the armour insufficient, not to forget that they don´t have thermal imaging. Maybe in 1960´s Soviet tanks were better than western tanks but not since 1980´s.

[Lt.Havoc]

Say, Lokos, where do you get your informations? I wqould like to know what kind of sources you have. You often say we are wrong and all, but I would like to know why we are all wrong in the first place? Did you studied the orginal soviet battle plans and doctrines and talked to people that served in the soviet army?

Thats not meant disregarding in anyway, I mean, maybe you rellay saw the plans and talked with ex-soviet militaries, I dont know.

All my info comes from books, documentaries and several websites. I know, you always should question the written word, but I dont have better sources.

The problem is, that a lot of those informations and thinkings, are either farfetched, like the CIA Factbook of 1987 where most Soviet weapons and gear suddenly had more ranger, more power and better armor then the US counterparts or the infos and stuff are far below what really is to expect and it gets downplayed so the Western weapons look superior.

I dont know the orginal doctrine of the soviet tanks, but my belive is, from all the data I have, that the T-80 was no match for a western tank like the Leopard or the Abrams. But, the question is, if that advantage in technology could overcome the quantity of the soviets?

I belive that if a convetional war had taken place between NATO and WArsaw Pact in the mid or late 80s, that NATO would have won this war. You have to rember that the Soviet Army was not in a good shape in the mid and late 80s. The lack of funds led to serve shortages of spare parts and the traning was also not as high as in western armies.

That leads to the though, that if the war would last longer then expected ( the Soviet expected a quick victory, a swift blitzkreig style attack), then the advancing untis would soon face fule and ammo shortages, as well mechanical breakdowns due to lack of spare parts. All those Soviet Armies advancing needs lot of logistical support and I dont know how they would make it to supply all thier troops in the field.

Of course, I could be wrong with all this. But history has shown, that you can even win a war wehn outnumberd and outgunned by making use of teh tech you have and good men who can lead thier troops into battle properly, not to forgewt good plans. Israel is a good example for that.

[foxtrot023]

I dont know the orginal doctrine of the soviet tanks, but my belive is, from all the data I have, that the T-80 was no match for a western tank like the Leopard or the Abrams. But, the question is, if that advantage in technology could overcome the quantity of the soviets?

.

Soviet doctrine was for tanks to wait behind formations of motor rifles divs and exploit the holes these punch and race for strategic objectives. I am not sure on the cold WAr doctrine, but on WW2 soviet doctrine was that a tank on tank combat was a failure of said doctrine, as the mission of the tanks was to race to objectives, leaving the infantry and specialiced arms the fighting against german tanks

[Lt.Havoc]

Soviet doctrine was for tanks to wait behind formations of motor rifles divs and exploit the holes these punch and race for strategic objectives. I am not sure on the cold WAr doctrine, but on WW2 soviet doctrine was that a tank on tank combat was a failure of said doctrine, as the mission of the tanks was to race to objectives, leaving the infantry and specialiced arms the fighting against german tanks

I see. Thats a intresting point. But the thing is, Motor Rifle Divs. also had tanks attached to them on a regular base. My though is, that they are for fire support, rather then Tank vs. Tank fighting.

[Atlantic Friend]

Cripes, the good old days really were the bad old days. A little le'ss sanity here, a little less restraint there, an emphasis on Go rather than chess, and the continent would have erupted in flames.

I am not sure NATO forces would have been able to stop the tide until the late 1980s, leaving only nuclear fire as the only option on the table - one that would solve nothing, but, hey, when it's the only one you have, you tend to overlook this kind of thing.

[Lokos]

Maybe in 1960´s Soviet tanks were better than western tanks but not since 1980´s

Dear dipstick:

Not in the 1960s and most certainly not in the 1980s were Soviet tanks designed for the purpose of engaging other tanks on any other level but the most incidental. Such was established Soviet doctrine. I'm quite sure it's very easy to pile on more armour, when you have 20 extra tonnes of weight to utilise.


Say, Lokos, where do you get your informations? I wqould like to know what kind of sources you have

Books, journals, primary sources... What are you wondering about? Be specific, and I'll give you specific sources.


All my info comes from books, documentaries and several websites. I know, you always should question the written word, but I dont have better sources

It's a question of which books - not books in general.


I dont know the orginal doctrine of the soviet tanks, but my belive is, from all the data I have, that the T-80 was no match for a western tank like the Leopard or the Abrams. But, the question is, if that advantage in technology could overcome the quantity of the soviets?


I don't know the what the original purpose of pistols is, but my belief is, from all data that I have, that the Glock 9mm was no match for a firearm like the M16A2 or the AK74. But, the question, if that advantage in technology could overcome the quantity of pistols?

See what I did there?

Soviet tanks weren't designed to go toe to toe with Western tanks. Ergo, they're not going to be better at going toe to toe. They're a tool whose design, development and deployment were done according to the demands of Soviet doctrine. They didn't set out to create a tank that would beat Western tanks. They set out to create a tank that could fulfill the role the Soviets intended it to play.


I belive that if a convetional war had taken place between NATO and WArsaw Pact in the mid or late 80s, that NATO would have won this war. You have to rember that the Soviet Army was not in a good shape in the mid and late 80s. The lack of funds led to serve shortages of spare parts and the traning was also not as high as in western armies.


Mid-80s... No. Stalemate, at best. Late 80s... maybe. The Soviet Army at all stages was in fine shape. It's just that the edge was going NATO's way. There was no shortage of spare parts or funds (excepting the everyday reality that there is never enough money, no matter how much). Training was adequate, if uniform.


then the advancing untis would soon face fule and ammo shortages, as well mechanical breakdowns due to lack of spare parts. All those Soviet Armies advancing needs lot of logistical support and I dont know how they would make it to supply all thier troops in the field.


Fuel and ammo shortages? There'd be no time to rearm or refuel for anyone. Penetrating regiments would suffer extensive casualties, be withdrawn, and replaced with fresh regiments with adequate supplies. NATO units, constantly under attack, would gain no reprieve during which to rearm and refuel. Constant pressure on the Soviet side. Constant.


But history has shown, that you can even win a war wehn outnumberd and outgunned by making use of teh tech you have and good men who can lead thier troops into battle properly, not to forgewt good plans

1. What makes you think that the Soviets did not have good men who can lead their troops into battle properly?

2. What makes you think that they did not have good plans?


But the thing is, Motor Rifle Divs. also had tanks attached to them on a regular base. My though is, that they are for fire support, rather then Tank vs. Tank fighting.

They could be used for both. ATGMs, ATGs, RPGs, airpower, cluster munitions etc. were supposed to be doing the heavy anti-tank lifting.

Lokos

[Mamont]

http://www.redstar.ru/2007/02/20_02/11.jpg

I propose that all participants of this discussion find and read works of Shtemenko S.M., who was the head of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the USSR in in 1948-52, 53-62 Chief of Staff of Land Forces, and in 68-76 Chief of Staff of the Joint Armed Forces of the Countries of the Warsaw Pact. That probably will clear all what-if's etc. about using soviet tanks and tank armies.

[Lokos]

Or Reznichenko’s 'Tactics', Savkin’s 'The Basic Principles of Operational Art and Tactics', Sidorenko’s 'The Offensive', Strokov’s 'History of Military Art', Babadzhanian’s 'Tanks and Tank Forces', and Bagramian’s 'History of War and Military Art'.

Either/or.

Lokos

[Mamont]

Or Reznichenko’s 'Tactics', Savkin’s 'The Basic Principles of Operational Art and Tactics', Sidorenko’s 'The Offensive', Strokov’s 'History of Military Art', Babadzhanian’s 'Tanks and Tank Forces', and Bagramian’s 'History of War and Military Art'.

Either/or.

Lokos
Than i find it really strange, that you, Lokos, talk about "tanks designed for the purpose of engaging other tanks on any other level but the most incidental.".

[Lokos]

Note:


They didn't set out to create a tank that would beat Western tanks. They set out to create a tank that could fulfill the role the Soviets intended it to play.


This role wasn't the systemic engagement of other armoured vehicles.

After the death of Stalin in 1955, it was Zhukov and his cohort that gave rise to the first period of truly post-war doctrine: recognising strategic nuclear war as a certainty, and streamlining the Soviet Army for survivability and mobility. This continued into the 1960s.

I here quote Glantz:


Although Khrushchev fell from power in 1964, the single (nuclear) option continued to dominate Soviet military thought. Soviet doctrinal writers saw war involving a strategic nuclear exchange and air and ground operations conducted within that nuclear context. Ground force operations would involve motorized rifle or tank formations, supported by air force and rocket forces, conducting deep operations at high rates of speed on multiple axes to the depth of defenses, essentially to clean up the theater after the nuclear exchange. Such forces were structured lightly to survive in a nuclear environment. Perhaps the best available translated description of Soviet doctrine in this period is found in V. D. Sokolovsky’s Strategia (Strategy).


Notice the expected speed of advances, their nature, and the impact thereof on force composition.

I next quote Strokov, who had the following to say of the evolution in Soviet operational and strategic art from the 1960s and into the 1970s:


The main means of warfare will be nuclear, by strategic rocket forces with unforeseen effects . . . regardless of the means of war, war will require massive armies and a tremendous mastery of resources and popular support. . . in nuclear war rocket forces are of primary importance . . . in ground theaters highly mobile ground operations will occur simultaneously with the actions of strategic rocket forces. . . war will be characterized by maneuver. Nuclear weapons will open the door for offensive action . . . preparation time for war will be short. Operations may begin from a standing start. . . ground forces will conduct the offensive at high speeds in the absence of a dense continuous front usually on several axes. . . there are numerous forms for the conduct of operations. There is a new quality to combined arms battle. It is hard, severe, fast-paced and maneuverable. The basic mission of combined arms battle is to realize the fruits of nuclear strikes—the complete destruction of enemy troop concentrations and the securing of important regions. We reject as infeasible the older "gnawing through the dense" concept. Instead tank and motorized rifle forces overcome the defense from the march after use of nuclear weapons. The appearance of nuclear weapons has increased considerably the role and importance of surprise in battle and demonstrated increased demands for its achievement.


This is from 'History of Military Art'

Note:

'... Nuclear weapons will open the door for manoeuvre... highly mobile ground operations... war will be characterized by manoeuvre...'

Even when the Soviet Union had the greatest conventional superiority over the West, Soviet planners were not going to take risks with a carefully composed and calculated plan for a speedy and less damaging victory.

Tanks were not to face other tanks in set-piece engagements.

Only between 1976 and 1980 did Soviet views on warfare somewhat change, incorporating a possible non-nuclear (conventional) phase of operations. This went hand in hand with the strengthening of tank and motorized rifle divisions, as well as air mobile formations, artillery forces etc.

But the emphasis was still on speed.

For this period I quote the Soviet Military Encyclopedia:


During the conduct of military action with conventional means of destruction the enemy covering zone will be overcome by forces from the first echelon combined arms units after strong aviation and artillery strikes on the most important objectives in the entire depth of the enemy defense. Forward detachments from each division will destroy security and covering units of the enemy and secure important objectives and regions in the forward defense position. Their action is supported by artillery fire, aviation strikes and action by air assault units.

Emphasis:

- Combined arms
- Strong aviation and artillery strikes
- Forward detachments

Not deliberate tank-led assault.

Kireev had this to say in the Voenno-istoricheskii zhurnal, in a February 1980 issue (p38-40):


In conditions not involving the use of nuclear weapons, tank subunits [battalions] and units regiments] attacking in the first echelon in appointed sectors realized penetration of the defense on a narrow front with subsequent blows against the enemy flanks. Tank subunits [battalions] of motorized rifle units [regiments] on exercises were used to penetrate enemy defense in close coordination with motorized rifle troops and artillery, acting like infantry support tanks of the war years.

The characteristic feature of the preparation of a penetration is the careful organization of combat with enemy antitank means. For that struggle we foresee the use of all fire means.

The means of using tank subunits [battalions] and units [regiments] as forward detachments has been improved. Unlike the first post-war period, in the second, forward detachments based on the experiences of exercises, did not begin their action from the boundary of their commitment during the penetration. They approached the enemy defense in advance of the main force, securing their [the main forces] movement and transition to the attack. In some instances, depending on conditions, forward detachments moved forward . . . . at night before the transition of the main force to the offense. . . .



Now I again quote Glantz on the application of theory:


Operationally, army forces would advance to combat in the same manner as those of the front. Maximum forces would deploy on a broad front in a single echelon of divisions with an army reserve dispersed in the rear. Soviet forces would make maximum use of darkness, inclement weather, and marginal terrain to achieve surprise. Artillery and air force (as well as helicopter) units would provide suppressive fires to the depth of the enemy defense with fires concentrated in sectors where the penetrations were envisioned. Forward detachments of reinforced tank regiment (or brigade) size would lead the attack of armies. The mission of these forward detachments would be to attack prior to the commitment of the main forces to penetrate enemy-covering force positions and secure a position in the main defense zone, thus disrupting formation of the defense. The depth of mission for the army forward detachment would be from 30 to 40 kilometers. Army main forces would advance rapidly in march column on multiple axes behind the army and division forward detachments. An operational group of tank-division size would prepare to exploit either from army first echelon or army reserve, depending on the degree of success the initial advance has achieved. Air assault operations in brigade strength would be conducted at a depth of 30 to 40 kilometers in support of an army ground forward detachment on one of the army’s axes of advance. Diversionary forces would disrupt enemy rear areas to a depth of 180 to 200 kilometers.



I hope this clarifies my position, in relation to statements made previously.

Lokos

[Stormovik]

Wow, how beautiful design for a slaughterhouse!. In front of a hail of antitank weapons, they were going to deploy motor rifle divisions. Really smart. Unless you use nuclear weapons, artillery and air support wouldn´t destroy all the defence strongpoints, so using motor rifle division, that have less tanks than a tank division of course, would be ideal to get a horrific amount of losses. Well, in soviet mentality that didn´t matter.

So they would get an high tech version of 1943-1994 german defensive battles.

[foxtrot023]

Wow, how beautiful design for a slaughterhouse!. In front of a hail of antitank weapons, they were going to deploy motor rifle divisions. Really smart. Unless you use nuclear weapons, artillery and air support wouldn´t destroy all the defence strongpoints, so using motor rifle division, that have less tanks than a tank division of course, would be ideal to get a horrific amount of losses. Well, in soviet mentality that didn´t matter.

So they would get an high tech version of 1943-1994 german defensive battles.


dude, you have no clue whatsoever.

Soviet offenses in 1943-44 were front wide to pin troops and reserves in place, using motor rifle divs. which had either organic or attached tank formations, and then race the tanks through holes in the Wehrmatch defense. This meant that German doctrine, which was to use panzer divs. to fight those penetrations and nip them, could not be used, and hence german losses were horrorific. About the only issue in this type of attack I could find was that the initial assaults were indeed bloody for the soviets.

[Stormovik]

The soviet attacks were frecuently stopped by attacking their vulnerable rearguard. In german favour played the fact that soviet tactics and training were poor so was easy for german troops to destroy a huge amount of tanks and troops with afordable losses. The problem was that soviets didn´t care about losses if they reached their objective. And in that time didn´t exist ATGM´s, thermal sights, combat choppers, MLRS, air scattered mines, or fully stabilised tank guns, so in 1980´s would be really lethal the combat environment. Moreover OTAN troops would be fighting in the same terrain they have been training for years, so this would be a serious problem for Warsaw Pact troops. Not to talk about troop and training quality.

[Mamont]

Note:This role wasn't the systemic engagement of other armoured vehicles.
Ah, of course not. Now i understand clearely. According to field manual tank commander must recon land and air targets, measure their importance and order fo engagement, choose weapon, ammunition and so on. During offence operation the objects of attack for the tank are enemy in the trenches and other fortifications, tanks, artillery, machine-guns and other enemy targets. When attacking on the BMP's or BTR's, rifle infantry, machine-gun squads are advancing behind the tanks at the distance of 100-200m. If attacking on foot, infantry must advance right after the tank line at a distance, that ensures safety from explosions of own artillery and supporting advancing tanks using personal firearms. In this case BMP's/BTR's are advancing using "jumps" from one natural cover to another, supporting advancing infantry and tanks by own guns. In some cases they can operate within the line of infantry.

So if defence consisted tanks - they will be engaged for sure and not left for aviation or anti-tank squads.

It's hard for me to translate all books regarding soviet tactics, but one thing is sure, pure tank assaults were mostly the second wave of offence, when main eshelon of defences was breached by combined arms assault, resulting in more operational freedom for the tank divisions.

[Stormovik]

It´s difficult to believe that flimsy BTR or BMP could support any kind of attack against possitions manned by troops armed with ATGM and tanks. BMP 1 has a low pressure gun with an almost useless round, that cross wind could put out of target completely, and an ATGM Sagger that you have to direct from a completely exposed position, and BMP or BTR has heavy machine guns or autocannon that can´t defeat a MBT armour, not to forget that are outgunned by MBT guns and ATGM.

[foxtrot023]

It´s difficult to believe that flimsy BTR or BMP could support any kind of attack against possitions manned by troops armed with ATGM and tanks. BMP 1 has a low pressure gun with an almost useless round, that cross wind could put out of target completely, and an ATGM Sagger that you have to direct from a completely exposed position, and BMP or BTR has heavy machine guns or autocannon that can´t defeat a MBT armour, not to forget that are outgunned by MBT guns and ATGM.

I will just point out 1 part of soviet droctrine you have left out- Artillery per example. I will let Lokos sort you out

[Stormovik]

If they couldn´t eliminate all german positions 60 years ago how could they achieve that goal 40 years after. Soviet didn´t have copperhead rounds so artillery can´t pinpoint all defence positions. Moreover NATO troops knew their terrain very well so wouldn´t be easy to take them in the air. Moreover, NATO artillery was especialized in counterbattery fire, so red artillery would get a special attention from NATO guns and MLRS.

[foxtrot023]

If they couldn´t eliminate all german positions 60 years ago how could they achieve that goal 40 years after. Soviet didn´t have copperhead rounds so artillery can´t pinpoint all defence positions. Moreover NATO troops knew their terrain very well so wouldn´t be easy to take them in the air. Moreover, NATO artillery was especialized in counterbattery fire, so red artillery would get a special attention from NATO guns and MLRS.

and you think the WP did not know that? I mean, I know NATO knew what was coming, but I think your coments on soviet doctrine are done without knowledge of said doctrine. I am not the expert of WP, hence Lokos should straighten any question on this

[Stormovik]

I never said I were Marshall Akhromeyev, but you don´t need to be a Frunze graduate to express your opinion

[foxtrot023]

You do need some more knowledge before talking smack though

[Stormovik]

On the other hand, I don´t discuss if the Soviet doctrine is good or bad in abstract, but related with the equipment they had and their enemies had. It´s clear that it works if you have technological advantage on your side, we only have to look to the Desert Storm operation inspired in Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945. But Soviet army didn´t have state of the art weaponry in 1980´s so it´s difficult to develop a sucessful offensive when you are opposed by people using more sofisticated and accurated weapons than you. Not to forget that in the field Soviet army was faithfully tied to strict planification of their operation, not giving nco´s (not professionals) or junior officers any kind of initiative. NATO armies were more addaptative to the sudden changes that could happen on battlefield, because they follow the german task´s tactics, or giving junior officers and nco (proffesional) the initiative to direct the combat.

[Lokos]

In front of a hail of antitank weapons, they were going to deploy motor rifle divisions.

Motor rifle divisions had both tanks and anti-tank implements in plenty. Furthermore, they were to be supported heavily by helicopter gunships, AA elements, anti-tank cluster munitions (which the Soviets produced the best of), air strikes, heavy artillery and, of course, nuclear weapons of the tactical variety.


So they would get an high tech version of 1943-1994 german defensive battles

The Germans weren't exactly 'successful' in their defensive battles of 1944. I point you to the Iassy offensive, the Vistula-Oder offensive and, of course, Operation Bagration itself. Very few Soviet offensives of 1944 failed. Even with the superiority of some German tanks over their Soviet counterparts.


The soviet attacks were frecuently stopped by attacking their vulnerable rearguard.

Their what? Do you mean their flanks? Soviet offensives in 1944-1945 were stopped by logistical overstretch - almost never by German resistance.


Moreover OTAN troops would be fighting in the same terrain they have been training for years, so this would be a serious problem for Warsaw Pact troops. Not to talk about troop and training quality.

Warsaw pact troops had been training for attacking that exact terrain for the same number of years. I don't see the problem. And let's not talk about troop and training quality, because you clearly have no clue regarding either.


So if defence consisted tanks - they will be engaged for sure and not left for aviation or anti-tank squads.

It's hard for me to translate all books regarding soviet tactics, but one thing is sure, pure tank assaults were mostly the second wave of offence, when main eshelon of defences was breached by combined arms assault, resulting in more operational freedom for the tank divisions.

Exactly. Tanks would engage other tanks, but it was mostly as a matter of necessity - not the preferred scenario for the Soviets, who designed their tanks to exploit breaches moreso than to create them.


If they couldn´t eliminate all german positions 60 years ago how could they achieve that goal 40 years after.

Like... when... for example? During 1944-1945, that is. When did German artillery even dent Soviet artillery barrages?


Moreover NATO troops knew their terrain very well so wouldn´t be easy to take them in the air.

Are you joking? The WP had very exacting data on NATO force deployments. In case of war, the primary means of attacking dug-in NATO forces would have been massed artillery and helicopter gunships. It would be NATO artillery that would be getting special attention from Soviet air strike packages.



It´s clear that it works if you have technological advantage on your side, we only have to look to the Desert Storm operation inspired in Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945. But Soviet army didn´t have state of the art weaponry in 1980´s so it´s difficult to develop a sucessful offensive when you are opposed by people using more sofisticated and accurated weapons than you.

What in the hell are you talking about?

Regarding the T80 on which you've pounced on with so much hate:


The T-80 was also the first production Soviet tank to incorporate a laser range finder and ballistic computer system. The original night sight is the II Buran-PA (800-1300 meters range). The 12.7-mm MG NSVT has both remote electronically operated sight PZU-5 and gun-mounted K10-T reflex sight. The night sight cannot be used to launch the ATGM. The daysight can be used at night for launching ATGMs if the target is illuminated. A variety of thermal sights is available, including the Russian Agava-2, French SAGEM-produced ALIS and Namut sight from Peleng. Thermal sights are available for installation which permit night launch of ATGMs. There are thermal sights available for installation which permit night launch of ATGMs.

The T-80 uses the same 125-mm gun and horizontal ammunition system as the T-72, though the fire control system is an improvement over that fitted to earlier Soviet tanks. The BK-29 round, with a hard penetrator in the nose is designed for use against reactive armor, and as an MP round has fragmentation effects. The more recent BK-27 HEAT round offers a triple-shaped charge warhead and 50 mm more penetration. The electronic round fuzing system for Ainet rounds is available for other tanks. This round uses technology similar to that for French Oerlikon's AHEAD rouns. The round is specially designed to defeat targets by firing fragmentation patterns forward and radially, based on computer calculated settings from the laser range-finder and other inputs. Targets are helicopters and dug in or defilade priority ground threats, such as ATGM positions. Rate of fire is 4 rd/min. If the BK-29 HEAT-MP is used, it may substitute for Frag-HE (as with NATO countries) or complement Frag-HE. With three round natures (APFSDS-T, HEAT-MP, ATGMs) in the autoloader vs four, more antitank rounds would available for the higher rate of fire. The ATGM may be launched while moving slowly (NFI). The AT-8 can be auto-loaded with the two halves mated during ramming; but the stub charge is manually loaded.

When fitted with explosive reactive armor [ERA] the T-80 is virtually immune over its frontal arc to penetration from all current NATO ATGMs which rely on a HEAT warhead to penetrate armor. On the turret of the T-80, the panels are joined to form a shallow chevron pointing. Explosive reactive armor is also fitted to the forward part of the turret roof to provide protection against top attack weapons. The explosive reactive armor does not provide any added protection against APDS or APFSDS attack.


And lest we forget it's the composite K ceramic armour version T80B, T80BV (with 1st gen ERA) and T80U (as of 1989) that were the most likely to be encountered.

These tanks were, for the time, extremely imposing.

Even the T72 could penetrate M1s at will at 1000m or less. In Europe, where engagement ranges were likely to be in the hundreds of meters, not thousands. Even better performance can be achieved with the BK27 HEAT round.

You speak as if the tanks that were most likely to meet right up until the end of the Cold War were M1s and T72s. This is not the case! For the duration of the Cold War, the most likely American tank in the field was to be the M60 - a fine tank, but certainly not 'superior' to Soviet tanks. Even the T64, a tank produced during the same period, had more favourable characteristics. The other common type was the Leopard-1. Again, a fine tank, but not exactly a Leopard 2A6.

In the field of artillery, NATO would have been inundated with massed firepower from systems such as the highly mobile 2S5, the 2S7, the excellent 9P140 Uragan MRLS and the excellent 9K51 Grad. AT munitions were available for the latter.

You'll notice one thing, though: all of these systems (the MRLSs excepted) had the capability to launch low yield nuclear weapons. The Soviets would have detonated 320 tactical nuclear weapons on NATO lines and in their operational depth on the first day of combat. This technical back and forth is idiotic; you are igoring the very basis on which the Soviets relied in constructing their doctrine, and deriving the technical requirements for its application.


NATO armies were more addaptative to the sudden changes that could happen on battlefield, because they follow the german task´s tactics, or giving junior officers and nco (proffesional) the initiative to direct the combat.

I, too, enjoy idiotic stereotypes.

Lokos

[Ivo]

Me thinks that someone has read too much in the fact that ALL export version of Soviet/Russian equipment is INFERIOR to the Soviet/Russian equipment and also that the poor performance of the IRAQI-MADE T-72 helped in the confirmation of that.

[Stormovik]

Iraqui made, using soviet parts. By the way seven M-1 were hit by 125 mm guns during Desert Storm, none were penetrated, one of the was hit twice at 500 m.

[LEGEND]

Iraqui made, using soviet parts. By the way seven M-1 were hit by 125 mm guns during Desert Storm, none were penetrated, one of the was hit twice at 500 m.

they were made of degraded components, and the ammo they used was very outdated. But if you want to base the warsaw pact vs nato scenario on performance of t-72 vs m1 in iraq, go ahead...

[Lokos]

Iraqui made, using soviet parts. By the way seven M-1 were hit by 125 mm guns during Desert Storm, none were penetrated, one of the was hit twice at 500 m.

They were also using ammo from the 1950s.

Don't think that ammo makes a difference? Read about the Silver Bullet, and why it was needed.

Lokos

[Lt.Havoc]

What the hell is that "Silver Bullet" anyway? Its the third time I hear and read it, but there is no german translation for that term, other then "silberne kugel", but silver bullets are associated with killing Vampires and Werewolfs in Horror films and novels, so what does it have to do with the millitary?

I know that there are HEAT, HESH and APFSDS rounds for Tank guns and that the US Military uses the depeleted uranuim pentrator while the other NATO countries use Wolfram penetrators who dont create radioactive and therefor leathel spalling and radiation clouds.

So can somone please tell me whatthis "Silver Bullet" is and what it does?

[Hydro]

I believe the Silver Bullet was the development of the ultra dense DU penetrator, APFSDS-DU.

The UK also uses Depleted Uranium in it's 120mm APFSDS rounds.

And DU doesn't create "radiation clouds". It's toxic, in the same manner that lead is toxic. You don't want to breathe in too much of the dust or eat it though.


Are we back on this Soviet tanks are crap thing again? Christ almighty.

[Lokos]

The Silver Bullet is the M829 120mm APFSDS-T round. Finally developed in 1977, its deployment marked, for the first time, a means for NATO armoured forces to reliably defeat Soviet armour at range.

NOTE: 'Silver Bullet' more often corresponds with the M829A1 round, which was the next step in the development of the series, and was fielded for the first time in the first Gulf War.

Lokos

[Atlantic Friend]

Lokos

The T-80 would have been the most commonly encountered takn in the mid-1980s ? Being no expert, I would have thought it would have been T-72.

[Lokos]

Ummm... I don't think I said that. IIRC, I said the most likely match-up was M60 vs T72.

EDIT:

Oh:


And lest we forget it's the composite K ceramic armour version T80B, T80BV (with 1st gen ERA) and T80U (as of 1989) that were the most likely to be encountered.


I meant that of the T80 series, the most likely to be encountered was the composite K ceramic armour version T80B, T80BV (with 1st gen ERA) and T80U. Not that they were the most likely to be encountered period. Hope that clears things up a little :).

Lokos

[Atlantic Friend]

Ummm... I don't think I said that.

Sorry, I misread your post about the T-80 variants. It was about the most likely to be encountered variant, and I thought you meant the most likely to be encountered tank.

[King of Scandinavia]

On the contrary. NATO/WP conventional potential was to be deemed exhausted within weeks. Months, at the latest. Munitions were going to be a massive problem - especially missiles and artillery rounds of all classifications. It would have gone nuclear so as to preserve as much conventional potential as possible, as long as possible. At least, long enough to either blunt the Soviet advance decisively, or to punch a hole in the Fulda Gap defences and pour through.




- The belgian army corps in Germany had munition and supplies for only 14 days of combat... I remember that Nato asked belgium repeatedly for more munition and stores, so this was not nato policy.
In depots. Remember, those were going to be hit hard. The units at the front, themselves, would have eaten up their available ammunition in a few days, at the most. Hours, likeliest. And any unit that broke... was likely to stay broken if penetration was achieved.
Lokos, or somebody else, would you like to enlighten me about these? Exhausted within months?

I mean, when you compare to World War 2, the war that also happened in Europe, it lasted for nearly 6 years before it was over. Yes, there are munition problems, logistic, resources, etc, but hardly I've heard about one particular country stopped fighting because of these problem, the Soviets fought all the way from 1941 to 1945 (even pushed the Germans back into Berlin)...and hardly the "logistical" or munition problems stopped the fighting/war in general, but rather because the Germany was surrounded from all fronts and surrendered.

How do you explain this in war between NATO and WP?

[Hellfish]

Ummm... I don't think I said that. IIRC, I said the most likely match-up was M60 vs T72.

I meant that of the T80 series, the most likely to be encountered was the composite K ceramic armour version T80B, T80BV (with 1st gen ERA) and T80U. Not that they were the most likely to be encountered period. Hope that clears things up a little :).

Lokos

Not the T-64? I thought most of the GSFG had T-64s, which were being replaced by T-80s.

[James]

Lokos, or somebody else, would you like to enlighten me about these? Exhausted within months?

I mean, when you compare to World War 2, the war that also happened in Europe, it lasted for nearly 6 years before it was over. Yes, there are munition problems, logistic, resources, etc, but hardly I've heard about one particular country stopped fighting because of these problem, the Soviets fought all the way from 1941 to 1945 (even pushed the Germans back into Berlin)...and hardly the "logistical" or munition problems stopped the fighting/war in general, but rather because the Germany was surrounded from all fronts and surrendered.

How do you explain this in war between NATO and WP?

Expenditures of men and material would have been much higher in a NATO/WP fight in central Europe. Weapons and technology were more advanced, and I believe the WP forces would have attained local force superiority (at Fulda, for instance) and just wouldn't have stopped attacking. Anyone defending against such an assault either fights until they can't anymore or withdraws.

[Lokos]

Lokos, or somebody else, would you like to enlighten me about these? Exhausted within months?

I mean, when you compare to World War 2, the war that also happened in Europe, it lasted for nearly 6 years before it was over.

Munitions were produced at a low level and stockpiled. Though wartime production would pick up quickly, the war itself would force a tempo that would mean - for most units - the initial combat load would be sufficient during the initial operations. Most units would expend their combat load, absorb casualties, and then either retreat, withdraw in order or in rout, or surrender. Some would be destroyed where they stood.

The point is that the Soviets, especially, would want a pace of operations that would not allow NATO units the opportunity to resupply. Depots would be given a huge amount of attention from SRBMs, artillery and aerial attack - as would logistical bottlenecks. Attack would be continuous, with regiment after regiment forcing a penetration - then the tank forces would exploit in depth.

This is not at all a WW2 situation - though even in 1939 the pace of operations in Poland had the Germans in massive logistical difficulties. Even the Soviets had to stockpile during the Second World War when they wished to conduct active operations. Those stockpiles were quickly exhausted once active combat began. The opportunity for resupply and, to an extent, reinforcement is all based on the pace of operations.

Modern armament is also extremely advanced compared to the WW2 equivalent, less available in abundance, and costlier to produce. Coupled with the fact that it is also expended far quicker, you should be getting a general picture of what I'm talking about. The explanation offered here is poor, as I am a little bit fatigued. Too much writing, not enough sleep.

Lokos

[Lokos]

Not the T-64? I thought most of the GSFG had T-64s

Nope, even in 1987 there were more T72s. Plenty of T80s and T64s, but enough T72s to 'lead the way'.

Lokos

[GeZe]

I have just picked up the book "Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army", from the University Library.

(published 1981)

I suggest anyone interested in this subject to pick it up if possible.

It goes in great depth how a Soviet Offense and Defense work. I can post some scans of the diagrams in the book this weekend.

It contains a lot of information that may be of interest to you people.

For instance:


The war envisaged by the Soviets should last 10-12 days in its decisive phase, perhaps 21 days in all. Soviet stockpiles in East Germany, exclusive of those with their units, contain 37 days' supply of ammunition and 16 days' supply of petroleum products, oil and lubricants.

[Tran]

Sorry for bringing it up again. Does anyone find these Warsaw Pact war plans feasible?

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/6853/warsawpact1964ku9.jpg


http://img27.exs.cx/img27/5954/sovietinvasioneurope.jpg

I'm interested with the Soviet-Hungarian attack through Austria, seven days to French border, and how Italy appeared to be left alone.

I got these from here (http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=75628)

[krasnayaarmiya]

Mutually Assured Destruction

[Lt.Havoc]

Sorry for bringing it up again. Does anyone find these Warsaw Pact war plans feasible?

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/6853/warsawpact1964ku9.jpg


http://img27.exs.cx/img27/5954/sovietinvasioneurope.jpg

I'm interested with the Soviet-Hungarian attack through Austria, seven days to French border, and how Italy appeared to be left alone.

I got these from here (http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=75628)

Well, these are some intresting plans. The problem is, that Hungary only got the old weapons and equitment from the Soviets. Thier tank force was rather small and only conisted of T-54/55 a few T-62 and only a couple of T-72. The infantry mostly relied on trucks or on foot, they where not hinghly mechanized then the other Warsaw Pact countries. I do not know how good the Hungaian troops would stand-up against Autria, but from the look of it, the Attack on Austria was more then a manouver to distract from the real plans.

Many experts said, that the Soviets would try to atttack together with the CSSR and East Gearmany, while they had the better arms, equitment and traning. Ecspeically the DDR troops where seen as some of the best and most didicated in the whole Warsaw Pact countries.

For the 7 days question: it could have worked, but only when its a Blitzkreig style attack that overruns the enemy completly and all. But lining up such a huge attack force along the borders would be difficult, then the USA scanned for sings of a invasion with recon flights, espionage and all that. Later they had satellites whjo always had an eye out for anything strange and suspicious.

And then there is still the danger of getting nuked. Until the late 70´s, the NATO had the strategy that as soon as Warsaw PAct troops cross the border, they would push the red button, that was later changed to a flexible respone. We all know that the danger of a nuclear war prevented that the Soviets really attacked.

We came to the conclution here, that the Soviets would win a convetional war with NATO from the 1950s-1970s before the powershift happends in the mid 70s and in the late 80s the favor would have been completly shifted to NATO, due to more advanced weapons and technology deployed by them.

Still, it was not impossible for the Soviets to win thew war even if NATO has the better tech and arms. In the end, wehn the plans are made, the tactics and strategies are carried out and the war machine is running, there is one thing left is luck and a lot of them.

You know what Murphys law says: No plan survives the first contact intact. So, the plans above could have worked.....or they could have not worked. One flaw and your plan goes downhill.

[haze99]

Assuming the Soviet attack had been low-yield tactical nuclear missiles. (FROG-7, SS-1C SCUD-B or SS-22 Scaleboard.) What would be the NATO response? Pershing and Lance? Or coventional rocket artillery?
I would agree that DDR NVA and CSSR CSLA would have had prime targets to seize along side the SGFG and SGFC. The Hungarians would have provided rear-area security and logistical support. As you had stated, the Hungarians had a small armored force. Thus, I don't think they would have spearheaded an assault, other than seizing smaller objectives. Though their Air Force may have been included in the first wave?
Were Bulgarian forces suppose to go through Hungary to assist in the invasion? Or would they have assaulted Greece or flank a Turkish repsonse? The Bulgarian's were not armed with T-62's or T-72's, not to mention BMP-1 or BMP-2 IFV's. I assume their role would have been the same as the Hungarian's?
In retrospect, Operation Desert Storm would not be a parallel to use with the NATO/Warsaw Pact scenario. One the Iraqi's were on the defense by September of 1990. Two the terrain was vastly different. Three, their idealogical training was different. Four, once the Air War began they lost their communications. Five, within the first week of the Air War, the Iraq's were unable to resupply or manuver their forces to adjust to the Allied assault. Other than in immediate engagements.

[Liptow]

I somehow doubt about the fast advance despite the numerical superiority. If you imagine all West German civvies trying to flee westwards, the roads should be completely blocked by cars and fast moving mech corps can use only roads for fast advance.
I know one Warthog pilot who was stationed at Fulda in 80ties. They were armed with 30mm rounds, two Mavericks and full load of flares and their job was to slow down the WP armor advance on the road crossings so reinforcements could arrive from the USA. They had great respect for WP AA equipment.

[Liptow]

They were also using ammo from the 1950s.

Lokos

Iraqis just ended 8 year long conventional war with Iran, you think that they had ammo from 50ties or their tankers not recognize training ammo from the real one? For classic 125mm ammo, M1 frontal armor is simply too much.

[Lokos]

Iraqis just ended 8 year long conventional war with Iran, you think that they had ammo from 50ties or their tankers not recognize training ammo from the real one?

In answer to the first part of your question; yes.

The Iraqis used BM-15 and BK-14 rounds. Long discontinued in the Soviet Army by 1991. 3BM-32 was the round used by the Soviets in the late 70s and early 80s, and 3BM-42 has been the main round in use since the late 1980s...

The best APFSDS round in the Soviet arsenal was the 3BM-46 - a round that matches or exceeds nearly all Western APFSDS in terms of penetration performance.

Source:

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html

Lokos

[Liptow]

Good info. What were the BM-15 and BK-14 rounds made of? Kinetic or HEAT type?

[Lokos]

The BM-15 had a tungsten-carbide slug, protected by a small armour piercing cap. It was/is an APFSDS round. Until the end of the USSR, this was the most advanced ammunition available to client states. Which, of course, wasn't a great thing for states such as Iraq, which were forced to operate with the BM-15 two decades after it was rendered obsolete.

It is also possible that the Iraqis used the BM-17 - a low technology version of the BM-15 with no slug, but a more developed armour piercing cap to offset the reduction in penetration capability.

All information is courtesy of Vasily Fofanov.

Lokos

Edit: Kinetic. The BK-14 family would be HEAT.

[Stormovik]

All plans referred in this thread speak about using WMD, if you use them, the war is no more conventional, so you go beyond this thread intention. Moreover if STAVKA really thought it was a good idea to use WMD in the opening stage of an invasion they were really stupid. Well, I´m sure they spoke about tactical weapons but they are WMD, so they would get the same response from NATO. Well, I know that someone would speak about attacking the silos and WMD depots with nuclear bombs or spetsnaz but they couldn´t do anything to avoid SLBMs to fire their missiles and not only US Navy had them, UK and France also had them. In addition, they were going to war in order to conquer a place more polluted than Chernobyl, not only radiation but also chemical and biological pollution. Maybe because they don´t agree with the nuclear winter theory it wouldn´t happen.
So they would get MAD. But I´m sure Lokos will give us a speech about how russian supermans would conquer universe using WMD, and deploying a superb strategy, meanwhile NATO fools would die like ducks in a pond, completely unable to do anything right. The only weak point is that they dont´have the guts to attack NATO and overcome their economical and internal problems and Soviet Union disappeared. But don´t worry Lokos and his beloved Vladimir Putin will get a reborn Soviet Union to make their dreams come true.

[number nine]

Stormovik, in war surprise is paramount.

And by using tactical nukes first you get the edge, because airbases and artillery and ammunition depots will be first targets. It's not the enemy will not respond in kind using tactical nukes, but that response will be weaker if you achieve surprise. USSR strategists were quite correct by the way, any conventional engagement between WP and NATO would go nuclear sooner or later, so they put it in the strategy from day one.


So they would get MAD. But I´m sure Lokos will give us a speech about how russian supermans would conquer universe using WMD, and deploying a superb strategy, meanwhile NATO fools would die like ducks in a pond, completely unable to do anything right. The only weak point is that they dont´have the guts to attack NATO and overcome their economical and internal problems and Soviet Union disappeared. But don´t worry Lokos and his beloved Vladimir Putin will get a reborn Soviet Union to make their dreams come true.Mutually assured destruction is always better than destruction of you alone.

[Stormovik]

Surprise is paramount in war, and also is very important to establish a clear objective of starting and waging a war. Their objective would be Soviet Union destruction?,well it´s unlikely. Certainly their objective would be Western Europe conquest, getting their wealths and removing a clear danger to their ideology. If you become Europe in a nuclear wasteland where is the benefit. If you get your country desolated, are you sure you are getting your objectives? Soviet Union only feared a nuclear war not a conventional because they thought that their huge amount of hardware prevent any kind of conventional agression. So a conventional war only would be started by Soviet Union, if they decide to use WMD in the very beginning of the war, US and NATO force could use them more openly, because the statement of not being the first on using nuclear weapons would become void.

[number nine]

Surprise is paramount in war, and also is very important to establish a clear objective of starting and waging a war.

Objective is always destruction of enemy army, and fighting capability of the enemy. There is no other goal in war in military sense.



Their objective would be Soviet Union destruction?,well it´s unlikely.No. Destruction of the enemy.



Certainly their objective would be Western Europe conquest, getting their wealths and removing a clear danger to their ideology.They would be nuked anyway before achieving that!




If you become Europe in a nuclear wasteland where is the benefit. If you get your country desolated, are you sure you are getting your objectives?Objective is in answer No.1.



Soviet Union only feared a nuclear war not a conventional because they thought that their huge amount of hardware prevent any kind of conventional agression. So a conventional war only would be started by Soviet Union, if they decide to use WMD in the very beginning of the war, US and NATO force could use them more openly, because the statement of not being the first on using nuclear weapons would become void.USA and allies would not hold any such promises made earlier! Is that so hard to understand?

[Lokos]

So they would get MAD. But I´m sure Lokos will give us a speech about how russian supermans would conquer universe using WMD, and deploying a superb strategy, meanwhile NATO fools would die like ducks in a pond, completely unable to do anything right. The only weak point is that they dont´have the guts to attack NATO and overcome their economical and internal problems and Soviet Union disappeared. But don´t worry Lokos and his beloved Vladimir Putin will get a reborn Soviet Union to make their dreams come true.

*giggle*

I'm flattered by the high praise. Your guttertalk, however, doesn't interest me.


Moreover if STAVKA really thought it was a good idea to use WMD in the opening stage of an invasion they were really stupid

If only they had your deep analytical skills, I'm sure their planning would have been more ingenious.


Well, I´m sure they spoke about tactical weapons but they are WMD, so they would get the same response from NATO.

NATO had a first-strike nuclear policy until the mid-80s, junior.


In addition, they were going to war in order to conquer a place more polluted than Chernobyl, not only radiation but also chemical and biological pollution

You don't really understand what a tactical nuclear weapon is, do you? And biological pollution? What are you blabbing about?


So a conventional war only would be started by Soviet Union, if they decide to use WMD in the very beginning of the war, US and NATO force could use them more openly, because the statement of not being the first on using nuclear weapons would become void.

Every reliable source we have on the Soviet Union's wartime strategies involved a zero hour release of tactical nuclear weapons. Whether or not that is logical in your mind is entirely besides the point.

To sum up:

You're not a very intelligent human being. You also do not understand basic tenets of modern, strategic warfare. These factors prevent you from joining this discussion in a meaningful manner. I'll ask you to refrain from further posts, because your posts are fantastic DOTW material.

Lokos

[TR1]

LOl, i guess evil Commie nuclear weapons also release chemical and biological toxins.

[Stormovik]

The use of WMD is not restricted to nuclear weapons, and Soviet Union had a huge amount of chemical and biological agents, so why they would use nukes and wouldn´t use chemical or biological agents? In fact using chemical agents would be less dangerous because they don´t persist as long as radiation does.

At last we get to the stupid discussion about tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. If you use a few kilotons bomb to wipe out a division in the front or a divisional HQ near to the front is a tactical attack, I am right? But if you use the same bomb to wipe out the same division in route to the front, maybe in Warsaw or Minsk or Kiev or to destroy WP HQ or Soviet Ministry of Defence as supreme director of enemy forces, is a tactical or a strategic attack? Where do you put the limit to using nuclear weapons once you release the first attack? If you decide to use nuclear weapons you would get the same response and maybe they don´t share your point of view about what is a tactical or a strategic attack. Nato statements about using nuclear weapons were rubbish, because it´s hard to believe that a bunch of politicians worried about their place in history would like to become in humankind destructor. And soviet leadership were more or less the same. There weren´t anybody in love with the martyrdom ideal, capitalism or dialectic materialism don´t create such kind of fanatics, because after all they don´t have any idea of life after death, and you don´t get anything for being a supercommie or capitalist if you are dead.

[Snoshi]

Chemical weapons wont bring the desired result.. Its "weak" comapred to tac nuke.

[Lokos]

so why they would use nukes and wouldn´t use chemical or biological agents?

Because neither chemical nor biological agents of the time (or currently) are truly fit for this role (tactical dispersal).


In fact using chemical agents would be less dangerous because they don´t persist as long as radiation does.


Oh, yes? And how long do you think the radiation released by a tactical nuclear weapon lingers?


But if you use the same bomb to wipe out the same division in route to the front

Yes, a tactical nuclear weapon would be a relevant option. And it would be considered tactical use.


maybe in Warsaw or Minsk or Kiev or to destroy WP HQ or Soviet Ministry of Defence as supreme director of enemy forces, is a tactical or a strategic attack?

A tactical nuclear weapon is defined by its range and its payload. One can use a strategic nuclear weapon tactically. Don't get confused...


Where do you put the limit to using nuclear weapons once you release the first attack?

The limits are illusory and not very well defined at all. Entire books have been written on nuclear escalation. What's your point? Are you seriously contending that the Soviets wouldn't have used nuclear weapons because it doesn't make sense to you? Heh.


Nato statements about using nuclear weapons were rubbish, because it´s hard to believe that a bunch of politicians worried about their place in history would like to become in humankind destructor

... An adequate response escapes me. Seriously, think about leaving this topic for the grown-ups.

Lokos

[Stormovik]

Lokos I´m sure your are trully happy of meeting yourself but **** you and your supposed adult opinions about anything.

[CountZero]

Lokos just a question , given the usage of nukes from day 1 to make holes in Natos defensive lines
wouldnt the WP run into problems due to irradiated ground?

[Hellfish]

Lokos just a question , given the usage of nukes from day 1 to make holes in Natos defensive lines
wouldnt the WP run into problems due to irradiated ground?

Most Pact vehicles were designed to exploit nuclear holes in the lines. The tanks and BMPs could be sealed and driven through the irradiated ground and later decontaminated.

[klorophil]

Very interesting topic with some very good posts.

However, I find it difficult to believe that Warpac would have won.I'm not an expert on ground warfare and tactics but I do understand the concept of combined arms.The Soviets would have used their Mi-24s, Su-25s etc. to soften the defensive lines.In a kind of airborne artillery.But what if they didn't have air superiority.Especially during the 60s as the first post asks about.

I mean yes they had huge numbers of aircrafts available.But most of them were at least a generation behind american or NATO equipment.In that sense I believe that NATO would have enjoyed air superiority over Europe.Meaning that they could stike at the logistical tail of a Warpac offensive.

As I understand it a single motorized rifle division would not have been able to breach the defenses by itself relying on a continuous wave of such divisions headbutting itself on a static line.Without a pause or slackening in the offense it surely would have worked.But how plausible is this continuous attack if your rear areas get pomelled by airstrikes and bombardments?

[Mordoror]

first thanks for the necroanimation of the thread
now some answers :

that statement :
But most of them were at least a generation behind american or NATO equipment
is false until let's say around 1986-1987

before Mig23 and F16A/B or Tornado or F4 (the last ones being the bunch of NATO airforces) were at the same level
and it you come back earlier Mig21 and A4 for example were at the same level

the gap was technologically effective after the middle-end of the 80s not before
in that sense (even if the gap was not SO huge...afterall Mig29 were not bad and totally equivalent of the latest NATO fighters of that time F18 or F16C/D but less available)
so the sentence
I believe that NATO would have enjoyed air superiority over Europe is supposed true only under some conditions
extrem using of AEW systems that were available to NATO and suppression attacks either conventionnal or nuke on the airports of the Warsaw pact

to be clear in front line battle "1 vs 1" without strategic actions the sheer number of Warsaw pact fighters would have not allowed such an easy NATO air superiorit
(and i am not even talking about the soviet SAM grid that in any case may have rendered that air superiority painful to maintain at a tactical (battlefield) or even strategical (rear of the battelfield) level ...


As I understand it a single motorized rifle division would not have been able to breach the defenses by itself relying on a continuous wave of such divisions headbutting itself on a static line


sorry to correct you again but the "wave" tactic was a dream or nightmare of NATO generals
Motorized units were not done to operate alone
they had powerful artillery unit associated to allow the suppression of ennemy's positions, support unit (like engineers) to facilitate the river crossing .... etc

and were though for manover not head but tactic
Yes the number would have helped but assessing that the soviet would have relied only on massed attacks wave style is assessing that soviet generals were a bunch of idiots
i guess that except in strongly difficult areas (because of the terrain or/and oppsotion) the tactic of artillery rain followed by massive frontal attack would have be the exception rather than the rule

as i said above the motorized units are well suited for mobile punch .... not using their mobility and using them only as some kind of (lightly) armored WWI front infantry charging through muddy trenches would have been stupid

[TR1]

Indeed, the supposed WP air force inferiority escapes me. the most problematic period would have been around 1980. At this time, with the imminent widespread introduction of F-16s, 15s, 14s, the Soviet Union would have been in a disadvantageous position. By later 1980s position more or less equalized, one must keep in mind at this time MiG-23 for example was far better at BVR than the F-16, AMRAAM had not yet entered service, Mig-29 with helmet mounted sight and r-73 combo was in widespread use, not to mention MiG-31 and Su-27.

[Hellfish]

Indeed, the supposed WP air force inferiority escapes me. the most problematic period would have been around 1980. At this time, with the imminent widespread introduction of F-16s, 15s, 14s, the Soviet Union would have been in a disadvantageous position. By later 1980s position more or less equalized, one must keep in mind at this time MiG-23 for example was far better at BVR than the F-16, AMRAAM had not yet entered service, Mig-29 with helmet mounted sight and r-73 combo was in widespread use, not to mention MiG-31 and Su-27.


Everything I've heard about the MiG-23 is bad. I've never heard a good thing about it, even from pilots who've flown it.

[TR1]

Thats a misconception often heard. I have talked to PVO pilots who flew the 23 (actually one of them gave me a ride in a Yak-52), they dont have such critism of the machine. I would recommend Yefim Gordon's book on it, if you are interested. It was no superfighter sure, BUT:
1.) due to variable wings, take off and landing characteristics were very good, better than most contemporaries. This is important when ur runways are half vaporized.
2.) It gave the SU a look down capability with radar on a widely deployed frontal aviation figter. This was in itself a big imporovement.
3.) In terms of straight acceleration and supersonic performance, it was no worse than any contemporaries
4.) By the time the MLD variant was in service, the type had respectable radar performance and BVR ability, and was not an abysmal dofighter either (a myth created by Flogger haters). Sure, it was a bad match for the F-15, but what was mostly encountered in Europe? F-16s (total mismatch in the BVR department), F-4s, Mirages.....and it could hande them without much problem.


Its really amazing the amount of crap that plane gets. I typically don't read Cold War Western books on Soviet machinery (nor the other way around) but having read say "The Great book of modern warplanes", the MiG-23 entry was utterly worthless, innacurate, and entirely non proffesional.

[Hellfish]

Thats a misconception often heard. I have talked to PVO pilots who flew the 23 (actually one of them gave me a ride in a Yak-52), they dont have such critism of the machine. I would recommend Yefim Gordon's book on it, if you are interested. It was no superfighter sure, BUT:
1.) due to variable wings, take off and landing characteristics were very good, better than most contemporaries. This is important when ur runways are half vaporized.

The irony is that the biggest complaint I've heard about the MiG-23 is it's landing and take off propensity to stall or lose lift.

[klorophil]

first thanks for the necroanimation of the thread
now some answers :

that statement :
is false until let's say around 1986-1987

before Mig23 and F16A/B or Tornado or F4 (the last ones being the bunch of NATO airforces) were at the same level
and it you come back earlier Mig21 and A4 for example were at the same level

The MiG-21 was strictly a WVR fighter during all of the cold war.The USAF and some NATO air forces had access to BVR missiles before that.Also, comparing the A-4 to the MiG-21 does the former some injustice since it was a basically a strike aircraft certainly not designed for air superiority.

Depending on the period the most numerous fighters for Warpac would have been the MiG-17/19, the MiG-21 and the MiG-23.In front you would have had the F-86, the F-4 and later the F-15.From the F-15 onward the USAF had the major advantage of a very potent AEW umbrella coupled with a very powerful BVR fighter.The MiG-23 was simply no match for that.Even in its latest version it couldn't compete with the F-15 in BVR and WVR combat.

The MiG-29 changed some of that but was still a rather poor BVR platform.And in anyway was never in such numbers as the MiG-23.

The F-4 vs. MiG-21 might have been a more closely fought battle but experience from Vietnam would have adapted the F-4 plane and pilots to the capabilities of the MiG-21.Near the end of the hostilities in Vietnam most F-4 came on top when faced with the MiG-21.

The Phantom II had a powerful radar while the -21 only had a rangefinder for dogfights etc.If the MiG-21s escaped the first wave of Sparrows then thing could get out of hand for the F-4s.But I doubt a sane flight leader would have let that happen.

The F-86 vs. MiG-17/19 would have been much more closely fought, but I would say from the Korean War that the averge USAF pilot would have come on top.


the gap was technologically effective after the middle-end of the 80s not before
in that sense (even if the gap was not SO huge...afterall Mig29 were not bad and totally equivalent of the latest NATO fighters of that time F18 or F16C/D but less available)
so the sentence is supposed true only under some conditions
extrem using of AEW systems that were available to NATO and suppression attacks either conventionnal or nuke on the airports of the Warsaw pact

to be clear in front line battle "1 vs 1" without strategic actions the sheer number of Warsaw pact fighters would have not allowed such an easy NATO air superiorit
(and i am not even talking about the soviet SAM grid that in any case may have rendered that air superiority painful to maintain at a tactical (battlefield) or even strategical (rear of the battelfield) level ...

Again I would answer the same as above as for the SAM grid.Well with air superiority achieved over the battlefield this would have made space for the Iron Hand F-105s and later the F-4Gs and F-16Cs as well as the EF-111A Raven to soften that up.Not to forget the whole Tornado and F-111 strike flights flying Nap of Earth to destroy the airfields, depots, and sam sites.It would have been bloody but IMO would have done the job.


sorry to correct you again but the "wave" tactic was a dream or nightmare of NATO generals
Motorized units were not done to operate alone
they had powerful artillery unit associated to allow the suppression of ennemy's positions, support unit (like engineers) to facilitate the river crossing .... etc

and were though for manover not head but tactic
Yes the number would have helped but assessing that the soviet would have relied only on massed attacks wave style is assessing that soviet generals were a bunch of idiots
i guess that except in strongly difficult areas (because of the terrain or/and oppsotion) the tactic of artillery rain followed by massive frontal attack would have be the exception rather than the rule

as i said above the motorized units are well suited for mobile punch .... not using their mobility and using them only as some kind of (lightly) armored WWI front infantry charging through muddy trenches would have been stupid

Agreed I just simplified a bit to make my point.Still all of this maneuver without air superiority would have been difficult to achieve.But granted that if Warpac enjoyed a manner of superiority in the air it would have been free to maneuver all its armies around.

I didn't see the air dimension discussed that's why I made my first post as I think that it would have proven pivotal in a victory or defeat of either side.Just look at modern conflicts to see how much air superiority is important.

P.S: Sorry for the late reply.

[klorophil]

Thats a misconception often heard. I have talked to PVO pilots who flew the 23 (actually one of them gave me a ride in a Yak-52), they dont have such critism of the machine. I would recommend Yefim Gordon's book on it, if you are interested. It was no superfighter sure, BUT:
1.) due to variable wings, take off and landing characteristics were very good, better than most contemporaries. This is important when ur runways are half vaporized.
2.) It gave the SU a look down capability with radar on a widely deployed frontal aviation figter. This was in itself a big imporovement.
3.) In terms of straight acceleration and supersonic performance, it was no worse than any contemporaries
4.) By the time the MLD variant was in service, the type had respectable radar performance and BVR ability, and was not an abysmal dofighter either (a myth created by Flogger haters). Sure, it was a bad match for the F-15, but what was mostly encountered in Europe? F-16s (total mismatch in the BVR department), F-4s, Mirages.....and it could hande them without much problem.


Its really amazing the amount of crap that plane gets. I typically don't read Cold War Western books on Soviet machinery (nor the other way around) but having read say "The Great book of modern warplanes", the MiG-23 entry was utterly worthless, innacurate, and entirely non proffesional.

The MiG-23 in isolation is not a bad aircraft.Especially its strike variants.Against the F-4 it would have been a closely fought battle but it certainly was not a match for the F-15 and the F-16 during the Cold War.

The F-15 totally outmatched it in radar power, BVR capabilities as well as close-in fights.It had more range, more endurance and more reliability.You could have destroyed the airfields the F-15 used in continental Europe but it still would have had enough range to depart from any UK airfields and stay on station over the German battlefield.Something the MiG-23 could only dream of.

The F-16A's lack of a BVR missile is clearly overrated.Common practice for the MiG-23 would have been to follow GCI commands and light up its radar at the last minute for a missile launch.The F-16A with its APG-66 would have spotted the MiG at about the same range as the latter could do if it was given more liberties of action.It was not the case however.What the F-16 had and the MiG-23 had not was situationnal awareness.IMO the single most important aspect of aerial warfare.The F-16 aided by AWACS would have been able to maneuvre itself in a way as to negate the MiG-23s missile shot.And in anyway the R-23s used were not really good missile for a maneuvring target and had somewhat short ranges.

Finally try not to forget that the european F-16As received AIM-7 capability fairly early in the 1980s and that the F-16C entered service with the USAF in 1984.At that time the MiG-29 was only entering service inside Russia and joined the 16th Air Army much later.So NATO would have faced scores of MiG-23s and had the counter to that in the form of the F-15 and F-16 which could, in your word, handle the MiG-23 without much problem.

[Mordoror]

@Klorophil


P.S: Sorry for the late reply.

first no problem, dude ;-)

Now while i agree most (technical) parts of your posts i was just trying to balance it with a fact : the air superiority of NATO over WP would not have been easy to obtain in any case (even if regularly we can read here and there the contrary)

comparing aircraft by aircraft is one thing but the overall picture is in fact important
For example by late 70s early 80s the bulk of the Bundeswaffe was F104/F4 which were the more or less the same class than the Mig23/Su15
F15 were excellent for their period (and still very good birds) but the "same" level that Mig25

as ever i am deeply convinced that instead of discussing which aircraft would have allowed to obtain the AS, we should discuss iether the pilots and ground staff qualities (and both were good but with up and down depending the country concerned and the period) and the doctrine

for example you are talking about deep rear of the battlefield hits from NATO F111/Tornado
the same (and to a larger extend in fact) was existing in WP with SU24 deep penetration low level bombers aimed to destroy NATO airfield associated with SRBM and MRBM conventionnal or chemically equiped
in fact if you look the sheer number of fighters there is no match between NATo and WP the last behing far above the first

if we look the average quality of existent birds i will say it depends of the period but i am not convinced that for example 1 or 2 or 3 F15 squadron would have changed the frame of the war in late 70s (as 1 or 2 or 3 squadron of Mig29/Su27 would have not changed the frame of the war in late 80s)

now about the doctrine as i have understood the soviet and WP pilots had a far more rigid opertaing rules than NATO pilots and relyied much more to ground control when the last relyied much more to air control : THAT may have changed the war

but nobody would never know and that's better like that

and just a famous quote : "two soviet generals meet in a coffee in Paris; The first one ask the second : "do you know who won the air war ?"

No offence but i think that the military spirit in US is very much (too much ?) sticked with the idea of importance of air superiority (reinforced with the results of the GW1); Sure it is important but if your ennemy has doctrine tou counter it (like serbian forces who still manoeuvered proprely under total NATO superiority during the Kosovo campaign) you can lower that importance and still use your ground tropps efficiently

[matthew.manhorn]

AFAIK The Soviet Union itself outnumbered NATO 3:1 in Europe, don't even talk about the Warsaw Pact. USA might not have the air superiority during 1964 since F-15 wasn't in production plus USSR had good fighters+AA missiles. But since the US navy was way superior it might be a trump card for NATO

[TR1]

The MiG-23 in isolation is not a bad aircraft.Especially its strike variants.Against the F-4 it would have been a closely fought battle but it certainly was not a match for the F-15 and the F-16 during the Cold War.

I disagree. by the 1980s, when significant numbers of F-15s and F-16s appeared in Europe, the MiG-23 was out in force in ML, MLA, and MLD variants. These were not terrible dogfighter in any way (despite enduring claims that it could not outdogfight a bomber), and had quite respectable radar ranges. Against the F-4 these aircraft would have had no problem in either BVR or WVR, against F-16 BVR was a heavy advantage, and of course the F-15 was ascendant in both areas. It's intersting, the Soviet Union published a manual for MiG-23MLD Export Pilots, on the capability of the MiG-23, and while they admitted without hesitance the toughness of the F-15, the F-16 was not seen as a particularily nasty threat in any way to a Flogger pilot.

The F-15 totally outmatched it in radar power, BVR capabilities as well as close-in fights.It had more range, more endurance and more reliability.You could have destroyed the airfields the F-15 used in continental Europe but it still would have had enough range to depart from any UK airfields and stay on station over the German battlefield.Something the MiG-23 could only dream of.
No arguments there, but how many F-15s were deployed in Europe (Before MiG-29 and SU-27 arrived in numbers?)

The F-16A's lack of a BVR missile is clearly overrated.
I completely disagree. It always amuses me how the West argues that the F-4 had superiority over the MiG-21 due to BRV arnament, but the argument is flipped around when talking about the F-16 and MiG-23.

Common practice for the MiG-23 would have been to follow GCI commands and light up its radar at the last minute for a missile launch.
I was not aware you were well aquainted with MiG-23 pilot tactics. I am however well aware of the falacy of the Western claims that all Soviet pilots were utterly tied in to GCI. Frontal Aviation for example made much less use of this than PVO. A few Flogger pilots I have talked to were actually sort of insulted at such insinuations :).

The F-16A with its APG-66 would have spotted the MiG at about the same range as the latter could do if it was given more liberties of action.It was not the case however.What the F-16 had and the MiG-23 had not was situationnal awareness.IMO the single most important aspect of aerial warfare.The F-16 aided by AWACS would have been able to maneuvre itself in a way as to negate the MiG-23s missile shot
I'm not sure how the F-16 has situational awareness that the MiG-23 does not. the MLA and MLD has radars with better range than APG-66 (also better than APG-68 I believe, although the 68 was far more advanced in ground attack modes, and in terms of discrimination, # of targets tracked, etc). Sure, the West had a powerfull AWACS force, but one could argue it would be heavily dented, if not destroyed outright if a conflict ever came to a head. Airfields for the planes were very vulnerble, they may have been shot down by Su-27s, MiG-31s, even S-200s. Also don't forget the SU had its own AWACS aircraft, though far less in number. ground stations would have helped patch the gap in any case.

.And in anyway the R-23s used were not really good missile for a maneuvring target and had somewhat short ranges.
The R-24 was well spread through the force by the mid 80s, and it was a pretty good missile for the time.


Finally try not to forget that the european F-16As received AIM-7 capability fairly early in the 1980s and that the F-16C entered service with the USAF in 1984.
What? Where did you get this? First time I hear this. The Sparrow was planned for the F-16, but they just decided to wait for AMRAAM (which was not deployed untill Cold War was over). I have never seen European F-16s carry Sparrows. Not to mention up through the 80s, 90% of the F-16s in "big 4" European service were A models, and had no Sparrow capability even if they wanted it. The first F-16s in the US to actually be deployed with Sparrow, were the 260 or something F-16ADFs for the National Guard. All of these were deployed on the US mainland, and no conversions were done before 1989. So, capabale or not, the F-16 had no real BVR use untill the end of the Cold War.

At that time the MiG-29 was only entering service inside Russia and joined the 16th Air Army much later.
As I said, thats why I think 1980 would have been a touch year for the Soviet Air force. Of course, the entire US air force was not deployed in Europe, not even close. For the record, the MiG-29 started front line deliveries in 1980. By the late 1980s, the Soviet Air forces in Europe alone had over 700 MiG-29s (And another 500 or so Su-27s were not far behind).

So NATO would have faced scores of MiG-23s and had the counter to that in the form of the F-15 and F-16 which could, in your word, handle the MiG-23 without much problem.
F-15, yes. F-16, well, read above for my viewpoint on that.
And even mighty F-15 would have been bogged down by utter numerical inferiority.


............................................................

[klorophil]

Now while i agree most (technical) parts of your posts i was just trying to balance it with a fact : the air superiority of NATO over WP would not have been easy to obtain in any case (even if regularly we can read here and there the contrary)

Then we are in total agreement.My opinion is only that if air superiority was achieved by either side it would most likely have been NATO.And they probably would have been the ones better trained/tought to exploit it.However, I don't think air superiority would have been achieved at the start of the conflict.It would have taken many weeks to grind through the WarPac arsenal.I think that by that time WarPac ground forces could have been well inside West Germany.The NATO air forces would have had superiority but could only use it to harass the Soviet ground formations and delay their advance.However, this might have helped NATO ground forces time to resupply/re-organize and make a counter-attack.


comparing aircraft by aircraft is one thing but the overall picture is in fact important
For example by late 70s early 80s the bulk of the Bundeswaffe was F104/F4 which were the more or less the same class than the Mig23/Su15
F15 were excellent for their period (and still very good birds) but the "same" level that Mig25

as ever i am deeply convinced that instead of discussing which aircraft would have allowed to obtain the AS, we should discuss iether the pilots and ground staff qualities (and both were good but with up and down depending the country concerned and the period) and the doctrine

I will go a little bit philosophical here if you permit.Aircrafts by themselves are highly technical weapons.Especially talking about BVR combat.Whatever the doctrine or training curriculum.The aircraft that can see farther and shoot longer will normally come out on top.Thus I find it quite important to compare the hardware available to both sides since IMHO it is the ultimate arbiter in air warfare.

In my view pilot training is important only in that it will allow the said pilot to exploit his machines to the fullest and place himself in an advantageous position over his adversary.The best training cannot overcome the deficiencies of your aircraft.

Since the 16th Air Army and most NATO air forces had similar level of training, then it becomes advantageous to compare their hardware.

In ground warfare things are very different.No matter if you have an AK-47 or an M-16 the squad/soldier who will be able to surprise or out think the enemy will win.

You can do the same in aerial warfare but superior technologies makes your job so much easier and ultimately more successful.


for example you are talking about deep rear of the battlefield hits from NATO F111/Tornado
the same (and to a larger extend in fact) was existing in WP with SU24 deep penetration low level bombers aimed to destroy NATO airfield associated with SRBM and MRBM conventionnal or chemically equiped
in fact if you look the sheer number of fighters there is no match between NATo and WP the last behing far above the first

True.However, the success of such missions would have depended on who had the control of the upper sky.Say its NATO, the Su-24s would have had a very rough time, as when it entered wide-spread service the F-15 did the same and it brought with it a look-down/shoot-down capability.Moreover, the E-3 Sentry was also in service and this also had a very powerful look-down capability.

Now say the WarPac has gained the upper hand.The job of the F-111 or Tornado would have been a bit easier.At the time of the F-111 introduction no russian fighter had a look-down/shoot-down capability hence the nap of earth tactic.WarPac would have relied on its SAM umbrella to deal with the F-111.Again as proved during the Vietnam war soviet SAMs were not particularly effective against it.Latter the MiG-23 could have changed that because it was the first Soviet fighter with look-down/shoot-down capability.IMO only then would the job have been really difficult to achieve.

Sans air superiority both the Su-24 and F-111 would probably have failed their mission.


if we look the average quality of existent birds i will say it depends of the period but i am not convinced that for example 1 or 2 or 3 F15 squadron would have changed the frame of the war in late 70s (as 1 or 2 or 3 squadron of Mig29/Su27 would have not changed the frame of the war in late 80s)

True.One or two squadrons of high-tech birds would not have changed much if faced with an entire air army of mildly inferior aircrafts.

But I think I'm right in saying that shipping most of the F-15 squadrons from CONUS to Europe was much less difficult to do then ship most of the US Army.The F-15 can fly very long distances and reinforcement of the F-15 squadrons in Europe would have been easy.

The same cannot be said of the MiG-29 or Su-27.BTW, the Su-27 at the time was in service with the IA-PVO, the independent air defense arm tasked with defending the Soviet Union itself.IIRC, they would not have been employed in an offensive role, same goes for the MiG-25 and MiG-31 or any older interceptors.Again IIRC there were only two regiments of Su-27 in Frontal Aviation and only one was stationned in Poland.I think the other was in the Far East.So that left the dozen or so regiments of MiG-29s which could reinforce the 16th Air Army.But then again the rigidity of the Soviet command probably would have prohibited such reinforcements.Moreover, the 16th Air Army was the best trained element of the whole Frontal Aviation, flying standards in lesser units were not as good if a little bit poor compared to your average NATO pilot.


No offence but i think that the military spirit in US is very much (too much ?) sticked with the idea of importance of air superiority (reinforced with the results of the GW1); Sure it is important but if your ennemy has doctrine tou counter it (like serbian forces who still manoeuvered proprely under total NATO superiority during the Kosovo campaign) you can lower that importance and still use your ground tropps efficiently

None taken.But I disagree though.While it's true that Serbian forces were able to operate.It was mostly light infantry units tasked with ethnic cleansing.The major units with tanks and IFVs and APCs were effectively neutralized because they could not venture out of their hiding spot for fear of being blown apart.Also the entire infrastructure behind this army was destroyed.They were able to operate against a lightly armed enemy which used guerilla tactics but their effectiveness against a NATO ground offensive would have been close to zero.They certainly had lost their freedom of movement.Just a shame that nobody wanted to go in as they were able to dislodge/kill hundreds of thousands of people.

[TR1]

The same cannot be said of the MiG-29 or Su-27.BTW, the Su-27 at the time was in service with the IA-PVO, the independent air defense arm tasked with defending the Soviet Union itself.
Thats not true. PVo got some Su-27s, but most went to Frontal Aviation. For example by the early 90s there were something like 120-150 Su-27s in PVO, but VVS had over 500.
IIRC, they would not have been employed in an offensive role, same goes for the MiG-25 and MiG-31 or any older interceptors.
MiG-31, true, would probably have been reserved for defense, cruise missile and bomber intercpetions, etc. Su-27? Doubt it, one of its roles was to take out AWACs support of Western air forces.
Again IIRC there were only two regiments of Su-27 in Frontal Aviation and only one was stationned in Poland.I think the other was in the Far East.So that left the dozen or so regiments of MiG-29s which could reinforce the 16th Air Army.But then again the rigidity of the Soviet command probably would have prohibited such reinforcements.Moreover, the 16th Air Army was the best trained element of the whole Frontal Aviation, flying standards in lesser units were not as good if a little bit poor compared to your average NATO pilot.
Do you have any proof for such claims? VVS Pilots would disagree.


None taken.But I disagree though.While it's true that Serbian forces were able to operate.It was mostly light infantry units tasked with ethnic cleansing.The major units with tanks and IFVs and APCs were effectively neutralized because they could not venture out of their hiding spot for fear of being blown apart.Also the entire infrastructure behind this army was destroyed.They were able to operate against a lightly armed enemy which used guerilla tactics but their effectiveness against a NATO ground offensive would have been close to zero.They certainly had lost their freedom of movement.Just a shame that nobody wanted to go in as they were able to dislodge/kill hundreds of thousands of people.
..............................

[PEMM]

So, what would you think would happen with Finland? We had YYA agreement with Soviets, but in other hand officers of defense force had agreements with NATO countries in case war would brake out. (according to documentary i watched some time ago)

[Mordoror]

So, what would you think would happen with Finland? We had YYA agreement with Soviets, but in other hand officers of defense force had agreements with NATO countries in case war would brake out. (according to documentary i watched some time ago)

for the neutral countries i guess it would have depended of the extand and ferocity of the conflict
don't fool yourself in case of all - out WP-NATO conflict keeping a neutral stance would ahve been very difficult
for example Finland is too much close to Leningrad and the SU baltic navy and air bases for its own good
either that front would have been open to neutralize a possible Nordic offensive on Leningrad/Kaliningrad/ Baltic states/Northern Poland
either NATO would have used Finland possibly against its will for a beach head against those same targets

the same was going for Austria which was on the path of a part of the WP armies, Yougoslavia which was a key position in the possible southern front and even Switzerland (but here to a less extand as Switzerland could be easilly avoided by North and South path ....)

[Mordoror]

@klorophil


None taken.But I disagree though.While it's true that Serbian forces were able to operate.It was mostly light infantry units tasked with ethnic cleansing.The major units with tanks and IFVs and APCs were effectively neutralized because they could not venture out of their hiding spot for fear of being blown apart.Also the entire infrastructure behind this army was destroyed.They were able to operate against a lightly armed enemy which used guerilla tactics but their effectiveness against a NATO ground offensive would have been close to zero.They certainly had lost their freedom of movement.i somewhat disagree here
while heavy constitued unit movement was somewhat empered, they still were able to operate armor/artillery and even helo and fighter bombers under heavy NATO AS. The command was just decentralized and autonomy was given to lower ranks in order to operate comabt groups more independantly but still efficiently

moreover the infrastructure of that army was never destroyed as you suggest
to convince yourself i 'll give just some hints :
still able to fight properly after 60 days of continuous bombing without shortage of ammo or supplies
still able to redraw properly and without disorder just hours sometimes minutes after the peace agreement
still able to operate in infrastructure destroyed areas (as some armor were seen moving through humide breaches even during the NATO AS period of the campaign)
still able to coordonate air defense until the last days and to create ambushes or surprise tactics against NATO aircrafts
still fully operationnal on the tactical level with low amount of losses (less than 3 for 1000 and less that 20 MBTs and seldom handful artillery and light armor elements

the command chain was a web dichotomic grid not a pyramidal one like the iraki. It couldn't and wasn't beheaded by NATO strikes
Sure the stance was defensive but it can give you an idea of how proper tactics could impere an all out AS in a central europe configuration
in fact i disagree your conclusion : a land operation of NATO forces would have been painful even with total air superiority

on the other hand if we come back on the topic that's a two edge sword and its shows in case of a WP-NATO conflict how the weaker side concerning AS could have won time and space over the stronger side
of course such serbian tactics are more difficult to implemente when in full armored offensive like that could have been done by soviet units and would have been more usefull to NATO defensive stance ....

[Lokos]

While it's true that Serbian forces were able to operate.It was mostly light infantry units tasked with ethnic cleansing.

What rubbish you speak.

L.

[Atlantic Friend]

One can use a strategic nuclear weapon tactically. Don't get confused...

Can one actually ? If the enemy radars picks up strategic birds being launched, will he care if the range of the missiles is limited to what a tactical nuke could have reached ?

[Mordoror]

Can one actually ? If the enemy radars picks up strategic birds being launched, will he care if the range of the missiles is limited to what a tactical nuke could have reached ?

that's certainly a risk

but what about a bomber with its plain payload of "strategical" warheads (between 150-250-500 KT) launching them either by dull bombs or cruise missiles on tactical targets

anyway the limit is very "intelectual"

a nuke bursting over a military airfield on the rear of the battlefield is considered like what ? : tactical or strategical ?
from a tactical point of view you destroy 1 or 2 regiment of fighters- fighters/bombers
from a strategical point of view you destroy a hard military position thta may have been useful for the strategic conducing of the war (by allowing airborn bridge to bring ammo/supplies/new troops)

in the same idea if you launch a tactical warhead on a armored spearhead beachhead on a large river, do you consider it as a tactical attack on the tank elements or a strategical one on the bridges and roadgrid ?

[Lokos]

Atlantic Friend:

The remark was a semantic rebuttal of a perception that the line between a tactical and a strategic nuclear weapon is anything more than an issue of range and payload - Stormovik had mistakenly conflated the nuclear weapon families and labored under the notion that their nomenclature is based purely on their purposive intent. But yes, you can use a strategic nuclear weapon tactically (in a purposive sense), and yes, it will probably begin a general strategic nuclear conflagration.

L.

[Atlantic Friend]

Atlantic Friend:

The remark was a semantic rebuttal of a perception that....

L.

In this we are in complete agreement.

Wouldn't the Soviet plan's "nuclear overture" have been an example of the contrary, in your opinion, as the tactical nukes would have been used strategically to dislocate NATO lines and pave the way to a very strategic advance into Western Europe ?

As such I wonder if the NATO reply would have been tactical in nature, with key battlegrounds - and key allies - about to be lost.

[Lokos]

10-50kt strikes against military installations, fixed positions, logistical hubs etc can be considered strategic attacks using tactical nuclear weapons. The NATO response would likely have been in the same category. The move to 150+ kt weapons would have been very serious, indeed, whichever side took that plunge first.

L.

[drunken sailor]

You all have to remember that this scenario would have never ever happened because the U.S. doctrine for fighting Russia that was designed by Gen.Curtis Lemay and Admiral Hyman Rickover was complete devastation of Russia by overwhelming air and sea power. Our aim was to send land based missiles backed by bombers and fighters and after they had done their job then subs would unleash hell.

While the Warsaw Pact had the numbers NATO was not far behind in the Europe standoff and I for one believe that the overwhelming quality of our tanks and troops would have won any conventional battle should they not run out of ammo or fuel.

[Mordoror]

You all have to remember that this scenario would have never ever happened because the U.S. doctrine for fighting Russia that was designed by Gen.Curtis Lemay and Admiral Hyman Rickover was complete devastation of Russia by overwhelming air and sea power. Our aim was to send land based missiles backed by bombers and fighters and after they had done their job then subs would unleash hell.

While the Warsaw Pact had the numbers NATO was not far behind in the Europe standoff and I for one believe that the overwhelming quality of our tanks and troops would have won any conventional battle should they not run out of ammo or fuel.

so simply way of thinking :roll:

are you really sure that the brass in USA would have unleashed nuclear hell (with the certainty of nuclear retaliation on US soil leading to the waste of both belligerants) because of a conventional action in center europe
I am not so sure of that .....

and concerning your second assessment excuse me but it is a plain rubbish and shows how "propaganda" have gone in US educationnal system concerning that period
first NATO was outnumber 1 to 4 for MBTs, 1 to 5 to artillery and 1 to 2 or 3 for infantry on european soil
would have been different if USA was physically linked to europe but it was not the case and bringing troops by sea and air convoy would have not changed those ratios quickly

and concerning the "overwhelming" quality of the US and to a larger extend NATO equipment and troop qualities i dare to disagree
to make it simplier (if we talk about ground warfare now)

from 1945 to to middle 1950s NATO equipment and training of the troops was somewhat equal than soviet one (with stronger and weaker areas i.e stronger being for example combined battle doctrine, weaker being armor equipment and doctrine). Moreover, at that time NATO except UK/USA and to a lesser extend France was weaker than that it would be years after as some pillars were not yet renewed (Germany army at that time was still under forming)

in the 1960 and until middle 1970s the equipment of WP pact for ground warfare was above NATO's one in several areas (tanks for example, but also MLRS and artillery and not talking about SAM systems)
training of NATO was up and down at that time especially for US forces with low morale due to Vietnamese conflict

things were better after 1970s with introduction of heavy MBT (Chieftain/Leopard) and a large extend of availabilty for Antitank missiles (Milan/Cobra/Dragoon) associated with the proper defensive doctrine. The training was also better

afterthat during the 1980s the equipment was quite the same
you can compare
M1 (with 105 mm and no DU armor) or Leo (120 mm) vs T72A/T80 with ERA
M113 and after 1984/1985 Bradley vs BMP1/BMP2
large introduction of MLRS to match the BM21/31 .... etc

the balance of power clearly came in favor of west after 1990s in matter of equipment (largely due to the collapse of the SU and its military industry but also in technological advances made in armor alloys and artillery and tanks warheads and combat electronics ....) and in the training when most of NATO armies became professional
not before

anyway if you are so entitled to be sure that for instance US troops were so superior through all the post WWII period i shall find you some footage of exercices in the middle 1960s where the best trained and equiped elements were the bundeswher, not the US army (with exercices results leading regularly to kill ratio of 14-16 to 1 for the germans ....)

[G-AWZT]

The Soviet/WP thrust which would be centered in Central Europe would've opened other fronts from Turkey, the Med, Yugo, Finland, and northern Norway.
I simply cannot envision the Soviet armed forces not using tac nukes or chem weapons against all NATO airbases, command and control centers and supply areas.

[Mordoror]

The Soviet/WP thrust which would be centered in Central Europe would've opened other fronts from Turkey, the Med, Yugo, Finland, and northern Norway.
I simply cannot envision the Soviet armed forces not using tac nukes or chem weapons against all NATO airbases, command and control centers and supply areas.

not so sure

*Turkey would have been possibly involved by any action through the straits (any move from the Black Sea Fleet to go in warm waters for instance ...)

*Finland would have been possibly involved because of its threatening position to Baltic states ports/Kaliningrad/Leningrad
and because it is on the path of any amphibious assault action from Kaliningrad/Northern Poland to Danemark/Khiel Canal/Northern Germany

*Norway would have been possibly involved as the control of Western and Northern part of Norway brings SU bombers nearer to UK and GIUK line of reinforcment of Europe

*Yugo : it is more unlikely but depending of the action, it was on the path of any Bulgarian/Romanian/Hungarian army intended to outflank the central front by a southern pincer move (would have been worthy it is another question)

finally concerning your questionning about use of nuke and chemical weapons on airbases and C&C bases, some soviet plan were clear on that : tacnuke would have been used to clear the path
anyway other battlefield plans were not involving any nuke
it was all about a political decision then ....

[G-AWZT]

So we know that Soviet airpower circa 1983 wasn't capable of air dominance over West Europe unless they used tac nukes or chem weapons against ALL NATO airbases in W. Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium.

[one-niner]

Great thread.

I'd like to know the more knowledgeable members' thought on the following paradoxes:

NATO would be fighting in their home countries, which would make the tactical use of WMD less desirable. However, NATO were the underdogs in the European theater and in order to slow the enemy's advance, the introduction of tactical nukes would have helped even the odds a bit.

WAPA, on the other hand, had the upper hand and wouldn't have had an interest in slowing anything down. But if tactical nukes were to be used, at least it wouldn't have been on their own territory.

So
- Who would have fired the first tactical nuke?
- Did this change up through The Cold War?
- Did the Chernobyl disaster change things?