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

[CoRe]

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 prone 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 prone 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 prone 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 strategi