Cold War - NATO southern Flank - Italy

[zema_06]

Today i found this old topic http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...nventional-war

regarding the possibility of a non nuclear war between the two blocks in the 1980s i europe...i thought about the situation of the italian armed forces at the time and the possibility that they could hold back a russian advance with only conventional forces:

at the time (1980s) the us forces in italy where:

1 parachute infantry battalion in vicenza and a field artillery battery (105mm)
112 BGM-109 in comiso, sicily
Nas capodichino with some helicopters
Nas Sigonelly with on rotational basis P-3 Orion and helicopters
La Maddalena NS with a submarine tender and submarines on rotational basis
Aviano AB with units on permanent rotation
Camp Darby ammunition base

Back in the day there where no serious prepositioned american stocks in italy aside from amunition and artillery and air launched nuclear warheads.

The italian army, was underequipped, undertrained and most if not all the equipment was obsolete. Most conscripts fired an average of 90 rounds of rifle ammunition in their 12 months of service. On paper the armoured forces where equipped with 1200 tanks (leopards and m60a1) but those had never been upgraded since they where acquired in the 60s and 70s...some units had even m47s, especially the armoured reconaissance battalions...The only branch of the army which had better training and equipment was the artillery, with many units staffed with a higher than average number of professional soldiers and many under nato comand as they could employ nuclear weapons. Sure there were units with a higher operational tempo and better training (part of the alpine forces and the paratroopers), but it was mostly due to their commanding officers and not due to an armywide policy.

The army was deployed almost entirely in northern italy, in the easternmost regions facing the yugoslav border, and there was a heavy concentration of troops in the alps too. In northern italy the army was spread more or less from trieste to milan and from the austrian border to bologna.

Further south there wasn't anything serious, the adriatic coast from rimini to apulia wasn't covered at all, some units where deployed in tuscany, others in sardinnia an sicily, some in and around rome, and in the apulian an campanian regions...a large part of the coastline wasn't covered at all.

The air force was straight out of the 1960s, with f-104s in the intercepting, strike and recon roles and the g91s in the attack role...the tornado was just coming online back then. Like the army the air force was deployed in northern and southern italy, with 2 bases on the tyrrenian coast, leaving the adriatic coastline heavily exposed. The air force as said, was flying entirely obsolete aircrafts which would never seriously pose a threath to warsaw pact forces. There was no serious SAM network, just 96 nike hercules in 3 wings in northern italy, from brescia to treviso. The Hawk SAM systems where issued to the army and where deployed in the same area, some 300kms from the possible frontline. The capital and other parts of the country werent covered at all by SAMs.

The navy was probably the best trained and equipped of the armed forces, with a number or modern ASW and multipurpose frigates and some slightly older air defence destroyers and an air defence cruiser and back then a helicopter carrier which could support us or british harriers. further the navy had a number of modern ASW corvettes with point defence air defence capability (aspide/albatross) and a sizeable ASW helicopter fleet. But just like the other armed forces the navy was deployed primarily in the tyrrenian coast, in sicily and on the ionic sea with only a small number of vessels stationed on the adriatic coast, mostly in apulia. The main opponent would have been the soviet submarine fleet, and maybe some surface combattant (from the northern fleet or deployed in syria) as turkey would have more or less blocked the black sea fleet with everything it had to throw at it.

The armed forces where heavily deployed in the north-eastern regions with some presencen in southern italy, while central italy was completely exposed, including the capital to all sorts of attacks. in an event of a central attack (by air or sea) it would take days to redeploy troops to the adriatic coast. An invasion force could have cut the country in two, falling in the open flank of the army in northern italy. Further not too much support could have been offered by allied forces (us) as opposed to the central european sectors there were no sizable allied troop formations or equipment stocks on italian soil. The italian army couldn't oppose any serious resistance to a warsaw pact offensive on the yugoslaw border as it was simply inferior, and from trieste to turin it's all tank country. An invasion on the yugoslav border could also open up to an invasion of austria, opening a new front in south eastern germany (clearly after defeating the austrian army, which should have given the invaders some headaches).

The air force as the army wouldn't have stood a chance against the opposing forces. The navy instead had good chances against the warsaw pact forces due to it's equipment and training, defending the sicilian and messina strait along with the central meditteran sea, but due to the location of it's bases it wouldn't have reacted very fast to a serious amphibious operation in the adriatic sea.

As the open country of northern and central italy (even with troops) on the ground couldn't be defended by conventional means, the nuclear option was the only one which could in some way hold back invading troops and probably it wouldn't habe mattered as back then many italian units had nonexistant CBRN equipment and training. The nuclear option had to be exercised as soon as possible, as the bases and units equipped with nuclear warheads (excluding the comiso base) where heavily exposed and probably very high on the target list and thus could be destroyed by an invading force negating this capability.

Without going nuclear there was no chance to defend italian soil (at lest in my opinion) and even that couldn't have been enough. An invasion from the yugoslav border would have hit highly populated areas, which could mean that the use of WMD on that area wouldn't have been authorized due to politcal problems. So nuclear weapons could have probably be used only on the border, stopping the invader cold. Leaving as only problem a completely exposed capital along with more than half of the country and population.

I would like to read your comments on this summary and on the possibility of a non nuclear WW3 scenario in europe in the 1980s and the capability of the conventional forces to stop or repell a warsaw pact conventional invasion.

[picanha the second]

I would like to read your comments on this summary and on the possibility of a non nuclear WW3 scenario in europe in the 1980s and the capability of the conventional forces to stop or repell a warsaw pact conventional invasion.

I don't think that an Invasion of Italy would have been that simple. If you look at a map it's mostly rugged terrain not really suited for mechanized warfare. Have you been to these areas? I didn't seem to me as an ideal place for large tank manoeuvres.
Maybe that's a reason for the Italians fascination with wheeled tank gun carriers.





Also they would have had to persuade Yugoslavia to let them through to get to the nice tank terrain (which I think is also a bit swampy?) from Turin to Trieste. Not very likely as they weren't in the warsaw pact and making good money with western tourists. Not to forget the century old ties of Slovenians and Croatians with Italy. E.g 15% of slovenians speak italian as second language.

I say the WP troops would have faced severe difficulties in getting through.


Air Force wise the starfighter would have had severe difficulties against more agile WP crafts but lets not forget that the bulk of WPs a/c would have been MiG 21s. So if the SF just used the room over the adriatic to lauch missiles it would not be totally useless. It should also have been of a somewhat worth against the fast WPs bombers as it was intended by design to intercept them.
The Gina should have done her job quite sufficiently effective.

I think they left the adraitic side deliberately free of airbases prolonging the distance the attacker has to travel and giving more time for interception.

[RomeoTangoFoxtrotIndigo]

Italy was probably more concerned with Libyan or Algerian aggression rather than a WP invasion. A move against Malta by Libya (which I know already had some forces based in Malta) would have hopefully prompted an Italian response. I found it interesting that Austria during the Cold War and even into the nineties was concerned with an invasion by Italy (sorry,no sources just remember watching old BBC footage from the nineties of Austrian forces repelling an imagined Italian invasion)

[zema_06]

I don't think that an Invasion of Italy would have been that simple. If you look at a map it's mostly rugged terrain not really suited for mechanized warfare. Have you been to these areas? I didn't seem to me as an ideal place for large tank manoeuvres.
Maybe that's a reason for the Italians fascination with wheeled tank gun carriers.

apart from the alps most of the italian terrain in one way or another could be suitable for mechanised warfare, the terrain is rugged, but a large part of it can be accessed due to the presence of a number of larger valleys...

Also they would have had to persuade Yugoslavia to let them through to get to the nice tank terrain (which I think is also a bit swampy?) from Turin to Trieste. Not very likely as they weren't in the warsaw pact and making good money with western tourists. Not to forget the century old ties of Slovenians and Croatians with Italy. E.g 15% of slovenians speak italian as second language.

yugoslavia probably couldn't have opposed much to a sviet invasion and most of the yugoslav doctrine was based on geurrillia warfare to oppose invading/occuping forces as the regular armed forces had little chance to stand an attack from the WP. and the cultural ties with slovenia and croatia didn't mean anything today and it was the same in the 80s.

I say the WP troops would have faced severe difficulties in getting through.

i don't think so, the soviet troops of the Southern Group of Forces in Hungary had just 4 divisions, but those where Cat A units, with top notch equipment, with large artillery, engineer and SAM assets. this force should have been couple with the hungarian army, which while equipped with older equipment should have been able to cope with guerrillia warfare and hold up the yugoslavs freeing up the soviets on the italian front.

Air Force wise the starfighter would have had severe difficulties against more agile WP crafts but lets not forget that the bulk of WPs a/c would have been MiG 21s. So if the SF just used the room over the adriatic to lauch missiles it would not be totally useless. It should also have been of a somewhat worth against the fast WPs bombers as it was intended by design to intercept them.
The Gina should have done her job quite sufficiently effective.

in 1980s the air force of the Southern Group of Forces had some 270 aircraft between mig-23, mig-29, su-22 and su-25, which were clearly superior to the italian air force. the G91 was already obsolete in 1970, as with 2 of it's 4 hardpoint always occupied by fuel tanks it carried 2 500lbs bombs or 38 unguided rockets and had no self defence capability aside from it's guns.

I think they left the adraitic side deliberately free of airbases prolonging the distance the attacker has to travel and giving more time for interception.

as said above the air force was completely inferior to WP forces. the soviet air forces didn't even need to penetrate that much in the air space to meet the starfighters as an old tu-16 with cruise missiles could simply attack rome from the distance without beeing endangered. the only things defending rome from an attack coming from the adriatic vector where 2 heavily understaffed mechanised brigades, with fighter bases at least some 200-300 kms from the possible attack vectors...

Italy was probably more concerned with Libyan or Algerian aggression rather than a WP invasion. A move against Malta by Libya (which I know already had some forces based in Malta) would have hopefully prompted an Italian response. I found it interesting that Austria during the Cold War and even into the nineties was concerned with an invasion by Italy (sorry,no sources just remember watching old BBC footage from the nineties of Austrian forces repelling an imagined Italian invasion)

algeria and libya weren't a real concern as both of them lacked the amphibious forces to execute such an attack and their naval forces were limited to the coastal role. the real danger on the mediterran front was the possibile use of libyan airport by soviet bombers and marine patrol aircrafts which could cut the mediterran sea in half closing the sicily strait to shipping, laying mines and using ASM and cruise missiles to interdict shipping. if it was percieved as a real danger the italian forces would have deployed much more than 12-15 starfighters and a motorized infantry brigade.

[picanha the second]

apart from the alps most of the italian terrain in one way or another could be suitable for mechanised warfare, the terrain is rugged, but a large part of it can be accessed due to the presence of a number of larger valleys....

Tanks in valleys sounds good to me

yugoslavia probably couldn't have opposed much to a sviet invasion and most of the yugoslav doctrine was based on geurrillia warfare to oppose invading/occuping forces as the regular armed forces had little chance to stand an attack from the WP. and the cultural ties with slovenia and croatia didn't mean anything today and it was the same in the 80s.

That's just wrong what you are saying here. Of course, Yugoslavia enjoying one of the best lifestandards in eastern Europe and not a member of the WP would let themselves be dragged into this as a fanatically spear head. What was to gain for them? And them being forced, well, tells you a lot about motivation of WP troops. Nearly all forced. You don't put into consideration the psychological effects. You see, people where in the majority not happy with their rule. Make your own conclusion.

i don't think so, the soviet troops of the Southern Group of Forces in Hungary had just 4 divisions, but those where Cat A units, with top notch equipment, with large artillery, engineer and SAM assets. this force should have been couple with the hungarian army, which while equipped with older equipment should have been able to cope with guerrillia warfare and hold up the yugoslavs freeing up the soviets on the italian front.

And the Austrians? And the Greeks? And the Turks? You paint it way to simple. You let the WP side get help from every corner and Italy is let alone? Fact is most WP states where not better equipped than most NATO countries. And considerably more ****e to defection and such. Only Soviet troops could have made any difference. But then, you totally leave out the US which would have done everything to gain air superiority and neglect any, anyways difficult armoured assault on the Italian peninsula. You really believe the WP would have been the master of the mediterannean? I see WP troops being ripped apart in pockets they manoeuvred themselves into.

in 1980s the air force of the Southern Group of Forces had some 270 aircraft between mig-23, mig-29, su-22 and su-25, which were clearly superior to the italian air force. the G91 was already obsolete in 1970, as with 2 of it's 4 hardpoint always occupied by fuel tanks it carried 2 500lbs bombs or 38 unguided rockets and had no self defence capability aside from it's guns.

What time of the 80s are we talking about? Deliveries of the Su 25 only began in 1981 if we are talking mid 80s you also have the Tornado on the Italian side (since 1982).



How many Mig-29 where amongst them? With an EIS in 1983? Only contemporary a/c in service in numbers would be the Mig23. And the US Navy is not getting involved in this scenario? Just Italy against all others? Don't you think the US wouldn't position portions of it's fleet there? With Aegis cruisers, carriers and formidable aircraft matching everything the WP throws at them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...rces_in_Europe

Until then the G91 was sufficient not extraordinarily but sufficient. For those short hops they could have used all 4 hardpoints as it was able to take off from grassfields.

as said above the air force was completely inferior to WP forces. the soviet air forces didn't even need to penetrate that much in the air space to meet the starfighters as an old tu-16 with cruise missiles could simply attack rome from the distance without beeing endangered. the only things defending rome from an attack coming from the adriatic vector where 2 heavily understaffed mechanised brigades, with fighter bases at least some 200-300 kms from the possible attack vectors...

So what beneficiary effect would that have been for the strategic outcome to launch CMs at Rome? Which CM should that have been anyway? The US wouldn't have retaliated with it's cruise missiles? All WP airbases are out of harms way? Remember thsi is a multifront war. The Tu 16 base might be attacked by someone else or be shotdown by someone else.