PDA

View Full Version : NATO vs. Warsaw Pact



Pages : [1] 2

Metak
09 Apr 05,, 05:36
Okay, alternative history scenario, It's 1973 tensions between the United States and Soviet Union sour over Vietnam and other places such as Africa, The United States threatens all out war against North Vietnam if the Soviet Union does not pull conventional military forces out of the lets say now communist Angola that they are using to spread their control over the rest of African countries, particularly the diamond rich ones. A Soviet hard-liner Politburo refuses to back down. The United States intensifies air operations against North Vietnam. Angolan communist forces with Soviet support commit raids into Botswana and the Congo. The Warsaw Pact central command gets orders to mobilize and prepare for possible war with NATO in Central Europe. The Soviet Shock Armies in the DDR are put on full alert. NATO get's satellite imagery showing Soviet Armored reserve forces moving through Poland. NATO responds with an alert of it's own. Okay excluding the use of ANY NBC weapons by BOTH sides, give me some possible outcomes and situation developements.

Officer of Engineers
09 Apr 05,, 05:41
The Third World War: August 1985 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0025471600/ref=pd_sim_b_1/103-5765872-1030239?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance) by General Sir John Hackett

Metak
09 Apr 05,, 05:50
Red Army by Ralph Peters :) But what do you think would happen or how do you think the situation would unfold militarily and politically. I'm interested in hearing you'r opinion.

Officer of Engineers
09 Apr 05,, 06:28
A thread for you.

World Affairs Board - ACIG thread - WWWIII/E-88; Germany, Czechoslovakia (and Austria?) (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=1053)

Bill
09 Apr 05,, 08:05
In 1973 it's really tough for NATO. The A-10 is not yet in service, the best US tank is the M-60A1, TOW is a brand new untested weapon, all US troops have at best the mediocre M-16A1, and the Russians have the T-72 in mass production.

Change the date to 1983, and the opposite is true. The M-1 is in mass production, the A-10 fleet is at it's largest ever in USAF service, the F-15, F-14, F-18, and F-16 are in sqn. service, the USN has TLAM, Harpoon, the Iowa Class BBs,it's four pre VLS Ticonderoga class Aegis guided missile destroyers, the NTU Kidd DDGs, and the LA 688 boats in fleet service.

What a difference a decade makes.

Officer of Engineers
09 Apr 05,, 16:47
In 1973 it's really tough for NATO.

We were still in love with nukes back then.

Bill
09 Apr 05,, 18:08
Yes, i know...but the author of this thread specifically said "No NBC".

Given those conditions, the war would be extremely difficult for NATO to win. If the Russians were ever going to attack, the early 70s would've been the time.

About the only thing the US really had going for it that would help in a high intensity Central European war was it's carrier fleet, the F-4E, and The AH-1 Cobra.

Metak
09 Apr 05,, 19:57
Yes but didn't the United States have superiority over the Soviet Union at sea? What about the B-52's? I think the best thing for NATO would be to let the Warsaw Pact gain ground and make strike them whenever they were sure to win. Not really a war of attrition but something along the lines of a large guerilla war. And pund their supply and comm lines with the B-52's.

Bill
09 Apr 05,, 20:48
The B-52s of that era had no non-nuclear standoff weapons. In order for them to be used in a direct overflight role the US would need complete air supremacy.

That would've been a very difficult undertaking considering that the US top of the line fighter at the time was The F-4E Phantom armed with the substandard AIM-7C Sparrow missile.

The USN in 1973 held complete and total dominance at sea though, and even the RN was a very powerful force at that time. In 1973, the Soviet navy was not a very capable force at all.

Officer of Engineers
09 Apr 05,, 20:51
Yes, i know...but the author of this thread specifically said "No NBC".

Given those conditions, the war would be extremely difficult for NATO to win. If the Russians were ever going to attack, the early 70s would've been the time.

About the only thing the US really had going for it that would help in a high intensity Central European war was it's carrier fleet, the F-4E, and The AH-1 Cobra.

I cannot see it not going nuke from the get-go. All our weapons systems were nuke based or at least in support of nukes. The CF-101 VOODOO was armed with the GENIE nuke tipped AAM. The BORMAC was a nuke tip SAM. Even the HERCULES SAM batteries were nuke tipped. For something as simple as AD, a large portion of the weapons systems in place were nuke tipped. Aside from that, every division in the USArmy had tac nukes.

Even from the Soviet side, they were planning nuke strikes also. Remember that in the early 70s, they had actively planned and prepared for a nuke strike and invasion into China, specifically towards the Lop Nor (China's Los Alamos).

In fact, it was Reagan's build up that drastically reduced the need for nukes by both sides.

Bill
09 Apr 05,, 21:01
"I cannot see it not going nuke from the get-go."

Agreed, but i'm trying to stay within the original authors postulated scenario.

Metak
09 Apr 05,, 21:13
We'll wouldn't the F-4 Phantom been able to maintain air superiority, they seemed to do pretty well against North Vietnamese Mig-21's. Althought I beleive the Soviets had the Flogger by then. Althought I'm not sure how it the Phantom would do against the Flogger.

Bill
09 Apr 05,, 21:16
Yes, the F-4E could be rightly expected to dominate the Mig-21 and Mig-23, however, the Soviets had MASSIVE amounts of Migs, so it got into a numbers game.

That's why the F-15 and F-14 were designed with complete overmatch in mind, to deal with the vastly superior numbers the Soviets could field.

Metak
09 Apr 05,, 21:37
yes, if you were to look at a possible war between NATO and the WARSAW PACT in central europe it would probably be a high-intensity attrition style conflict, in which technically speaking the one with the greater numbers wins. Althought would NATO have been able to launch some tactical cruise missile strikes without nuke tipped warheads?

Bill
09 Apr 05,, 21:39
No, TLAM was not yet introduced at that time. Any tactical short range missiles we had in the 70s were nuke tipped.

alton987
09 Apr 05,, 21:41
IMO

In 70's NATO would how got there butts handed to them via a T-72 and a MIG21. In Nam Air-Force Pilots were almost down to a 1-1 kill ration because of a lack of Combat training. The Navy was over 3-1 because of their new "Top Gun" program. Plus the F-4 didn't even get Cannons until the Mid 70's (I think). I see F-4 pilots getting swarmed with Mig-21's. And not having the proper training to handle it or equipment. Plus shooting a bunch of Sparrow Missile that would hit nothing. B-52 would have been blown out of the sky. Remember in the Mid 70's the B-52 was still seen as a high altitude bomber. With the lack of Air Supremacy Sam’s would of made mince meat out of the B-52. It was the B-52 experience in Vietnam that lead the Air force to make it a low altitude bomber instead.

Plus what answer would the NATO force have had for the TU-22 Backfire? I don't think the F-4 would have held up due to poor Missiles. And the NATO AA Equipment for that time frame was never really tested. I see TU-22 Hitting air fields in the UK.

A T-72 and M60 Tank are both pretty close in ability. But, if you got 5 T-72's against 1 M60, I would take the T-72 any day. That’s what would have happened on the ground.



Mid 80's.


NATO would have dominated the Warsaw Pact. At that time nobody knew (Even US) how huge the technology gap had gotten. Can you imagine T-72’s attacking entrenched M1's? It would have been a slaughter. The Air war wouldn't have been as lopsided as the ground war but NATO still would have dominated. Mainly because of NATO fighter pilot training.


Or I'm all wrong...

Bill
09 Apr 05,, 22:00
You are wrong about a lot of things...for instance, there were no TU-22Ms in 1973, the F-4E had a gun, the USAF had already instituted it's Nellis Weapons school training program, when Sparrow actually worked it worked extremely well, and the USAF used the B-52 to great effect in the face of an extremely robust SAM threat in Vietnam over Hanoi and Haiphong.

But i agree with your overall conclusion: NATO would get it's ass handed to it because the US Army at that time was really a COIN army, and not at all geared toward fighting the Soviets in Europe.

All that ended in the late 70s, early 80s, and the tables are reversed IMO.

alton987
09 Apr 05,, 22:30
You are wrong about a lot of things...for instance, there were no TU-22Ms in 1973, the F-4E had a gun, the USAF had already instituted it's Nellis Weapons school training program, when Sparrow actually worked it worked extremely well, and the USAF used the B-52 to great effect in the face of an extremely robust SAM threat in Vietnam over Hanoi and Haiphong.

But i agree with your overall conclusion: NATO would get it's ass handed to it because the US Army at that time was really a COIN army, and not at all geared toward fighting the Soviets in Europe.

All that ended in the late 70s, early 80s, and the tables are reversed IMO.


These sites says the TU-22 was spotted in 1969, Other says major production began in 1972. As close to sources as I got.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-22m.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/tupolev-tu-22m


Gunpod thing you were right I though it was later than 67?


I just don't think the B-52 would of done well in a High Altitude conventional role over a WarsawPact Air Defense shield. With more Sams and better trained crews it would have been tuff.



But here is a “What if”, for you guys. If TU-22 are operational in 73 can NATO protect it self? Could you imagine TU-22 hitting the UK that would have been nuts.

Metak
09 Apr 05,, 22:34
Well I guess we can all agree that NATO would have been fairly easily overrun by the WARSAW PACT forces on the ground. How far do you think they would push. France? Spain? Maybe even England?

alton987
09 Apr 05,, 22:43
Well I guess we can all agree that NATO would have been fairly easily overrun by the WARSAW PACT forces on the ground. How far do you think they would push. France? Spain? Maybe even England?

Not to far, somebody would have started thorwing nuks around. I think if the Warsaw Pact did start to overun Europe the world would have seen the first tactical nucular war. Remember France has its own nukes. They would of strarted shooting them off at anytime. I don't think France would have let it get that far...

Bill
09 Apr 05,, 23:39
"These sites says the TU-22 was spotted in 1969, Other says major production began in 1972. As close to sources as I got."

The TU-22 is the Blinder, the TU-22M is the Backfire. COMPLETELY different aircraft bro.

PS: FAS is a terrible source for information. Globalsecurity.org is far superior.

"I just don't think the B-52 would of done well in a High Altitude conventional role over a WarsawPact Air Defense shield. With more Sams and better trained crews it would have been tuff."

The SA-2's used by the North Vietnamese are basicly the same models the Soviets were using in 1973, and most N.Vietnamese operators were trained by Soviet 'adivsors', and in many cases the 'advisors' themselves were the ones actually manning the radar stations.

"But here is a “What if”, for you guys. If TU-22 are operational in 73 can NATO protect it self? Could you imagine TU-22 hitting the UK that would have been nuts."

The USN Talos missile system was fully capable of dealing with any threat of that time. In some ways, the Talos is still superior to the US Standard missile series in use by the USN today(from a purely performance standpoint). SM-1, in both MR and ER variants was also in service in 1973.

The USN also had several Nuclear powered CGNs of the Longbeach and California class in service in 1973.

Using Metaks timeline and dismissal of nuclear weaponry, the USN will possess absolute command of the world's oceans.

Bill
09 Apr 05,, 23:46
"Not to far, somebody would have started thorwing nuks around. I think if the Warsaw Pact did start to overun Europe the world would have seen the first tactical nucular war. Remember France has its own nukes. They would of strarted shooting them off at anytime. I don't think France would have let it get that far..."

For the purposes of this discussion we must analyze this scenario just as metak proposed it...no nukes whatsover.

The real questions on the ground are(to me):

1) Is the US Army AH-1G TOW armed Cobra attack helicopter enough to stop the Soviet avalanche of mechanized columns? Will they be able to operate effectively in such a high intensity threat environment?

2) Can the all-weather A-7D Corsair II perform effectively in the CAS role against the threat of that day?

3) Are the M-60A1s,Centurians, and Leopard 1A1s(at the time state of the art)in hull down defilade positions enough to deal with the overmatch killing power of the 125mm gun of the T-72?

4) Can US III and VII corps plus the European NATO armies hold long enough for REFORGER elements to arrive in force?

5) Can the USN protect the troop transports and cargo ships carrying the REFORGER assets across the Atlantic?

6) Can the deep strike F-111 Aardvark effectively perform it's all weather attack role?(in 1973 the F-111 was by far the best all weather low altitude strike platform ever devised by man).

IMO opinion the US would be able to sufficiently reinforce England enough to make ANY invasion attempt of the UK completely impossible, but Continental Europe ends up in Soviet hands.

The really interesting part of the Scenario is what do the NATO allies do to take Europe back again...

Bill
09 Apr 05,, 23:50
TU-22 Blinder:

http://www.globalaircraft.org/photos/planephotos/tu-22_3.gif

TU-22 Blinder Specifications:

Powerplant
two 16000-kg (35,273-lb) afterburning thrust Koliesov VD-7M turbojets
Dimensions
Length: 132 ft 11.7 in (40.53 m)
Wingspan: 77 ft 11 in (23.75 m)
Height: 35 ft 0 in (10.67 m)
Weights
Empty: 88,185 lb (40,000 kg)
Maximum Takeoff: 185,188 lb (84,000 kg)
Performance
Speed: 924 mph (802 kt)
Ceiling: 60,040 ft (18300 m) -- Blinder-A
Range: 1,926 miles (3100 km)
Armament
one 23-mm NR-23 cannon in radar-controlled tail turret, plus one AS-4 'Kitchen' stand-off missile recessed into the weapons bay

TU-22M Backfire:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/8201.gif

Tu-22M Backfire Specifications:

Primary Function: Bomber / maritime strike aircraft
Contractor: Tupolev Design Bureau
Crew: N/A
Unit Cost: N/A
Powerplant
Two Kuznetsov NK-25 afterburning turbofans, 55,115 lb thrust each
Dimensions
Length: 139 ft 4 in (42.46 m)
Wingspan: 112 ft 6 in (34.28 m) -- Fully spread
76 ft 6 in (23.3 m) -- Fully swept
Height: 36 ft 3 in (11.05 m)
Weights
Empty: 119,048 lb
Maximum Takeoff: 278,660 lb
Performance
Speed: 1,242 mph (2,000 km/h) -- high altitude
652 mph (1,050 km/h) -- low altitude
Ceiling: 43,635 ft
Range: 7,456 miles (12,000 km)
Armament
One GSh-23 23mm twin-barrel cannon, plus 52,910 lb including Kh-15P SRAMs, Kh-22/27 ASMs, bombs, and sea mines

Bill
10 Apr 05,, 02:00
The more i look at this, the more i'm thinking it won't be quite so easy for the Soviets as i'd initially though.

The Leopard 1 and 1A1 were available in large numbers in 1973, the all weather A-7D Corsair II and F-111E were state of the art at the time, the F-4E was in service in the thousands, and almost all US TAC, USMC, and USN pilots of that era had extensive combat experience, the US had a massive attack helicopter fleet, and NATO would enjoy absolute control of the seas and shipping lanes.

The more i look at it, this is shaping up to be one hell of a serious fight...

Metak
10 Apr 05,, 04:07
What about the Shilka's. I think they would have been able to deal with the AH-1 Cobra's. Not to mention the SA-9 and SA-6 SAMS that formed the forward echeleon air-defense umbrella of advancing Red Army units. Also on the ground side the Russians already had the pretty sophisticated T-64 for a while. Also large Spetznaz Airborne formations which probably would have been dropped behind NATO lines to reak havoc on NATO communications and supply, command centres and probably even some unit garrisons. Although they probably would have cause more panic and confusion then real damage.

deadkenny
10 Apr 05,, 04:52
NATO rules the seas. They gain a 'contested' air superiority over the battlefield, which isn't enough to stop the Warsaw Pact conventional ground forces edge. Warsaw Pact drives to the Rhine, and the French let it be known that they will use nukes to stop any crossing of the Rhine (author's stipulation notwithstanding).

Metak
10 Apr 05,, 05:04
Okay let's say there is an temporary cease-fire now. With the Warsaw Pact on the Rhine. It's refueling and re-arming it's forces and is bringing up reserves. It is also working very quickly to build an AAA and SAM net over it's now occupied territory. Let's say this is accomplished fairly well within an week to two weeks, the coverage mostly being around it's important communication, supply and regional HQ's. Most of NATO's surviving forces have pulled back into France where they are doing the same. Now begins an air war in which masses of Soviet Mig's coming from East German and some captured West German airfields (those that were not destroyed) taken on smaller numbers of bit more sophisticated NATO aircraft. And let's say NATO doesn't operate to close to the WARSAWPACT front line because of the fear of longer range sams that have now been move up. The Red Army is moving up large amounts of heavy artillery, but that this is taking time, and it also wants to stock up enough shells and rockets before continuing it's planned offensive into France. What happens next?

dalem
10 Apr 05,, 08:25
Okay let's say there is an temporary cease-fire now. With the Warsaw Pact on the Rhine. It's refueling and re-arming it's forces and is bringing up reserves. It is also working very quickly to build an AAA and SAM net over it's now occupied territory. Let's say this is accomplished fairly well within an week to two weeks, the coverage mostly being around it's important communication, supply and regional HQ's. Most of NATO's surviving forces have pulled back into France where they are doing the same. Now begins an air war in which masses of Soviet Mig's coming from East German and some captured West German airfields (those that were not destroyed) taken on smaller numbers of bit more sophisticated NATO aircraft. And let's say NATO doesn't operate to close to the WARSAWPACT front line because of the fear of longer range sams that have now been move up. The Red Army is moving up large amounts of heavy artillery, but that this is taking time, and it also wants to stock up enough shells and rockets before continuing it's planned offensive into France. What happens next?

I forget, had Nixon gone to China yet? Would we deal with China to pressure the Sovs from the South?

-dale

deadkenny
10 Apr 05,, 12:32
Regarding China, not sure they would have had much offensive potential back in '73. Yes, the 'China card' had been played at that point. However, it probably would only have matter if the Russians had attacked in that direction. Plus the Russians would not have been reluctant to use nukes against a China unable to effectively respond.

Regarding the Rhine situation - what happens next depends alot on what the motivation is / objectives are for the Warsaw Pact. They might make some moves on the flanks - Norway, Denmark, Turkey, Greece. I don't see any realistic scenario where the French go down without using their nukes, so NATO prepares a conventional defense of the Rhine line with full French participation. Once the Russians successfully cross they get nuked by the French. Not sure I see why the Warsaw Pact keeps going at that point. If their aim is to dominate Central Europe, I would say they would hold the Rhine then go through Austria into Italy and / or the flank moves mentioned previously. Perhaps into Holland as well - Belgium starts to get touchy for the French as well.

Bill
10 Apr 05,, 18:41
I doubt the Shilka and SAMs would be able to defend Soviet formations from air attacks by Cobras and NATO TACAIR.

They'd attrit the NATO air forces somewhat, but would probably shoot down almost as many of their own aircraft as ours(WP IFF was severely lacking back then).

Metak
10 Apr 05,, 19:10
http://3ad.com/history/cold.war/article.pages/scans/fulda.gap.2.jpg
In the above illustration, a primary Soviet "blitz" through the Fulda Gap immediately confronts V Corps and the 3rd Armored Division.

Let's say that the Soviets and Warsaw Pact decides to stop at the Rhine. It tells France it will not cross the Rhine if France does not make any "threatining" moves. It moves in engineer's to start building up a defense line on the bank of the Rhine. It sends the Czechoslovakians to wall of the southern flank and the East Germans to the Denmark border. I think the next best thing for the Soviet Union is to move throught to Italy and move through with the help of the Bulgarian's and Rumanians to take strategic positions in Greece.

troung
10 Apr 05,, 22:49
"Are the M-60A1s,Centurians, and Leopard 1A1s(at the time state of the art)in hull down defilade positions enough to deal with the overmatch killing power of the 125mm gun of the T-72?"

Well the Chieftan during the Iran Iraq War showed an ability to take heat on hits with the 115mm gun and keep in action. It also had the best gun in NATO with that wonderful L-11 120mm rifled cannon. But it had mechanical problems. The 105mms on the M-60, Leo-1, Centurion and M-48A5 should be able to kill a T-72 but a T-72 should be able to kill them as well. Even a M-41 should be able to take out a T-55 but the converse is true as well.

Also would France, Spain and Austria be taking part?

France had a lighter force then most but still had good numbers of AMX-30s (with 105mm LP gun), AML-90s and some AMX-13s. This was also before ERA so Frances HEAT guns would be able to kill enemy armor, although be just as easy marks. Austria had the SK-105 TD which was an AMX-13 based tank with a LV 105mm gun.

One area the WP had up was "manportable"/vehicle mounted AT systems. The M-72 was decent but had problems with guys not trained to use them, one needed a good deal of training on them to get them to work right. Pretty much NATO infantry units relied on RRs/bazookas like the M-67 (90mm), M-40 (105mm), M-2 (84mm), M-18 (57mm), M-20 (90mm). The Dragon did not enter NATO service until 1975. The German Cobra (pen 500mm) had problems in service with accuracy. The French SS-11 (pen 600mm) was decent but had accuracy issues as well.

The excellent MILAN had already entered service I believe and could have killed any WP tank. The even better TOW had already seen service in Vietnam and is widely rumored to have seen service in the 1973 Arab Israeli war. Ground mounted TOW were rumored to have been used by the IDF that year againist Arab armor on the Golans.

WP infantry had good anti armor systems like the RPG-7, SPG-9 (73mm), B-10 (82mm), B-11 (107mm) AT-3 which also could drop enemy tanks and were around in pretty big numbers.

In the air lets not forget most MiG-23s were MiG-23MS models which were the MiG-23M airframe with MiG-21MF systems and weapons (the useless R-13). NATO had the excellent F-4D/E, Mirage III/5, Mirage F-1 (at the time it used M-III weapons). The WP had large numbers of gunless MiG-21PFs and increasing numbers of MiG-21MFs and NATO had F-104s and F-5As. One for one the NATO fighters were better armed and generally better but there would have been swarms of WP fighters.

Most NATO infantrymen had 7.62mm battle rifles like the FN-FAL and G-3 while WP troops had AK-47 models.

-----
And what is happening in Asia as the 2nd Indochina was actually still going on? America was still sending in money to those nations, would they mney have been cut or upped? Many nations in that area were also fighting local communist groups as well. And then there is SK and NK. And of course the middle east and Israel....

Bill
10 Apr 05,, 23:10
"The M-72 was decent but had problems with guys not trained to use them, one needed a good deal of training on them to get them to work right."

The problem with the early M-72 models was that when you pulled the launch tube open it would separate if you pulled too hard.

That problem was not solved until the early 80s when the M-72A3 W/Coupler was introduced. That weapon was so simple an untrained monkey could use it effectively.

But it wouldn't penetrate the frontal or side armor on an T-72 or T-64 unless you got lucky and hit a weakspot.

troung
10 Apr 05,, 23:25
True. Hell with untrained guys it had problems with PT-76s.

RRs would have most likely been the standard way for NATO infantry to try and kill tanks.

But in 1973 there were not really that many T-72s to worry about I think. The best they would have around in the numbers the needed would be the T-62. I think the first one showed up in 1971 and mass building started in early 1974.

Praxus
11 Apr 05,, 00:29
I know that during the Classical period Sicily was the key to the control of the Mediteranian. Is this still the case given the advancement in tactics, strategy, equipment, and the like? If it is the case would it not be wise for the Soviets to dive straight into Italy (with enough forces to take Italy), take Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica fill it with anti-aircraft batteries, radars, aircraft, and ships and deny the Entire Eastern Meditarianian to Nato reinforcements from the Sea/Air?

deadkenny
11 Apr 05,, 01:23
I suppose that control of Italy down to the 'heel' and 'toe', plus Sicily, would allow the WP to cut off Greece and Turkey. Then again, it seems to be both desirable and easier from the point of view of the WP to do Greece and Turkey first. Northern Italy via Austria might be quick, but driving all the way down to the 'toe' and across to Sicily wouldn't be that easy. Following the KISS principle, a direct attack from the Balkans and Caucasus would make more sense than an indirect approach via Italy. The real target in Italy is Northern Italy itself, with all of the industry etc.

Praxus
11 Apr 05,, 01:28
It'd do more then that, it would stop NATO forces from launching Naval attacks against the reserves of Soviet forces.

Another aspect that would be interesting to discuss, and thats the middle east. Would the Soviet Union invade Israel?

ZFBoxcar
11 Apr 05,, 01:33
Hmm...the situation we're discussing is in 1973, meaning it could very well coinicide with the Yom Kippur War, meaning the Arabs are already attacking Israel. If the WP is already fighting NATO, there would be no diplomatic reason for them not to join in the assault on Israel (plus it would be doubtful if the US would have the resources to airlift supplies to Israel in this situation). However it would be impossible to keep it from going nuclear here because Israel would probably not be able to conventionally fend off an attack from the Arab League and the USSR.

deadkenny
11 Apr 05,, 01:42
I would think that capturing Greece and Turkey (including Crete and Cyprus) would be sufficient for defensive purposes. Driving into Italy from the North and all the way down the pennisula, plus Sicily and Sardinia would be pretty tough in the face of NATO sea and air advantages in the Western Med. They would obviously be nice to have, but hardly necessary for defense, and it would therefore be difficult to justify the effort on that basis. Seems like the WP would have to be looking for an offensive springboard to the West in order to justify the effort necessary.

Regarding Israel, I don't see the WP taking on that 'project' themselves. They would probably encourage their Arab allies to do something, especially if Israel was cooperating with NATO in any material way.

Officer of Engineers
11 Apr 05,, 02:38
Gentlemen,

About the only sure thing that we know of was that the Soviets were prepared for a full scale war against China in the early 70s. Brezhnev had asked Nixon to support a Soviet armoured nuclear strike towards Lop Nor. The OPOBJ was to seize the Chinese Los Alamos itself. Thus, the Soviets were at least psychologically ill prepared for a war against NATO in 1973.

Praxus
11 Apr 05,, 02:58
Let's take this a step further, say that we beat the Soviets back into Russia proper, what would be our next move? The conquest of the whole of the Soviet Union?

ZFBoxcar
11 Apr 05,, 03:06
That would lead to our own destruction. The USSR would still have plenty of ICBMs, nuclear armed submarines, and probably some bombers left over. A war of conquest could not happen unless we were sure all their nukes were destroyed, which we would have no way of doing. Its the SSBNs that we could definitly not be sure about. I imagine we would just try to get as many concessions out of the Soviets as possible. But their destruction, unless they at least partly consent to it, would be impossible.

lwarmonger
11 Apr 05,, 03:20
But their destruction, unless they at least partly consent to it, would be impossible.

Agreed. The conquest of a fully armed nuclear power is suicide. Not gonna happen.

Praxus
11 Apr 05,, 03:30
That would lead to our own destruction. The USSR would still have plenty of ICBMs, nuclear armed submarines, and probably some bombers left over. A war of conquest could not happen unless we were sure all their nukes were destroyed, which we would have no way of doing. Its the SSBNs that we could definitly not be sure about. I imagine we would just try to get as many concessions out of the Soviets as possible. But their destruction, unless they at least partly consent to it, would be impossible.

I thought we already established this is without nukes?

Afterall if you want to be realistic about nukes, we would have lobbed em at each other at the Fulda Gap.

Bill
11 Apr 05,, 03:36
People, using the authors scenario we have to pretend there is no such thing as nukes.

Bill
11 Apr 05,, 03:37
Troung, what was the name of that super long ranged Soviet arty piece?

NATO had no MLRS in 73, and the Russians i believe had a significant artillery advantadge.

Artillery is king of the battlefield for a reason...it kills the most people.

deadkenny
11 Apr 05,, 03:49
My understanding was the scenario was a 'conventional' battle (i.e. no use of nukes, for whatever reason) between WP and NATO in central Europe. No nuclear armed power is going to accept their own destruction without using their nukes. The USSR might have suffered the loss of their WP puppet regimes in Eastern Europe without risking a nuclear escalation, but once you hit the border, all bets are off. So, much as I postulated that the WP gets to the Rhine and then France plays the nuclear card - going the opposite direction NATO 'liberates' Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria - but then had better stop.

ZFBoxcar
11 Apr 05,, 04:00
I thought we already established this is without nukes?

Afterall if you want to be realistic about nukes, we would have lobbed em at each other at the Fulda Gap.

True, sorry, its just hard to separate from reality like that. Allright, with no nukes I still think conquering the whole Soviet Union would be reallllly hard. The USSR's SAM network was second to none, they already had a rationing system so moving to emergency war measures would probably not much of a stretch for them. They have experience with war time hardships and the people were heavily indoctrinated. Plus they would likely still have a lot of equipment left, although from my understanding Soviet doctrine is weak on defense...so maybe we'd have a chance. I don't know.

Officer of Engineers
11 Apr 05,, 04:04
People, using the authors scenario we have to pretend there is no such thing as nukes.

Well, that's the problem. If there are no nukes, then the entire ORBAT and TOE on both sides would change dramatically. What would replace those HERCULES and BORMAC nuke tipped SAMs? What would the Canadians be flying and in what role if the CF-104 nuke strike platform did not exist? How many more US divisions would already be in Europe if tac nukes were not part of the TOE? Would there even be a REFORGER (ie, the US keeps EURCOM at full strength)?

The alternative would be ok to have the nukes but not use them for this scenario. Well, then, would all those toys sit pretty, waiting to be destroyed? Or do we waste assets to protect them?

Bill
11 Apr 05,, 04:20
Nothing would replace them.

Pretend that a total nuclear weapons ban was signed six months earlier, and all weapons were therefore destroyed.

What you have left is what Metak wants to discuss.

Seems reasonable enough to me.

troung
11 Apr 05,, 04:22
"Troung, what was the name of that super long ranged Soviet arty piece? NATO had no MLRS in 73, and the Russians i believe had a significant artillery advantadge. Artillery is king of the battlefield for a reason...it kills the most people."

Yeah I had left out artillery. Russian artillery would probably have been king of the battlefield.

They had the M-46 which had really won its spurs in Indochina. It fired a 73lb shell 27km with no RAP and 34km with RAP (not sure if the RAP was around in 1973). It could also conduct anti tank fire with a 73.6lb shell. Those would have been around in big numbers and were used for counter battery fire as well is BI missions hitting supply lines and so forth (the NVA used them to kill airbases). Kind of blows the range of our (NATO) towed guns and most SP guns out of the water. Of course it was towed and they never really SPed it.

They also had the towed S-23 180mm gun with a range of 30km (43km with RAP) with a 185lb shell. It was used in artillery divisions at 12 per artillery division. A ***** to move but drops a big shell. The D-20 was not impressive it had a 96lb 152mm shell it fired 19km but they had big numbers of these towed guns.

And there would have been scores of BM-21 (122mm) and BM-24 (240mm) MLRS systems. Mobile and good at blanketing enemy targets. The warhead on the BM-21 is 42lbs and the rocket wieghs 169lbs. The BM-24 rocket is 248lbs and the warhead is 103.4lbs. The BM-21 has a 20km range and the BM-24 has a 11km range. Combat has shown them to be very mobile and able to drop in lots of rockets fast and then move to avoid enemy fire. The Czechs had the RM-70 which was similar to the BM-21 but could reload much faster as it had a second volley on the vehicle ready to be quickly put in.

And the Soviets had Frog battlefield rockets which lacked accucary but would have been flying around probably if nukes are banned to hit airbases. The SP SO-152 would have just been entering service and not around in big numbers. And the SO-122 was a year off. So we are talking towed guns minus the relative handful ASU-87s with the paratroopers which are more mobile TDs then SP guns.

They also had scores of M-160 (160mm) and M-240 (240mm) heavy mortars. The M-160 shell wieghs about 90lbs and the M-240 shell wieghs about 220lbs. Good for mountian ops. Later on the M-240 got SPed and saw service in Afghanistan with a lazer guided shell.

The counter to the MLRSs would have been German LARS rocket system (wheeled) which used a 110mm rocket to 14km.

NATO would have had more SP artillery systems like the M-109 (155mm), M-52 (155mm), M-108 (105mm), Mk-61 (105mm), Mk F3 (155mm), M-110 (203mm), M-107 (175mm) and Abbot (105mm). Those had more mobility then the Soviet guns but many lacked much range all but the M-107 that is. The M-107 was a corps level gun with a 147lb shell that goes out to 32km. It was used by (within NATO) Greece, Turkey, Spain, UK, the USA, Germany and Italy.

NATO had a good deal of towed guns like the M-115 (203mm/M-1 from WW-2), M-50 (155mm), M-114 (155mm), M-102 (105mm), M-101 (105mm), M-56 (105mm) and others. The UKs L-118 Light Gun (105mm) had just finished testing in 1973 and the first showed up in 1974. Not like a 105mm is a tide turner but still... :biggrin:

----

As far as artillery and manpacked anti tank systems the Russians were really ahead. But how they would have been used by the Soviets I don't know but that could have been one hell or scary of an artillery strike on Germany. The Soviets also had AT-3s and AT-2s on BRDM-2s as wheeled AT systems.

NATO did have better fighters in the air like the F-4D/E and Mirage III. Small arms who knows scores of AK-47s vs. 7.62mm battle rifles.

-----

Greece and Turkey were falling apart by this point and we had been slowing military equipment to the Greeks. This would have been one year before things exploded and they had a go at each other.

Bill
11 Apr 05,, 04:29
See why i asked you?

LOL..thanx for the details cuz.

troung
11 Apr 05,, 04:38
No problem... where else would I be able to rant on about non modern artillery :)

Bill
11 Apr 05,, 04:49
Another thing one must consider heavily is that in 1973 the US military had hundreds of thousands of combat veterans(literally millions if you include the reserves), and an elite hardened NCO and Officers corps. The Senior NCOs and Officers in 1973 had as many as three major wars under their belt...WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.

That makes a HUGE difference once the steel starts flying.

Officer of Engineers
11 Apr 05,, 05:09
Another thing one must consider heavily is that in 1973 the US military had hundreds of thousands of combat veterans(literally millions if you include the reserves), and an elite hardened NCO and Officers corps. The Senior NCOs and Officers in 1973 had as many as three major wars under their belt...WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.

That makes a HUGE difference once the steel starts flying.

And 1000s of battle proven M113s :-)

The US military was also sufferring from a morale problem vis-a-vi Vietnam (John Kerry). Don't know how much of an effect that would be. The NCO corps should be able to motiviate men in battle. They did in VN.

However, recalling Khe Sanh, the air corridor was kept openned, as was Berlin (the Berlin Air Lift). So, even if the Soviets managed to isolate various units, would there be sufficient lift and air deliver ordnance to keep them viable and in the fight?

troung
11 Apr 05,, 05:09
My question is what about Asia?

The 2nd Indochina war was still going on. America was slowly cutting back funding. Would we have upped the funding for South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia if the USSR attacked NATO or canceled the funding? Hindsight 20/20 st Indochina fell anyway but in 1973 things would not have been so clear.

We did have other allies down there and Soviet aggression could have made them more willing to go in. Thailand had just pulled back the UNITY battalions from Laos because we pulled out of Indochina. Indonesia had debated sending in troops to fight alongside the Cambodian government but canceled it and decided to train officers and special forces. I wonder if we would have pushed them both to go in along with the other pro America nations (Singapore, Philippines, Malaysia).

Of course they would have to be reequipped to do so but we would not be able to do much other then cascade down really older equipment (F-86s, T-28s and such). Granted ASEAN (at the time Singapore, Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia and Singapore) was and still is totally toothless as a group (we are not talking NATO here).

Then we have Japan, Taiwan and South Korea.

----

Back to Europe how ready for war would the USA have been after just finishing leaving Indochina?

Bill
11 Apr 05,, 05:17
We'd have probably pulled out of Vietnam ASAP to get those forces to Europe.

Ready for war?

Very.

Ready for a war in C.Europe?

That's what we're trying to determine here. ;)

troung
11 Apr 05,, 05:18
"And 1000s of battle proven M113s :-)"

Oh yeah we win no contest, it thick skin would be immune to enemy fire and spearhead the drive the Moscow by keeping off the roads. Hook up a M-40 and pow war is over...

"However, recalling Khe Sanh, the air corridor was kept openned, as was Berlin (the Berlin Air Lift). So, even if the Soviets managed to isolate various units, would there be sufficient lift and air deliver ordnance to keep them viable and in the fight?"

Khe Sanh was not faced with the AD around it the Soviets threw alongside its own divisions/armies not to mention there was no enemy airforce. Maybe An Loc would be a better example but still the Soviets if they cut some guys off would no doubt have their own planes around along with SAMs and AAA. Artillery would kill the airfields to land the planes really quick so high altitude dropping would be the only way possible.

C-130s, C-160s, C-123s, C-47s, C-212s and such (doubt we would use the heavies to fly behind the lines) would be flying againist scores of ZSU-23-4s, ZSU-57-2s, S-60s, ZU-23-2s, SA-7s, SA-9s and SA-6s. That would be a lot to fly through with SEAD ability so rather low in 1973. But the VVS might be the bigger threat with regiments of planes flying around. They could keep things supplied with out the enemy aerial and SAM threat but with it things get iffy...

troung
11 Apr 05,, 05:20
"We'd have probably pulled out of Vietnam ASAP to get those forces to Europe."

Well by 1973 it was only really American money over there...

Bill
11 Apr 05,, 05:21
The US had a highly refined wild weasel strategy in 1973, that was conveniently also extensively combat tested.

OTOH, the Soviets had no equivelant whatsoever back in the early 70s.

The Hawk missile was a decent SAM...so it leads me to believe they'd probably suffer more from our SAMs than we would from theirs.

Officer of Engineers
11 Apr 05,, 05:25
C-130s, C-160s, C-123s, C-47s, C-212s and such (doubt we would use the heavies to fly behind the lines) would be flying againist scores of ZSU-23-4s, ZSU-57-2s, S-60s, ZU-23-2s, SA-7s, SA-9s and SA-6s. That would be a lot to fly through with SEAD ability so rather low in 1973. But the VVS might be the bigger threat with regiments of planes flying around. They could keep things supplied with out the enemy aerial and SAM threat but with it things get iffy...

There was LB I and II which gone through one of the thickest AD nets in history. Admittingly, it took time to reduce them all. However, the net around various units would not be as thick. As for the VVS. If they're still flying, so would be the NATO flyboys.

Are there going to casualties? Most certainly. Is it enough?

Officer of Engineers
11 Apr 05,, 05:39
My question is what about Asia?

What about China? Chinese survival would depend on an American victory. At the very least, one might think the Chinese would cut off aide to their SE allies to ease the American burden.

lwarmonger
11 Apr 05,, 06:01
What about China? Chinese survival would depend on an American victory. At the very least, one might think the Chinese would cut off aide to their SE allies to ease the American burden.

But would China do anything against the Soviet Union? Personally, I doubt it. In '73 they lacked the ability to do much of anything against the Soviet Siberian Fronts, even without the Russian nuclear arsenal coming into play. Also, question. When did the BMP IFV's start coming out? Would the BMP-1 have been available for this conflict, or would the Soviets still be entirely using BTR's?

Officer of Engineers
11 Apr 05,, 06:15
But would China do anything against the Soviet Union? Personally, I doubt it. In '73 they lacked the ability to do much of anything against the Soviet Siberian Fronts, even without the Russian nuclear arsenal coming into play.

That really depends on Mao who is by this time, a babling old fool who would be just delusional enough that the Heavens have given him the oppertunity to spread the true Communist revolution.

Bill
11 Apr 05,, 15:47
I'm pretty sure the BMP-1 was in service in large numbers in 1973, but that's just a guess. I was only 4 years old then...lol.

deadkenny
11 Apr 05,, 18:41
Pretty sure the BMP-1 was deployed in large numbers to the 1st line units by '73. The 2nd line were prolly still in BTR's.

I don't see China taking offensive action - just being very prepared. Most likely effect is that the Soviets can't afford to strip the China front to reinforce the effort against NATO.

troung
11 Apr 05,, 20:11
"There was LB I and II which gone through one of the thickest AD nets in history. Admittingly, it took time to reduce them all. However, the net around various units would not be as thick. As for the VVS. If they're still flying, so would be the NATO flyboys. Are there going to casualties? Most certainly. Is it enough?"

LB-I/II were bombing raids not resupply missions done with enemy planes in the air attacking cargo planes as the war rages miles back on the front lines.

The VVS did also not fly the same way NATO did, they flew much bigger filling the skies with planes. I don't know if airdropping supplies more or less behind the front lines would work with regiments of MiG-23MSs, MiG-21MF/PFs and such flying around in big numbers. One for one their planes were not very good but in numbers a MiG-23 becomes part of a big pack and increases in effect. There would be swarms and not pairs of planes showing up over the lines.

And plus An Loc and Khe Sahn were hard enough without having to worry about scores of enemy fighters and bombers breaking up the missions. I don't know but it would be damn bloody to try to do so. And thats leaving out how muhc would get through and once landed how much would survive enemy artillery zeroed in on drop zones and how many supplies are needed to keep a surronded division combat ready.

"Pretty sure the BMP-1 was deployed in large numbers to the 1st line units by '73. The 2nd line were prolly still in BTR's."

The BMP-1 was around in big numbers but in 1973 they were still looking to charge them into the enemy with the infantry shooting out the sides or dismounting and putting the BMPs in front of the infantry. That FYI failed the same year in the middle east but it would have been too soon to change doctrine around.

"The US had a highly refined wild weasel strategy in 1973, that was conveniently also extensively combat tested. OTOH, the Soviets had no equivelant whatsoever back in the early 70s."

The were limited in SEAD as the Kh-28 was cleared in 1971/72 but the platfrom was damn old. So it got held back. By the 1980s the Soviets were ahead in some areas.

"The Hawk missile was a decent SAM...so it leads me to believe they'd probably suffer more from our SAMs than we would from theirs."

Still North Vietnam had far less fighters and SAMs to worry about. And remember the rest of NATO were flying in F-104s, F-5A/Bs and such which lacked SEAD/ECM and we would not have enough platforms to protect them all.

But without SEAD the HAWK would have been damn lethal to Su-17s and such and even Tu-22Bs.

Praxus
12 Apr 05,, 00:50
How much forces did they have in Siberia? Something like 500,000 I believe? Perhaps a land invasion in the East would help to draw some of their forces from Europe?

deadkenny
12 Apr 05,, 01:04
I'm sure NATO would benefit, but what would the benefit be for the Chinese? It would be difficult for the PLA to launch an effective offensive, since much of it was logistically tied to it's local district. Plus, it becomes increasingly difficult to leave nukes out of the equation. I can buy it in a WP invasion of Germany - since the WP objective could be to capture the country intact for their benefit and NATO wants to minimize civilian loss of life. On the other hand, the Soviets wouldn't likely refrain from use of nukes on China if the Chinese started to get too aggressive.

Bill
12 Apr 05,, 01:16
Nukes were banned and destroyed by all major powers by treaty six months prior to the start of hostilities.

No one has any.

That's the only way this debate can be plausible, so that's the operating assumption i'm working under.

Metak
12 Apr 05,, 01:21
I think the main Chinese problem would be logististics and the sheer number of Soviet artillery pieces pointed at the border. Chinese wave tactics would not work to well against massed Soviet artillery with mountains of shells. I would be slaughter for the Chinese.

Officer of Engineers
12 Apr 05,, 05:24
LB-I/II were bombing raids not resupply missions done with enemy planes in the air attacking cargo planes as the war rages miles back on the front lines.

It was to show that ground base AD was not a show stopper.

However, I had a reply all mapped out until I realized I was barking up the wrong tree. I was still thinking a nuke scenario where the war must be over within 30 days. So, my assumptions would not be valid.


China

What can China do and what can she do it with?

China can attack the USSR. She just won't win but she can attack. The point here was that Mao Tse-Tung was an old man who believes his own cult of personality. He dragged China through 3 disasters (the Korean War, the Great Leap Forward, and the Great Proliteriate Cultural Revolution) and the scary thing was that he brain washed over 200 million people (the Red Guards and their followers) into his delusions. In fact, the attrocities attributed to the Chinese by the Soviets during their border clashes were rumoured to be done by the Red Guards (teenagers pretending to be revolutionary soliders) and not by the regforce PLA.

This being said, the Chinese defence plan had always relied on a strategic mobile reserves to attack the invader when guerrilla warfare has taken its toll on the invader. Specifically this was the 38th and 39th Group Armies which at the time also contain their entire tank force reserves (mostly Soviet T-55 clones).

lwarmonger
12 Apr 05,, 05:45
This being said, the Chinese defence plan had always relied on a strategic mobile reserves to attack the invader when guerrilla warfare has taken its toll on the invader. Specifically this was the 38th and 39th Group Armies which at the time also contain their entire tank force reserves (mostly Soviet T-55 clones).

But would it do any good? The SU could take most of Manchuria away from China (to protect the trans-Siberian railroad) at this time with forces already in place (are we assuming that they hadn't built up for the invasion of China in this scenario...? it doesn't really matter but it would be nice to know). Other than that, they wouldn't continue on to occupy the rest of China (not without nuking it first, and with no nukes that means no occupation) until after Europe was conquered. Given that, Chinese tactics would have minimal effect, as their armoured forces would be easily crushed long before guerilla warfare had any noticable impact. The SU always maintained a large enough standing garrison with China to do at least that much. No sane (and I do understand that may not apply here) Chinese leadership would try to take the SU down from behind, even without nukes in the equation.

Officer of Engineers
12 Apr 05,, 05:54
Ahhh, weren't you the one who was argueing for the Chinese side?

lwarmonger
12 Apr 05,, 05:58
Ahhh, weren't you the one who was argueing for the Chinese side?

The Chinese side today. The Chinese economy is now substantially larger than that of Russia, and the Russian military has fallen quite a ways since 1973 as well. China was still a peasant society in 1973, incapable of matching Russia militarily or economically. Even without nukes, there was no way China could win back then, wheras now they have the industrial muscle to make their numbers felt in a protracted war.

Officer of Engineers
12 Apr 05,, 06:19
The Chinese side today. The Chinese economy is now substantially larger than that of Russia, and the Russian military has fallen quite a ways since 1973 as well. China was still a peasant society in 1973, incapable of matching Russia militarily or economically. Even without nukes, there was no way China could win back then, wheras now they have the industrial muscle to make their numbers felt in a protracted war.
Except the Chinese ain't trying to match the Soviets tank for tank, plane for plane. The US/NATO is doing that quite effectively on the Western front. Also, Chinese factories are quite capable of doing the numbers. In 1973, they had over 2000 fighter planes (mostly MiG-17 and MiG-19), 5000 tanks (T-55 clones), and with a militia adding into a manpower pool of serveral million.

Even the Soviets did not believe they had the conventional strength alone to just attack Lop Nor. That battle plan was nuke based. While there would also be a second thrust through the Beijing and Nanjing Military Regions, this would be exactly the war that Mao had envisioned for the People's War.

In fact, looking at this from Mao's perspective, he couldn't go wrong. The bulk of Soviet action and attention would in the West, not East. No nukes had ensured that the Soviets could not take Fortress Beijing and even if his attack would go wrong and invite a counter-Soviet invasion, it would be exactly the kind of war he would be looking for.

troung
12 Apr 05,, 06:39
"It was to show that ground base AD was not a show stopper."

Ok. But the show stopper could have been VVS/WP fighters. There would have been a lot flying in big numbers, bigger numbers then the VPAF were able to put up and keep up. One needs a lot of missions flown by the smaller transport planes (doubt the heavies would be on that mission) flying all the time to keep a surronded force that is under pressure able to keep in the fight.

But no point in arguing this seeing with you on this aspect as I am sure you know much more then me on the subject of NATO plans during WW-3 (not really my area and I never faced down the Soviets :) ).

"However, I had a reply all mapped out until I realized I was barking up the wrong tree. I was still thinking a nuke scenario where the war must be over within 30 days. So, my assumptions would not be valid."

Without nukes this topic is wierd.

The lack of SEAD for the USSR was partly on the assumption nuclear strikes (EMP) would cripple NATO radars. By 1973 they had been working on a SEAD force but no progress had been made other then getting a missile (Kh-28) but not having a shooter. It was not really until about the 1980s that they had a decent (and very large) SEAD force.

Plus of course the CF-104s and Mirage-IVs would have lost a big part of their role.

But if it not to much work could I hear your mapped out scenario with the nukes and a 30 day war? Even if you have to send it in a PM, as it would be very interseting to hear. :)

Officer of Engineers
12 Apr 05,, 06:45
Remember, you asked for it.


Ok. But the show stopper could have been VVS/WP fighters. There would have been a lot flying in big numbers, bigger numbers then the VPAF were able to put up and keep up. One needs a lot of missions flown by the smaller transport planes (doubt the heavies would be on that mission) flying all the time to keep a surronded force that is under pressure able to keep in the fight.

Never mind the transports. The presence of so many VVS-WP planes would be giving the NATO AF the exact fight they would be looking for. It would be a target rich zone. Kill them here and kill them for the entire theatre.

I will have to retype my scenario tomorrow. I need some sleep before work in the morning. Will reply when ready.

lwarmonger
12 Apr 05,, 06:51
Except the Chinese ain't trying to match the Soviets tank for tank, plane for plane. The US/NATO is doing that quite effectively on the Western front. Also, Chinese factories are quite capable of doing the numbers. In 1973, they had over 2000 fighter planes (mostly MiG-17 and MiG-19), 5000 tanks (T-55 clones), and with a militia adding into a manpower pool of serveral million.


The Chinese had no way of replacing lost equipment quickly. Their manufacturing capacity then was a fraction of what it is today, and the Russians now have a fraction of the manufacturing capability that they did in 1973 (relatively... although I believe they have lost absolute manufacturing ability as well). Chinese factories were not up to a great power contest in '73. Especially not that close to the "great leap forward." Their economy has only really started to take off since Mao died, and his successors began to focus on economic development. There was no way the Chinese could have outproduced the Soviet Union in the 70's. What they had at the start of the conflict would not be replaced at anywhere near the rate the Soviets could destroy it.



Even the Soviets did not believe they had the conventional strength alone to just attack Lop Nor. That battle plan was nuke based. While there would also be a second thrust through the Beijing and Nanjing Military Regions, this would be exactly the war that Mao had envisioned for the People's War.


If you are looking at the conquest of China, then you are correct. But if the Soviets were stabbed in the back, they wouldn't try and conquer China (especially without nukes), but instead simply secure Siberia by taking away the portions of Manchuria that could be used a springboards against the Transiberian supply lines. They were surely capable of that, and it wouldn't have left them as open to a people's war.



In fact, looking at this from Mao's perspective, he couldn't go wrong. The bulk of Soviet action and attention would in the West, not East. No nukes had ensured that the Soviets could not take Fortress Beijing and even if his attack would go wrong and invite a counter-Soviet invasion, it would be exactly the kind of war he would be looking for.

True, assuming the Soviets tried to invade. Their main focus would still be in the west though, would it not? All they need to do is secure their Siberian flank, and await the conquest of Europe. Then additional forces can be brought in theater, and they can go from there.

Bill
12 Apr 05,, 08:47
I don't think we're looking at a war that has any real chance of becoming protracted, especially if China were to invade the Soviets.

I think that this would be a quick and decisive war in the west- one way or another, and whatever happened on the Chinese side of things would be a sideshow to the real fight in the West.

If the Soviet Union wins in the West, China is of course ultimately doomed. But if NATO blunts the initial Soviet advance, and launches a counter-offensive, it would get very ugly, very quickly for the Soviets.

Without China in the fight, the Soviets have a huge strategic reserve force to counter any NATO counter-offensive with massive force(even if it's deep in WP territory). With China in the fight, that force is one hell of a lot smaller, and it has too be divided into two fronts.

We've seen how poorly that works for the Germans, i don't expect it would be any better for the Soviets.

Now, after a joint NATO-Chinese victory, what do the Chinese get out of it?

LOTS.

Huge risk, huge reward.

troung
12 Apr 05,, 19:12
"I will have to retype my scenario tomorrow. I need some sleep before work in the morning. Will reply when ready."

No problem, take your time :)

Officer of Engineers
13 Apr 05,, 06:09
No problem, take your time :)

#$$#$%#%$$%$#%$#%$#%$#%$$#%#%$ I was half way through when my computer froze $%^$^%$%^$%^$^%$%^@#@##$#@$#@$#@$

Officer of Engineers
13 Apr 05,, 06:19
The Chinese had no way of replacing lost equipment quickly.

No need. There was sufficent stocks to at least open the front and sufficent stocks to man the defences.


If you are looking at the conquest of China, then you are correct. But if the Soviets were stabbed in the back, they wouldn't try and conquer China (especially without nukes), but instead simply secure Siberia by taking away the portions of Manchuria that could be used a springboards against the Transiberian supply lines. They were surely capable of that, and it wouldn't have left them as open to a people's war.

Several things.

1) The Soviets were going to rely on nukes to take Manchuria.
2) The Chinese had set up several Stalingrad type fortresses.
3) Only the strategic reserves would be annihalated, the main forces would still be viable and still had to be overcome.
4) Without nukes, Soviet manpower and firepower requirements just jumped through the roof - 45 divisions just ain't going to cut it.
5) It is still 100 miles from the Sino-Soviet border to a main force engagement.


True, assuming the Soviets tried to invade. Their main focus would still be in the west though, would it not? All they need to do is secure their Siberian flank, and await the conquest of Europe. Then additional forces can be brought in theater, and they can go from there.

You're assuming that the Soviets still had the initative. Mao had the iniative against a superior 8th Army in Korea.

MIKEMUN
13 Apr 05,, 07:19
What about replacing lost equipment..Planes tanks and the rest...I think it would depend on how much Russia can destroy US factories on the mainland,and how much effect NATO raids would have on Russian wartime production...

Tinkertoys
13 Apr 05,, 10:31
The B-52s of that era had no non-nuclear standoff weapons. In order for them to be used in a direct overflight role the US would need complete air supremacy.

That would've been a very difficult undertaking considering that the US top of the line fighter at the time was The F-4E Phantom armed with the substandard AIM-7C Sparrow missile.

The USN in 1973 held complete and total dominance at sea though, and even the RN was a very powerful force at that time. In 1973, the Soviet navy was not a very capable force at all.

Modify them for Sidewinders?

-Tink

Tinkertoys
13 Apr 05,, 10:37
"The M-72 was decent but had problems with guys not trained to use them, one needed a good deal of training on them to get them to work right."

The problem with the early M-72 models was that when you pulled the launch tube open it would separate if you pulled too hard.

That problem was not solved until the early 80s when the M-72A3 W/Coupler was introduced. That weapon was so simple an untrained monkey could use it effectively.

But it wouldn't penetrate the frontal or side armor on an T-72 or T-64 unless you got lucky and hit a weakspot.


Everything would basically have come down to training.


-Tink

Tinkertoys
13 Apr 05,, 10:39
True, sorry, its just hard to separate from reality like that. Allright, with no nukes I still think conquering the whole Soviet Union would be reallllly hard. The USSR's SAM network was second to none, they already had a rationing system so moving to emergency war measures would probably not much of a stretch for them. They have experience with war time hardships and the people were heavily indoctrinated. Plus they would likely still have a lot of equipment left, although from my understanding Soviet doctrine is weak on defense...so maybe we'd have a chance. I don't know.


No one has ever fully conquered Russia.

-Tink

Praxus
13 Apr 05,, 18:38
No one has ever fully conquered Russia.

-Tink

Russia is not unconquerable, not even close exspecially considering when you are facing an enemy with Superior training equivilent machinery and over twice as large population.

Officer of Engineers
13 Apr 05,, 18:42
No one has ever fully conquered Russia.

-Tink

The Mongols did a mighty good job.

Tinkertoys
13 Apr 05,, 20:37
The Mongols did a mighty good job.

They did not capture all of it thogh, that is the important part.

-Tink

ZFBoxcar
13 Apr 05,, 20:40
You don't have to capture every square inch of a country to beat it or make it surrender unconditionally.

Tinkertoys
13 Apr 05,, 20:42
You don't have to capture every square inch of a country to beat it or make it surrender unconditionally.

I understand that, but who has effectively captured Russia?



-Tink

Prosto ILya
13 Apr 05,, 20:46
The Mongols did a mighty good job.

Indeed. In establishing almost-300-year Иго (Yoke) – yes.
But not in conquering.
They were wise enough to keep local Slavic bosses at bay and collect regular tribute.
When, eventually, Mongols decide to come and make good residence in Moscow, to take full control, they faced Kulikovo.
http://www.kulpole.ru/ENG/KUL_BIT_E.htm


Russia is not unconquerable

There always are nice folks desperately eager to try.
Try and try, try and try...


I understand that, but who has effectively captured Russia?

Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd and Deep Purple.
Yup, they were successful .

p.s.
Waiting for tread “Warsaw Pact vs Leslie Nielsen” and “NATO vs Mike Tason”

lwarmonger
13 Apr 05,, 23:12
No need. There was sufficent stocks to at least open the front and sufficent stocks to man the defences.


And the Soviets could have destroyed that with their forces in place. So in order to be effective, the Chinese would have had to replace those losses, otherwise they have lost their offensive capability. China is attacking here, at least in the outset.



1) The Soviets were going to rely on nukes to take Manchuria.


Because they had them, and the Chinese really didn't have much of a response. It's the smart thing to do. Personally, I don't think the Soviets required nukes to defend Siberia, but they were going to use them if necessary.



2) The Chinese had set up several Stalingrad type fortresses.


Which could be bypassed, or didn't even have to be reached. All the Soviets had to do was take sections of Manchuria, to round off the front and make it a little more defensable.



3) Only the strategic reserves would be annihalated, the main forces would still be viable and still had to be overcome.

What ever happened to a force being irrelevant without it's reserves? I feel we've had this arguement before except from other sides. :)
Besides, the Soviets merely needed to destroy China's offensive capability. They aren't trying to conquer China here, merely defend Siberia until the situation in the West has been resolved.



4) Without nukes, Soviet manpower and firepower requirements just jumped through the roof - 45 divisions just ain't going to cut it.

For defending Siberia? For limited offensives to round out the frontier (many portions of Manchuria are not heavily populated, and could be held with a minimum of difficulty)? Why wouldn't 45 divisions cut it? Fewer than that were deployed against NATO, and we were (and are) far stronger.



5) It is still 100 miles from the Sino-Soviet border to a main force engagement.


The Chinese are attacking. It is at the border where the main force engagement would be, is it not? Even if it isn't, the Soviets would just do their best to hold Siberia, until the conflict in the west was resolved.



You're assuming that the Soviets still had the initative. Mao had the iniative against a superior 8th Army in Korea.

I'm assuming that the Soviets would take the initiative, once the original Chinese attack had been destroyed. They would not use that initiative to push into China without substantial reinforcements, I agree. However taking portions of Manchuria, and using limited offensives to destroy Chinese forces was not beyond Soviet capabilities. The 8th army was logistically stretched out, somewhat dispersed, and surprised by the appearance of the Chinese. The Soviets had none of these problems.

Metak
13 Apr 05,, 23:13
Who's Mike Tason? :confused:

Officer of Engineers
13 Apr 05,, 23:51
And the Soviets could have destroyed that with their forces in place. So in order to be effective, the Chinese would have had to replace those losses, otherwise they have lost their offensive capability. China is attacking here, at least in the outset.

1st, understand the committement. The Chinese are only committing two corps to the attack. Behind them are another 3 corps waiting in static defence (forts don't move). And there is another 7 Military Regions that would yet to see combat. The Soviets may be able to destroy the 38 and 39 GAs but that does not mean that they could wipe out two Military Regions at the same time.


Because they had them, and the Chinese really didn't have much of a response. It's the smart thing to do. Personally, I don't think the Soviets required nukes to defend Siberia, but they were going to use them if necessary.

Two different things here. Repelling the attack and eliminating the threat. To take out the threat, the Soviets had to invade Manchuria. Actually two Military Regions (Beijing and Shenyang) with a combined strength at the time of about 5-6 corps (if you include the independent units).


Which could be bypassed, or didn't even have to be reached. All the Soviets had to do was take sections of Manchuria, to round off the front and make it a little more defensable.

And where do you think those PLA GAs were sitting?


What ever happened to a force being irrelevant without it's reserves? I feel we've had this arguement before except from other sides. :)

Except in this scenario, the roles are reversed. The strategic reserves became the offensive force and the main force became the reserve, even strictly by geography. The 38 and 39 GAs are out front while the main defensive static force laid back.


Besides, the Soviets merely needed to destroy China's offensive capability. They aren't trying to conquer China here, merely defend Siberia until the situation in the West has been resolved.

No, they need to destroy China's ability to wage war. Two different objectives. The former merely fixes the status quo. The latter releases your forces to the West (or at least eliminate additional re-enforcement requirements).


For defending Siberia? For limited offensives to round out the frontier (many portions of Manchuria are not heavily populated, and could be held with a minimum of difficulty)?

They're fortified.


Why wouldn't 45 divisions cut it? Fewer than that were deployed against NATO, and we were (and are) far stronger.

Think you better check your numbers. There were 173 Warsaw Pact divisions against 87 NATO divisions.


The Chinese are attacking. It is at the border where the main force engagement would be, is it not? Even if it isn't, the Soviets would just do their best to hold Siberia, until the conflict in the west was resolved.

And what is stopping the Chinese from marching out with another GA? Even on foot? And before you say a mech force would kill a foot force, how would you know where the foot force is sitting in Siberia?


I'm assuming that the Soviets would take the initiative, once the original Chinese attack had been destroyed.

Invalid assumption. The Chinese are not amateurs in warfare though they may be not be as experienced with alot of modern aspects. Once they achieved battle momemtum, it is death if they lose it. No matter what the costs, they will have to keep the battle momentum on their side. The assumption that the Soviets automatically retreived the initiative once the 38 and 39 GAs are destroyed is invalid. The Chinese still had assets to which to act with. How they would act is entire speculation but it is unfounded that they would surrender the initiative so easily.


They would not use that initiative to push into China without substantial reinforcements, I agree.

Again, invalid assumption. If you have the initiative and the battle momentum, you have to push it to its logical conclusion. Otherwise, it's suicide.


However taking portions of Manchuria, and using limited offensives to destroy Chinese forces was not beyond Soviet capabilities. The 8th army was logistically stretched out, somewhat dispersed, and surprised by the appearance of the Chinese. The Soviets had none of these problems.

You've missed the point altogether. Had 8th Army stood and fought and even attacked, they would have killed the PVA. Instead, the shock and momentum was on the Chinese side and they exploited it to no end, despite facing a superior force.

lwarmonger
14 Apr 05,, 04:38
1st, understand the committement. The Chinese are only committing two corps to the attack. Behind them are another 3 corps waiting in static defence (forts don't move). And there is another 7 Military Regions that would yet to see combat. The Soviets may be able to destroy the 38 and 39 GAs but that does not mean that they could wipe out two Military Regions at the same time.


If those armies aren't attacking, then they don't need to be destroyed right away. The Soviets are on the defensive, they need only destroy the attacking force, and hold Siberia.



Two different things here. Repelling the attack and eliminating the threat. To take out the threat, the Soviets had to invade Manchuria. Actually two Military Regions (Beijing and Shenyang) with a combined strength at the time of about 5-6 corps (if you include the independent units).


This is a war waged by the Chinese on the Soviets. What the Soviets had to do to repel the threat was beat back the attacking force, and round out their frontiers in order to make defense a bit easier. Eliminating the threat entirely could have waited until after things had been brought to a conclusion in the West.



And where do you think those PLA GAs were sitting?


The Manchurian-Siberian border is extremely long and uneven. Defending every little jink in the border is impossible (for both sides), and therefore rounding it out becomes essential. Those group armies are sitting well back of the border, or they have just been destroyed in their assault into Siberia. They are not defending every salient along the border.



Except in this scenario, the roles are reversed. The strategic reserves became the offensive force and the main force became the reserve, even strictly by geography. The 38 and 39 GAs are out front while the main defensive static force laid back.


Point taken, I was just yanking your chain.



No, they need to destroy China's ability to wage war. Two different objectives. The former merely fixes the status quo. The latter releases your forces to the West (or at least eliminate additional re-enforcement requirements).


Not immediately they don't. The west is the bigger threat, and must be dealt with first. The Siberian front merely needs to be held until forces can be transfered back from Western Europe. Conquering China is beyond the means of the Soviet Siberian forces, and would not be attempted. In the long run, the Chinese ability to wage war needs to be destroyed, but right then and there NATO is the far larger threat (only NATO had the capability to defeat the bulk of the Soviet military).



They're fortified.


The Chinese could not fortify and defend the entire border in strength. Not with 5 or six corps they couldn't. And once those fortifications are penetrated, the rest are surrounded and destroyed. Stay away from the populated areas, and make their front more defendable until additional forces can be brought in theater.



Think you better check your numbers. There were 173 Warsaw Pact divisions against 87 NATO divisions.


There were 173 Soviet (read reliable) divisions in Eastern Europe ( :confused: )? I didn't think there were that many. Those divisions in European Russia (if those were the extra ones you were referring too, which I'm betting they are) could have gone to either China or NATO (although Nato was an easier move... assuming the Poles cooperated). I was meaning standing armies, within reasonable marching distance of the border.



And what is stopping the Chinese from marching out with another GA? Even on foot? And before you say a mech force would kill a foot force, how would you know where the foot force is sitting in Siberia?


How do you hide an entire army from an enemy with infrared and complete air superiority (the supply train alone would be trackable, even a foot army has to eat, and it can't get very far on foot in a few days... porters in large numbers can be located as well)? Not to mention that they're fighting on their own territory (and I'm sure the KGB had border guards set up, didn't they?).



Invalid assumption. The Chinese are not amateurs in warfare though they may be not be as experienced with alot of modern aspects. Once they achieved battle momemtum, it is death if they lose it. No matter what the costs, they will have to keep the battle momentum on their side. The assumption that the Soviets automatically retreived the initiative once the 38 and 39 GAs are destroyed is invalid. The Chinese still had assets to which to act with. How they would act is entire speculation but it is unfounded that they would surrender the initiative so easily.


The Soviets are mechanized, with complete air superiority and interior lines (Manchuria isn't very developed at this time). Assuming that the Soviet commanders are even halfway competent (or rather, that their Chinese equivalents are no more competent than they), with advantages like that they should be able to get, and then retain, the initiative fairly quickly.



Again, invalid assumption. If you have the initiative and the battle momentum, you have to push it to its logical conclusion. Otherwise, it's suicide.


How is it suicide? Against an equal force, perhaps, but the Chinese were no way near equal, and lacked the means to become equal. Pushing deep into China without adequate forces would be suicide, destroying the occasional Chinese thrust, and waiting for reinforcements so that the Chinese ability to wage war could be eliminated later on is definitely the prudent course of action (and the one the Soviet leadership would most likely have taken, as their main effort was in the West).



You've missed the point altogether. Had 8th Army stood and fought and even attacked, they would have killed the PVA. Instead, the shock and momentum was on the Chinese side and they exploited it to no end, despite facing a superior force.

What I was saying was that the United States was unprepared to meet the Chinese. While they probably could have beaten the Chinese if they had stood and fought, they did not feel that they could have (because they were strung out, and disorganized), and that enabled the Chinese to push forward. The Soviets do not have any of these psychological difficulties, and there was no uncertainty as to what was facing them. They would not give the Chinese such an opening.

dalem
14 Apr 05,, 05:27
==========Begin Hijack Here=========

OoE (or indeed anyone with an opinion) -

What is/are the best book or books to read to gain an understanding of the history of Sino-Soviet border clashes and events?

Thanks!

-dale

==========End Hijack Here==========

Officer of Engineers
14 Apr 05,, 06:41
If those armies aren't attacking, then they don't need to be destroyed right away. The Soviets are on the defensive, they need only destroy the attacking force, and hold Siberia.

Since when the Soviets were EVER on the defensive, ESPECIALLY against the Chinese?


This is a war waged by the Chinese on the Soviets. What the Soviets had to do to repel the threat was beat back the attacking force, and round out their frontiers in order to make defense a bit easier. Eliminating the threat entirely could have waited until after things had been brought to a conclusion in the West.

Except for the fact that their entire posture is purely offensive with no fortifications, no minefields, no obstacles. You're ignoring alot of history here.


The Manchurian-Siberian border is extremely long and uneven. Defending every little jink in the border is impossible (for both sides), and therefore rounding it out becomes essential. Those group armies are sitting well back of the border, or they have just been destroyed in their assault into Siberia. They are not defending every salient along the border.

You've missed the point here. The Chinese have fortified every point of interest that must be taken. The Russians could take nice tourist pictures of the Gobie but without taking Lop Nor, they would not have reduced a threat.


Point taken, I was just yanking your chain.

Duly noted.....


Not immediately they don't. The west is the bigger threat, and must be dealt with first. The Siberian front merely needs to be held until forces can be transfered back from Western Europe. Conquering China is beyond the means of the Soviet Siberian forces, and would not be attempted. In the long run, the Chinese ability to wage war needs to be destroyed, but right then and there NATO is the far larger threat (only NATO had the capability to defeat the bulk of the Soviet military).

Again, ignoring the historic picture here and also Soviet doctrine.


The Chinese could not fortify and defend the entire border in strength. Not with 5 or six corps they couldn't.

They don't have to defend the entire border. They only need to fortify the decisive points - ie, communication nodes and military-industrial complex centres.


And once those fortifications are penetrated, the rest are surrounded and destroyed.

And the next fort is waiting.


Stay away from the populated areas, and make their front more defendable until additional forces can be brought in theater.

People's War.


There were 173 Soviet (read reliable) divisions in Eastern Europe ( :confused: )? I didn't think there were that many.

It's 173 WARSAW PACT divisions versus 87 NATO divisions. Check IISS Military Balance 1973


Those divisions in European Russia (if those were the extra ones you were referring too, which I'm betting they are) could have gone to either China or NATO (although Nato was an easier move... assuming the Poles cooperated). I was meaning standing armies, within reasonable marching distance of the border.

You've forgotten Turkey.


How do you hide an entire army from an enemy with infrared and complete air superiority (the supply train alone would be trackable, even a foot army has to eat, and it can't get very far on foot in a few days... porters in large numbers can be located as well)? Not to mention that they're fighting on their own territory (and I'm sure the KGB had border guards set up, didn't they?).

This is 1973. If we, the West, was caught off guard by the Soviet build up to attack Lop Nor, then what make you think the Soviets would be any better with far less technology?


The Soviets are mechanized, with complete air superiority and interior lines (Manchuria isn't very developed at this time). Assuming that the Soviet commanders are even halfway competent (or rather, that their Chinese equivalents are no more competent than they), with advantages like that they should be able to get, and then retain, the initiative fairly quickly.

You've missed the point again altogether. Losses alone would not take the initative away from the Chinese (they did not in Korea). If the Chinese manages the shock right (the Korean War, the Sino-Indian War, and the 1st Sino-VN War all shown that they could manage the shock), then they could keep the iniative.


How is it suicide? Against an equal force, perhaps, but the Chinese were no way near equal, and lacked the means to become equal. Pushing deep into China without adequate forces would be suicide, destroying the occasional Chinese thrust, and waiting for reinforcements so that the Chinese ability to wage war could be eliminated later on is definitely the prudent course of action (and the one the Soviet leadership would most likely have taken, as their main effort was in the West).

The 8th Army took the initative away from the Chinese and gave it back to them and ... wham, the longest retreat in USArmy history.


World Affairs Board - Korea: Reluctant Dragons and Red Conspiracies (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=2928)

Documents recently released also throw light on the November Lull episode, a lull in the fighting that occurred throughout the peninsula. Reluctant Dragon historians later interpreted this pause as an unstated Chinese offer to America of a truce in exchange for a protected Communist sanctuary in the northern reaches of North Korea. We now know that the mysterious November Lull was nothing more than a case of exhausted, cold, hungry, and battered Chinese troops in need of rest, resupply, and reorganization before resuming their efforts to annihilate U.N. forces and push the Americans out of Korea.


What I was saying was that the United States was unprepared to meet the Chinese. While they probably could have beaten the Chinese if they had stood and fought, they did not feel that they could have (because they were strung out, and disorganized), and that enabled the Chinese to push forward. The Soviets do not have any of these psychological difficulties, and there was no uncertainty as to what was facing them. They would not give the Chinese such an opening.

An army poised to strike deep into China back by nukes to wipe out at least 3 MRs and 9 corps is all of a sudden put on the defensive against two Chinese corps and sitting behind with no prepared defences.

What do you call that?

Officer of Engineers
14 Apr 05,, 06:45
==========Begin Hijack Here=========

OoE (or indeed anyone with an opinion) -

What is/are the best book or books to read to gain an understanding of the history of Sino-Soviet border clashes and events?

Thanks!

-dale

==========End Hijack Here==========
Could you PM with your email?

CDF has 25 pages of raw material, mostly from the Soviet side of this issue. I have it zipped.

Prosto ILya
14 Apr 05,, 08:21
Who's Mike Tason? :confused:

Twin sister of Mike Tyson.

TopHatter
14 Apr 05,, 19:48
Could you PM with your email?

CDF has 25 pages of raw material, mostly from the Soviet side of this issue. I have it zipped.


I'd love to take a look at that too Colonel.
I've PM'ed my email address to you.
Thanks in advance sir

lwarmonger
15 Apr 05,, 00:22
OoE, it seems that you are taking the position that the Chinese could emerge victorious over the Soviet Union in 1973, whereas prior to this, you had argued at length with me about how the Chinese could in no way match the Russians in a great power struggle. Can you not see where these positions are at odds? The Russian military is a shadow of what it was in 1973, and the Chinese have a much larger industrial base with which to wage war now then they did in 1973. As for the Soviets being on the defensive, we are both agreed that a Soviet offensive with the forces it has in place along the Siberian border is suicide (45 divisions cannot effectively occupy China, and would be swallowed in that country). Doctrine is flexable to the situation, and a strategically defensive war of manuever in Siberia and northern Manchuria would be the only realistic option open to the Russians, who have their main forces attacking NATO (they don't have reinforcements available until after the West is crushed). The Soviets are going to win or lose in the West, not against China, however they are capable of waging a defensive war in Siberia with the forces they have in place. If the Russians could do it now, as you argued so long with me for, than the Soviets certainly could have done it in 1973.

Bill
15 Apr 05,, 00:24
No, what he's taking the position of is that combined with a war against NATO in the west, the Chinese have a fighting chance.

I didn't see the phrase 'chinese victory' anywhere in his posts.

lwarmonger
15 Apr 05,, 00:31
No, what he's taking the position of is that combined with a war against NATO in the west, the Chinese have a fighting chance.

I didn't see the phrase 'chinese victory' anywhere in his posts.

In this situation, the Soviets failing to achieve victory amounts to pretty much the same thing as a Chinese victory. I am arguing that the Soviets would be able to defend Siberia against the Chinese until reinforcements can be brought from the west, and he seems to be arguing against that. If the Soviets are incapable of holding Siberia and defeating the Chinese incursions, then they are losing.

Bill
15 Apr 05,, 00:37
What makes you think the Soviets will have any forces free to bring from the West?

If anything, they'll probably have to move Eastern forces westward.

Broken
15 Apr 05,, 00:51
The more i look at this, the more i'm thinking it won't be quite so easy for the Soviets as i'd initially though.

My bet is the Soviets would take Germany and the Netherlands, but it would be a very tough fight. The air-power would favor NATO from a crew quality and sortie rate viewpoint. The Soviets would dominate on the ground, but the Russians are historically bad when they initiate the fight. Still, the ground force balance was so heavily in their favor, and US Army morale was so low (Vietnam), that I think the Soviets end up occupying Germany.


The Leopard 1 and 1A1 were available in large numbers in 1973, the all weather A-7D Corsair II and F-111E were state of the art at the time, the F-4E was in service in the thousands, and almost all US TAC, USMC, and USN pilots of that era had extensive combat experience, the US had a massive attack helicopter fleet, and NATO would enjoy absolute control of the seas and shipping lanes.

The more i look at it, this is shaping up to be one hell of a serious fight...

True. However, the armor and artillery balance was just too heavily in the Soviets favor. The Soviets had a joke: Two Soviet Marshals are bedding down for the night in Antwerp. One says to the other, "I wonder who won the air war?"

In the long run, I don't think the Soviets could have held Germany, even if they initially took it.

Bill
15 Apr 05,, 00:52
"True. However, the armor and artillery balance was just too heavily in the Soviets favor."

Artillery i'll give you(BIG TIME), but i'm not so sure about the Armor. At the time this is proposed to occur(1973), the Leo 1A1 was easily the best tank in the world. It alone had shoot on the move capability in 1973. That's a pretty huge advantadge.

""I wonder who won the air war?""

I've heard that joke many times.

TopHatter
15 Apr 05,, 03:14
""I wonder who won the air war?""

I've heard that joke many times.

It is rather ironic. However, if the Soviets lost the air war, they'd have Hogs swarming all over them like a pack of dogs on a one-legged cat...and that would surely influence the ground war, right? Or am I being naive?

Bill
15 Apr 05,, 04:08
Not in 1973 they wouldn't.

They'd have A-7Ds swarming them...and you know how fond i am of those. ;)

lwarmonger
15 Apr 05,, 05:55
What makes you think the Soviets will have any forces free to bring from the West?

If anything, they'll probably have to move Eastern forces westward.

If they win in the West (which is where their main effort is), then they will be able to bring forces east. If they lose in the West, then the Chinese front is irrelevant anyways. According to the Soviet timetable, they have to be on the Rhine in 10 days (to the best of my recollection). If they are not, then they have lost. The war in Europe will be won or lost before much has actually happened in Siberia, so Soviet forces aren't going to be pulled from Siberia before the outcome is a foregone conclusion one way or the other.

Bill
15 Apr 05,, 07:23
Perhaps the WP forces are just barely on their timetables 8 or 9 days into the fight, but they've no reserves to move West because of the Chinese attack on their southern flank?

Chinese involvement could make all the difference.

Maybe. ;)

I really havn't come to any conclusion as to who i think would win. I get the feeling that if the Sov's break through and take Germany, they're probably getting everything all the way to france, but who knows.

Need more debate. ;)

TopHatter
15 Apr 05,, 15:18
Not in 1973 they wouldn't.

They'd have A-7Ds swarming them...and you know how fond i am of those. ;)


Right, my bad, forgot the scenario parameters :redface:

Ironically, I was also fond of the A-7 in my much younger years. (for different reasons obviously)
My brother was into the F-14 because it had a pointy nose and went Mach-snot.
I was a fan of the brutish Hog and Corsair II :)

Officer of Engineers
15 Apr 05,, 17:38
Dalem and TH,

Give me 24 hours. I've just gotten home from the road and I need to reorg my life (#1 Daughter got into my office and decided to play tug of war with the dog).

Monger,

Big misconceptiopn. The Soviets were to reach the Rhine (and that was a very big if) within 10 days. Did not mean that they conquered W Germany within that timeframe. Also, the Netherlands was a whole different can of worms since that was another Area that we've set up (re-enforced by the British Army) different from the Fulda Gap.

To take the Netherlands, the Soviets would have to regroup and rebuild and that is at least 5 days on top of the combat that would still be going on in W Germany. Best case scenario, the Soviets needed a 30 day war. Most likely a 60 day war. In either case, more than enough for the Chinese to make a difference.

Re: the Chinese theatre.

The Chinese had no hope in hell of killing those 45 Soviet divisions. The best case scenario for them is to tie them down and down draw whatever re-enforcements that are available eastward. What Mao would be thinking was to tip the scales for the NATO forces, not decisively engage the Soviets.

Also, if the Chinese were to sacrafice 3 Military Regions and 9 corps in defence of a Soviet invasion, then they are more than willing to do the same on the offense. In fact, looking at this from their PoV, they don't have a choice. They have to join in. If the Soviets win, then it was only a matter of time before they turn against the Chinese regardless whether the Chinese sit this one out or not.

TopHatter
15 Apr 05,, 18:51
Colonel, no problem at at all. Take your time.

Question, wouldn't the Soviets just need to reach the Ruhr and threaten West Germany's heavy industry?

Officer of Engineers
15 Apr 05,, 19:08
Question, wouldn't the Soviets just need to reach the Ruhr and threaten West Germany's heavy industry?

REFORGER.

TopHatter
15 Apr 05,, 20:09
REFORGER.


Sorry, should have been more specific. :redface: What I meant was "Was it/should it have been a goal of the Soviets to capture or threaten the Ruhr"? Would it have made sense or been a viable threat?

Speaking of REFORGER, when was the last time that was held? Mid-90s?

Edit: Never mind, it was 1993 :redface:

Blademaster
15 Apr 05,, 22:51
How did the last REFORGER exercise go?

Officer of Engineers
16 Apr 05,, 04:46
Sorry, should have been more specific. :redface: What I meant was "Was it/should it have been a goal of the Soviets to capture or threaten the Ruhr"? Would it have made sense or been a viable threat?

The Soviets would aim for it because they need to deny manouver room for NATO, not because they want to threaten civilian interests.

TopHatter
16 Apr 05,, 06:09
The Soviets would aim for it because they need to deny manouver room for NATO, not because they want to threaten civilian interests.

*sigh* I wish I could avoid coming off as a completely ignorant civ, but....
How would aiming for the Ruhr deny NATO manouver room?
Something to do with the geography of West Germany I'm sure :redface:

Officer of Engineers
16 Apr 05,, 06:28
*sigh* I wish I could avoid coming off as a completely ignorant civ, but....
How would aiming for the Ruhr deny NATO manouver room?
Something to do with the geography of West Germany I'm sure :redface:

It's (or was) part of the IV German Military District and thus served as a major communications node.

TopHatter
16 Apr 05,, 07:25
It's (or was) part of the IV German Military District and thus served as a major communications node.

Is Lammersdorf in there somewhere? (Yes, I love Red Storm Rising)

troung
16 Apr 05,, 17:57
I see there has not really no mention of WP Airborne units. In 1970 the BMD-1 first entered service and was first seen by the west in 1973. It was a radical shift in tactics for airborn units giving them a vehicle which in 1973 could kill any NATO tank (granted a LAW could kill the BMDs). Also the ASU-85 and ASU-57 were around giving mobile gun support to airborne units. The Soviets had 8 Airborne Divisions, Poland had 1 Airborne Division and the Czechs had an Airborne Regiment. That's a large airborne force that could cause a lot of confusion. And the Soviets being the way they are were not above giving up troops for dead during a big war.

Now only the Soviets had the BMD-1 but still with the 73mm and AT-3 it could cause some damage and confusion if dropped behind the lines and used to attack targets. At 800m the 73mm could kill an M-60A3 (with no ERA) and the AT-3 could do it at longer ranges. Those BMD-1 units would have good mobility on the ground compared to a NATO paratrooper. Each Russian airborne division had 48 SA-9 mobile SAMs, D-30 artillery and each company had SA-7 missiles. And of course they would have been upgunned with scores of RPG-7s and AT-3s to deal with NATO armor. Kind of a deadly force to have to deal with. That confusion after they landed would be rather big in theory and no doubt help the USSR out.

Also back in 1973 we would also be dealing with T-34-85s and IS-3 heavy tanks ;)

Metak
16 Apr 05,, 18:58
I highly doubt the low velocity 73mm gun on the BMP's and BMD's could take out an M-60A3. Maybe an earlier version if it got a hit from behind, but even with a HEAT round I think it highly unlikely. On the other hand the WP troops had probably 10's of thousands of those AT-3 "suitcases" Which were clumsy to use but had been proven in the Isreali-Arab conflicts to able to cause serious damage to Centurion and M-60 tanks if properly employed.

troung
16 Apr 05,, 19:13
"I highly doubt the low velocity 73mm gun on the BMP's and BMD's could take out an M-60A3. Maybe an earlier version if it got a hit from behind, but even with a HEAT round I think it highly unlikely. On the other hand the WP troops had probably 10's of thousands of those AT-3 "suitcases" Which were clumsy to use but had been proven in the Isreali-Arab conflicts to able to cause serious damage to Centurion and M-60 tanks if properly employed."

Actually the 73mm HEAT on the BMD-1/BMP-1 could kill 400mm of armor. That is enough to kill an M-60. Yes the excellent L-7 on the Leo-1 and M-48A5/M-60A1/3 outranges it but not like the BMD-1 would want to play long range shoot out anyways.

WP troops would have the AT-3, AT-2, RPG-7, SPG-9 (73mm), B-10 (82mm), B-11 (107mm) and towed anti tank guns like the T-21 (100mm) and D-44 (85mm). And of course most WP artillery had a secondary anti armor role. Many of the AT-3s and AT-3s would have been mounted on vehicles such as the BMP-1, BMD-1 and BRDM-1/2. They would have been good with anti armor work and of course being 1973 the world was still in shock at IDF losses in 1973 to AT-3s and RPG-7s in the hands of commando/raider/trained AT units.

-----

OOE

I have a question on the Chinese "forts" are we talking "forts" or cities?

Officer of Engineers
16 Apr 05,, 19:53
OOE

I have a question on the Chinese "forts" are we talking "forts" or cities?

Both.

Two primary targets for the Soviets were the nuclear facilities and garrison at Lop Nor and and the capital Beijing (Peking).

troung
16 Apr 05,, 20:10
Ok.

The Russian army was better equipped and more mobile with tanks like the T-62 and the BMP-1 and more capable anti armor systems. Both sides would have mostly similar artillery and small arms.

Well the Soviets did have big bore mortars and artillery like the M-240 (220lb shell) S-23 180mm field gun (194lb shell) but that would take awhile to blast up a city. Even with the D-20s (94lb shell), and M-46s (76lb shell) blasting up a fortified city would take forever. And China has both of the last two in service in big numbers.

The VVS was also better equipped then the PLAAF at the time.

Yet I doubt with "only" 45 divisions taking on most of the PLA with no nukes they would try to really take the cities over. Just encircle them and kill the PLA units still in the field and not hiding behind the walls. Maybe play Hannibal and go around killing troops, but I doubt they would be able with no nukes to take the centers of power like Beijing. Don't get me wrong 45 divisions is a lot of guys but I wonder if they would want to try a "Stalingrad" being outnumbered and giving up mobility by being in a siege.

Maybe they could get the NoKos to show up and add in troops, doubt it but still. North Vietnam would not be helping out the USSR either againist China (it being 1973 afterall).

Officer of Engineers
16 Apr 05,, 20:16
I'll reply later.

HINT: DON'T GET MARRIED. WIFE GOT ME TODAY WORKING ON THE GARDEN AND CHANGING HER MIND EVERY 30 SECONDS.

THIS IS THE 4TH TIME I'VE MOVED THAT SHRUB!

troung
16 Apr 05,, 20:26
No problem :biggrin:

I have been/and still am on the phone the entire day listening to quick paced jiber jaber that changes subjects fast and then asks me if I understand or agree.... :frown:

I would so much rather move that shrub... :redface:

And I am still on the phone.... :frown:

You ever have a phone start to get hot from being on your ear for so long?

----

I think Iran has also not been mentioned even though they were supposed to be a front againist the USSR. Granted 1973 was 3 years before the first F-14A entered IIAF service...

TopHatter
17 Apr 05,, 16:40
I'll reply later.

HINT: DON'T GET MARRIED. WIFE GOT ME TODAY WORKING ON THE GARDEN AND CHANGING HER MIND EVERY 30 SECONDS.

THIS IS THE 4TH TIME I'VE MOVED THAT SHRUB!

A good rule of thumb for your wife: "You can tell me what to do or how to do it, you can't have both"

Yeah, I know wishful thinking :rolleyes:

Officer of Engineers
17 Apr 05,, 19:42
A good rule of thumb for your wife: "You can tell me what to do or how to do it, you can't have both"

Yeah, I know wishful thinking :rolleyes:

$500 later (which includes a new shrub (I ripped the roots off the last one when I moved it the umphteen time) and new grass shods (to cover the holes where the shrub parked its butt)). I can't wait until you single guys get hitched. Why should you guys not suffer like the rest of us.


You ever have a phone start to get hot from being on your ear for so long?

I'm married.


Yet I doubt with "only" 45 divisions taking on most of the PLA with no nukes they would try to really take the cities over. Just encircle them and kill the PLA units still in the field and not hiding behind the walls. Maybe play Hannibal and go around killing troops, but I doubt they would be able with no nukes to take the centers of power like Beijing. Don't get me wrong 45 divisions is a lot of guys but I wonder if they would want to try a "Stalingrad" being outnumbered and giving up mobility by being in a siege.

My apologies. I was thinking about the original Soviet invasion plans. I agree that they probably won't take on cities like Beijing but there are some garrisons that they must take. Lop Nor has to be taken regardless if they used nukes or not. It is the PLA's springboard into Central Asia.

Now, back to digging holes.

Blademaster
17 Apr 05,, 21:06
$500 later (which includes a new shrub (I ripped the roots off the last one when I moved it the umphteen time) and new grass shods (to cover the holes where the shrub parked its butt)). I can't wait until you single guys get hitched. Why should you guys not suffer like the rest of us.


I'm married.


Now, back to digging holes.

Do you think she is punishing you for something? :frown:

Just do what I do. Plant it in that hole and pretend to have a pulled back. Make her feel guilty. :biggrin:

lwarmonger
18 Apr 05,, 05:27
Big misconceptiopn. The Soviets were to reach the Rhine (and that was a very big if) within 10 days. Did not mean that they conquered W Germany within that timeframe. Also, the Netherlands was a whole different can of worms since that was another Area that we've set up (re-enforced by the British Army) different from the Fulda Gap.


If they've reached the Rhine, they've achieved their initial objectives however. And as I recall (this may be wrong... it's been a while since I've examined this particular scenario) CENTAG was stronger than NORTHAG (because the British allowed for a weaker army than the US did). The main Soviet offensive was through Fulda (against the US), with the 2nd Guards Tank and Third Shock armies pushing onto the North German Plain (against the British)). If they've reached the Rhine through the Fulda Gap, then they have defeated the strongest of the forces opposing them haven't they? While this would not mean that all of Germany had been conquered, it would render such a conclusion inevitable. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this particular aspect, for it has been a while since I've examined this scenario.



To take the Netherlands, the Soviets would have to regroup and rebuild and that is at least 5 days on top of the combat that would still be going on in W Germany. Best case scenario, the Soviets needed a 30 day war. Most likely a 60 day war. In either case, more than enough for the Chinese to make a difference.


The implication here (that the Chinese could make a difference in that 30-60 day war) is that the Soviets would have to divert category B and C formations that have been mobilized to Siberia, instead of sending them to Europe. Why would they have to do that, and how much could the Soviets possibly need to send?



The Chinese had no hope in hell of killing those 45 Soviet divisions. The best case scenario for them is to tie them down and down draw whatever re-enforcements that are available eastward. What Mao would be thinking was to tip the scales for the NATO forces, not decisively engage the Soviets.

Misunderstanding on my part. I thought you were telling me that the Chinese could defeat the Soviets while they were distracted with NATO by drawing them into Manchuria.



Also, if the Chinese were to sacrafice 3 Military Regions and 9 corps in defence of a Soviet invasion, then they are more than willing to do the same on the offense. In fact, looking at this from their PoV, they don't have a choice. They have to join in. If the Soviets win, then it was only a matter of time before they turn against the Chinese regardless whether the Chinese sit this one out or not.

Assuming no nukes, I think you are probably correct (although, the Soviets had major problems in Afghanistan, and occupying China would be a lot worse... so perhaps not, even though they don't have such a standard of comparison). With nukes, China will be obliterated if it intervenes. If it doesn't intervene, then perhaps the Americans will get a first strike in against the Soviets that minimizes the damage that occurs to China when Russia nukes Europe, China, and the United States.

Officer of Engineers
18 Apr 05,, 13:56
If they've reached the Rhine, they've achieved their initial objectives however. And as I recall (this may be wrong... it's been a while since I've examined this particular scenario) CENTAG was stronger than NORTHAG (because the British allowed for a weaker army than the US did). The main Soviet offensive was through Fulda (against the US), with the 2nd Guards Tank and Third Shock armies pushing onto the North German Plain (against the British)). If they've reached the Rhine through the Fulda Gap, then they have defeated the strongest of the forces opposing them haven't they? While this would not mean that all of Germany had been conquered, it would render such a conclusion inevitable. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this particular aspect, for it has been a while since I've examined this scenario.

What's left after they pushed through the Fulda Gap? The 2Guards and 3Shock would be in no shape to push on. They need to be rebuilt and regroup. In the meantime, NATO reserves would already be starting to see the battlefield and REFORGER in full swing.

This also assumes that III, V, and VII Corps were all completely destroyed instead of falling back in good order or even managing a salient. Not a valid assumption given the speed to which 2Guards and 3Shock must achieve.


The implication here (that the Chinese could make a difference in that 30-60 day war) is that the Soviets would have to divert category B and C formations that have been mobilized to Siberia, instead of sending them to Europe. Why would they have to do that, and how much could the Soviets possibly need to send?

Look at the map, it will have to be a 2 front war (sort of speak) against China. The Beijing (gee, B and J abbrevation don't work here) and SY MRs directly threaten Vladivostok. The Lanzhou MR directly threaten Central Asia. Do you think 45 divisions is enough?

troung
18 Apr 05,, 20:02
My apologies. I was thinking about the original Soviet invasion plans. I agree that they probably won't take on cities like Beijing but there are some garrisons that they must take. Lop Nor has to be taken regardless if they used nukes or not. It is the PLA's springboard into Central Asia.

Yeah the no nukes issue tends to throw things off. Unless China ups and totally fell apart I would not see them risking getting bogged down in street fighting in Beijing while China could smell blood and move more and more soldiers to the line.

In 1973 the USSR would have a little degree of control of the skies but the PLAAF was big so they would still be in action (though how well is the question). Russia had better equipment in some aspects but China had more (Russia's best would be fighting NATO). I we pushed this 10 years ahead with no nukes the Russians would be much better in terms of mobility and airpower.

And if we are counting out nukes as somehow not being around would Lop Nor matter or be worth sending Divisions to take? Of course it does seem remote enough to prevent a peoples war from breaking out. With no nukes they would have a totally different plan more then likely.


I can't wait until you single guys get hitched. Why should you guys not suffer like the rest of us. I'm married. Now, back to digging holes.

Happy to be unmarried.... came close once but thats a different story... :biggrin:

Officer of Engineers
18 Apr 05,, 20:14
And if we are counting out nukes as somehow not being around would Lop Nor matter or be worth sending Divisions to take? Of course it does seem remote enough to prevent a peoples war from breaking out. With no nukes they would have a totally different plan more then likely.

The more I think about this, the more I think taking Lop Nor is a strategic necessity. It's relatively easy to take and it's smack well on the entrance into southern and central China. It would take out the LZ MR and put another one (Chengdu) at risk.

troung
18 Apr 05,, 20:45
Yeah I have since looked at the map and seen where it puts them. Are not as many people as on the coasts and the units in Central Asia would be a dagger pointed at China.

How many of those 45 divisions would they need to get there?

Julie
18 Apr 05,, 20:49
You single people really kill me ya know. :biggrin: You have NO idea how hard it is to have a peaceful few minutes just to discuss some interesting topic without the "other half" or the "kids" always wanting something. And yes, (OoE), I personally believe, those wants are to intentionally disrupt our train of thought while sitting at our keyboards.

I'll have to give it to your patience though.....4 TIMES? Go for the "strained back scenario."

dalem
18 Apr 05,, 22:30
You single people really kill me ya know. :biggrin: You have NO idea how hard it is to have a peaceful few minutes just to discuss some interesting topic without the "other half" or the "kids" always wanting something. And yes, (OoE), I personally believe, those wants are to intentionally disrupt our train of thought while sitting at our keyboards.

I'll have to give it to your patience though.....4 TIMES? Go for the "strained back scenario."

Here we have it - two posts proving that married people encourage us single people to join them for all the wrong reasons. :)

-dale

Bill
18 Apr 05,, 22:34
"If we pushed this 10 years ahead with no nukes the Russians would be much better in terms of mobility and airpower. "

If we push the start of hostilities from 1973 to 1983 you are talking about a FAR more powerful NATO, and an all volunteer US professional military with good morale.

IMO in 1983 NATO cleans the WP's clock.

lwarmonger
18 Apr 05,, 23:10
What's left after they pushed through the Fulda Gap? The 2Guards and 3Shock would be in no shape to push on. They need to be rebuilt and regroup. In the meantime, NATO reserves would already be starting to see the battlefield and REFORGER in full swing.

This also assumes that III, V, and VII Corps were all completely destroyed instead of falling back in good order or even managing a salient. Not a valid assumption given the speed to which 2Guards and 3Shock must achieve.


I believe the 2nd Guards Tank and Third Shock Armies were deployed against NORTHAG. As I recall, it was the 8th Guards and First Guards Tank that were deployed against the Fulda Gap, with the 20th Guards Army surrounding Berlin, but easily diverted either against NORTHAG or CENTAG. And after 10 days, wouldn't the category B and C divisions (not to mention the remaining category A divisions in Russia) come up to form the second echelon? Rebuilding the armies that were used to blast a whole immediately strikes me as a waste of time, just bringing on the follow on formations should be sufficient to take the rest of Germany. The Soviet Union had a lot of category B and C divisions to play with. Also, wasn't reaching the Rhine in 10 days through the Fulda Gap necessary in order to stop reforger (hence the entire reason why the Soviets were on that timetable)? If they've taken the pre-positioned equipment, then those heavy divisions become light infantry, and of extremely limited value.

In regards to your point about American battle readyness at that point, I am assuming that the III, V, and VII corps are all fairly badly damaged... at least as much as the Soviets. If the Soviets reach the Rhine in 10 days, it wasn't because the Americans let them, but because we were defeated in West Germany. Those corps would probably be at least as mauled as the Soviet forces facing them (our policy of forward defense means that if NATO gets pushed out of West Germany, odds are it has been hurt at least as bad, probably worse than, the WP). Even if they weren't, they've lost their reforger sites and prepositioned equipment, so they are both substantially weaker anyways.




Look at the map, it will have to be a 2 front war (sort of speak) against China. The Beijing (gee, B and J abbrevation don't work here) and SY MRs directly threaten Vladivostok. The Lanzhou MR directly threaten Central Asia. Do you think 45 divisions is enough?

Do you sir? Serious question, I'm not trying to be flippant here. You said yourself, there is no way the Chinese can kill those 45 Soviet divisions. They can probably occupy them, but beat them, no. If the decision in Europe takes 2 months, can the Soviet Far East divisions last that long? If 20-30 category C formations (still leaving plenty for the West) are dispatched to the East, would that seriously damage the Soviet war effort in Germany?

Personally, I think that those Soviet divisions can hold out with minimal support against a Chinese attack, simply because the Chinese lack the ability to attack with heavy formations at the objectives they need to take. Sure, they can send foot armies around in Siberia, but those won't do a whole lot of good. In Central Asia, Soviet mechanized forces possess a huge advantage over their foot equivalent (both in terms of supply and capabilities), and the Chinese wouldn't be able to take anything all that important before that two month time span is up.

Officer of Engineers
19 Apr 05,, 03:56
I believe the 2nd Guards Tank and Third Shock Armies were deployed against NORTHAG. As I recall, it was the 8th Guards and First Guards Tank that were deployed against the Fulda Gap, with the 20th Guards Army surrounding Berlin, but easily diverted either against NORTHAG or CENTAG.

Depends on which scenario you use. The actual deployment plan is still a classified state secret in Moscow.


3rd Armoured Division - ONE SCENARIO AND NATO'S MAIN CONCERN
over a Soviet ground attack during 1956-1989 (http://3ad.com/history/cold.war/article.pages/fulda.gap.scenario.htm)

The Central Sector GSFG concentration of invasion forces through the Fulda Gap into Western Europe included elements of the 2nd Guard Tank Army, 1st Guard Tank Army and 20th, 3rd and 8th Guards and Shock Armies as well as the Volksarmee (the East German Army). The thrust of this mighty army would be through the Fulda Gap against the U.S. Army's V Corps, of which the 3rd Armored Division (3AD) was lead element (see map). The general direction of that huge Soviet vector was on a Berlin to Paris axis, whose strategic objectives included advancing beyond Paris to the English Channel. The GSFG numbered 370,000 men, 7,000 tanks, and 2,350 Infantry Fighting Vehicles. In the Northern Sector between East and West Germany (see arrow), five Soviet armored divisions would thrust westward, swinging northward deep into Denmark. In the Southern Sector (see arrow), the Soviet Central Group of Forces, stationed in Czechoslovakia, plus the Czechoslovak army, a combined group of 15 armored and mechanized divisions, would thrust through Bavaria in the general direction of Switzerland.


And after 10 days, wouldn't the category B and C divisions (not to mention the remaining category A divisions in Russia) come up to form the second echelon?

I'm under the assumption that the mobilization has not even started. We can bring the air elements of REFORGER in place alot sooner than they can man even the Cat B divisions.


Rebuilding the armies that were used to blast a whole immediately strikes me as a waste of time, just bringing on the follow on formations should be sufficient to take the rest of Germany. The Soviet Union had a lot of category B and C divisions to play with.

It's alot faster to insert companies and battalions into decimated formations than to bring a fresh division forward when a warning order was not even issued.


Also, wasn't reaching the Rhine in 10 days through the Fulda Gap necessary in order to stop reforger (hence the entire reason why the Soviets were on that timetable)?

Just reaching the Rhine ain't going to stop REFORGER. The Rhine has always been considered the 2nd line of defence (the first is the FGR-GDR and the FGR-CSSR borders). There were delayed actions already in place to get the bulk of the forces across if the 1st line is deemed unattainable. Thus, just because the Soviets reached the Rhine within 10 days did not mean the corps are destroyed.


If they've taken the pre-positioned equipment, then those heavy divisions become light infantry, and of extremely limited value.

That is if they can take those positions before they're manned.


In regards to your point about American battle readyness at that point, I am assuming that the III, V, and VII corps are all fairly badly damaged... at least as much as the Soviets. If the Soviets reach the Rhine in 10 days, it wasn't because the Americans let them, but because we were defeated in West Germany. Those corps would probably be at least as mauled as the Soviet forces facing them (our policy of forward defense means that if NATO gets pushed out of West Germany, odds are it has been hurt at least as bad, probably worse than, the WP). Even if they weren't, they've lost their reforger sites and prepositioned equipment, so they are both substantially weaker anyways.

Not valid at all. The Soviets ain't going to try to maul every line brigade or even division. They would be looking for a breakthrough point and then bypass then supposedly strong pockets of resistence (meaning leaving perfectly combat capable forces in their lines of march. They were relying on follow on echelons to deal with these forces. That is assuming that these forces do not beat a hasty retreat across the Rhine.


Do you sir? Serious question, I'm not trying to be flippant here. You said yourself, there is no way the Chinese can kill those 45 Soviet divisions. They can probably occupy them, but beat them, no.

1st, look at a map of China's military regions

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/images/china_mr2.gif

This essentially means two fronts. One against the Lanzhou Military Region and the other against the Beijing and Shenyang Military Regions.

Now, see what both threaten? The LZMR can cut the Siberian railway and the BJMR and SYMR directly marches to Vladivostok. The Soviets in the West can easily deal with the LZMR, maybe using 10 divisions to take Lop Nor and poised to strike into the heart of China. Even if the Soviets don't march into China, any force that marches out of Lop Nor can easily be dealt with given the terrain but the strategic imperative is there to go into the LZMR (get the PLA as far away from the railway as possible).

This being said, however, you're now in direct conflict with the strongest of all of China's MRs (mainly because of terrain). The Chengdu MR can easily throw another two or three corps against Lop Nor.

The East, however, is a whole another can of worms. You have 3 garrisons (Beijing, Harbin, and Shenyang) that directly threatens Vladivostok. Do you sit in the city with no prepared defences or do you march against those 3 PLA garrisons? You obviously cannot allow the PLA to run around freely in Siberia but they have more men and you cannot spread your forces out to hunt every regiment. They can.

The Soviets attacking seemed the better bet but with only 45 divisions, taking the 3 garrisons ain't going to be easy and certainly requiring rapid re-enforcements.


If the decision in Europe takes 2 months, can the Soviet Far East divisions last that long? If 20-30 category C formations (still leaving plenty for the West) are dispatched to the East, would that seriously damage the Soviet war effort in Germany?

Let me qualify myself here. In 1973, the Soviet Far East divisions were at full strength in preparation for a nuke strike to Lop Nor. Cat B and C divisions would not have been mobilized, otherwise, giving NATO plenty of warning to man their own defences.

Thus, here is the situation, do you throw your hastily formed battalions and regiments against NATO or against China and if against China, at the LZMR or the BJMR/SYMR?

Julie
19 Apr 05,, 03:57
Here we have it - two posts proving that married people encourage us single people to join them for all the wrong reasons. :)

-daleIt's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. ;)

Officer of Engineers
19 Apr 05,, 03:59
It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. ;)

Misery loves company.

Officer of Engineers
19 Apr 05,, 04:45
lwarmonger,

Forget the 10 days to Rhine scenario. That depended on nukes.


“Approved” Single Copy

Supreme Commander

of the Armed Forces of the ČSSR

Antonín Novotný

1964

Plan of Actions of the Czechoslovak People’s Army for War Period

Map 1: 500,000, published 1963



1. Conclusions from the assessment of the enemyThe enemy could use up to 12 general military units on the Central European military theater for advancing in the area of the Czechoslovak Front from D1 to D 7-8.

-- The 2nd Army Corps of the FRG [Federal Republic of Germany] including: 4th and 10th mechanized divisions, 12th tank division, 1st airborne division and 1st mountain division,

-- the 7th Army Corps of the USA including: the 24th mechanized division and 4th armored tank division;

-- the 1st Army of France including: 3rd mechanized division, the 1st and 7th tank divisions, and up to two newly deployed units, including 6 launchers of tactical missiles, up to 130 theater launchers and artillery, and up to 2800 tanks.

Operations of the ground troops could be supported by part of the 40th Air Force, with up to 900 aircraft, including 250 bombers and up to 40 airborne missile launchers.

Judging by the composition of the group of NATO troops and our assessment of the exercises undertaken by the NATO command, one could anticipate the design of the enemy's actions with the following goals.

To disorganize the leadership of the state and to undermine mobilization of armed forces by surprise nuclear strikes against the main political and economic centers of the country.

To critically change the correlation of forces in its own favor by strikes against the troops, airfields and communication centers.

To destroy the border troops of the Czechoslovak People’s Army in border battles, and to destroy the main group of our troops in the Western and Central Czech Lands by building upon the initial attack.

To disrupt the arrival of strategic reserves in the regions of Krkonoše, Jeseníky, and Moravská Brána by nuclear strikes against targets deep in our territory and by sending airborne assault troops; to create conditions for a successful attainment of the goals of the operation.

Judging by the enemy's approximate operative design, the combat actions of both sides in the initial period of the war will have a character of forward contact battles.

The operative group of the enemy in the southern part of the FRG will force the NATO command to gradually engage a number of their units in the battle, which will create an opportunity for the Czechoslovak Front to defeat NATO forces unit by unit. At the same time, that would require building a powerful first echelon in the operative structure of the Front; and to achieve success it would require building up reserves that would be capable of mobilizing very quickly and move into the area of military action in a very short time.



2. Upon receiving special instructions from the Supreme Commander of the Unified Armed Forces, the Czechoslovak People’s Army will deploy to the Czechoslovak Front with the following tasks:

To be ready to start advancing toward Nuremberg, Stuttgart and Munich with part of forces immediately after the nuclear strike. Nuclear strike against the troops of the enemy should be targeted to the depth up to the line Würzburg, Erlangen, Regensburg, Landshut.

The immediate task is to defeat the main forces of the Central Group of the German Army in the southern part of the FRG, in cooperation with the [Soviet] 8th Guards Army of the 1st Western Front; by the end of the first day—reach the line Bayreuth, Regensburg, Passau; and by the end of the second day—move to the line Höchstadt, Schwabach, Ingolstadt, Mühldorf, and by the fourth day of the attack —reach the line Mosbach, Nürtingen, Memmingen, Kaufbeuren.

In the future, building upon the advance in the direction of Strasbourg, Epinal, Dijon, to finalize the defeat of the enemy in the territory of the FRG, to force a crossing of the river Rhine, and on the seventh or eighth day of the operation to take hold of the line Langres, Besançon.

Afterward develop the advance toward Lyon.

To have in the combat disposition of the Czechoslovak Front the following units:

-- the 1st and 4th Armies, 10th Air Army, 331st front missile brigade, 11th, 21st and the 31st mobile missile support base in the state of combat alert.

-- the reserve center of the Army, the 3rd, 18th, 26th, and 32nd mechanized rifle divisions, 14th and 17th tank divisions, 22nd airborne brigade, 205th antitank brigade, 303rd air defense division, 201st and 202nd air defense regiments with mobilization timetable from M1 to M3.

-- the formations, units and facilities of the support and service system.

The 57th Air Army, arriving on D1 from the Carpathian military district before the fifth or sixth day of the operation, will be operatively subordinated to the Czechoslovak Front. If Austria keeps its neutrality on the third day of the war, one mechanized rifle division of the Southern Group of Forces will arrive in the area of České Budějovice and join the Czechoslovak Front. The following forces will remain at the disposal of the Ministry of National Defense: the 7th air defense army, 24th mechanized rifle division and 16th tank division with readiness M20, reconnaissance units, and also units and facilities of the support and service system. Under favorable conditions two missile brigades and one mobile missile support base will arrive some time in advance in the territory of the ČSSR from the Carpathian military district:

-- 35th missile brigade—past Český Brod, past Říčany, Zásmuky,

-- 36th missile brigade – past Pacov, past Pelhřimov, past Humpolec,

-- 3486th mobile missile support base – woods 5 kilometers to the East of Světlá.

Formations and units of the Czechoslovak People’s Army, on permanent alert, upon the announcement of combat alarm should leave their permanent location in no more than 30 minutes, move to designated areas within 3 hours, and deploy there ready to carry out their combat tasks. Formations, units and headquarters that do not have set mobilization dates, leave their locations of permanent deployment and take up the identified areas of concentration in the time and in the order determined by the plan of mobilization and deployment. The following disposition of forces is possible in the area of operations of the Czechoslovak Front for the entire depth of the operation:

-- in divisions – 1.1 to 1.0

-- in tanks and mobile artillery launchers – 1.0 to 1.0

-- in artillery and mine-launchers – 1.0 to 1.0

-- in military aircraft – 1.1 to 1.0, all in favor of the Czechoslovak Front.

In the first massive nuclear strike by the troops of the Missile Forces of the Czechoslovak Front, the front aviation and long-range aviation added to the front must destroy the main group of troops of the first operations echelon of the 7th US Army, its means of nuclear attack, and the centers of command and control of the aviation.

During the development of the operation, the troops of the Missile Forces and aviation must destroy the approaching deep operative reserves, the newly discovered means of nuclear attack, and the enemy aviation.

Altogether the operation will require the use of 131 nuclear missiles and nuclear bombs; specifically 96 missiles and 35 nuclear bombs. The first nuclear strike will use 41 missiles and nuclear bombs. The immediate task will require using 29 missiles and nuclear bombs. The subsequent task could use 49 missiles and nuclear bombs. 12 missiles and nuclear bombs should remain in the reserve of the Front.

Building on the results of the first nuclear strike, the troops of the Front, in coordination with units of the 1st Western Front must destroy the main group of troops of the 7th US Army and the 1st French Army in cooperation with airborne assault troops, force the rivers Neckar and Rhine in crossing, and defeat the advancing deep strategic reserves of the enemy in advancing battle, and by D7-8 take control of the areas of Langres, Besançon, and Epinal.

Upon completion of the tasks of the operation the troops must be ready to develop further advances in the direction of Lyon.

The main strike should be concentrated in the direction of Nuremberg, Stuttgart, Strasbourg, Epinal, Dijon; part of the forces should be used on the direction of Straubing and Munich.

The operative structure of the troops of the Czechoslovak Front is to be in one echelon with separation of two tank and five mechanized rifle divisions for the reserve as they arrive and are deployed. The first echelon shall consist of the 1st and 4th armies and the 331st front missile brigade.

The reserve of the front includes: Headquarters of the 2nd Army (reserve), mechanized rifle division of the Southern Group of Forces by D3, 14th tank division by D3, 17th tank division by D4, 3rd mechanized rifle division by D3, 26th mechanized rifle division by D4, 18th mechanized rifle division by D5, and 32nd mechanized rifle division by D6.

Special reserves include: 22nd airborne brigade by D2, 103rd chemical warfare batallion by D2, 6th engineering brigade by D3, and 205th antitank artillery by D4.



3. On the right – the 8th Guards Army of the 1st Western Front advances in the direction of Suhl, Bad Kissingen, and Worms and with part of its forces to Bamberg.

The separation line with the Army is the ČSSR-GDR border as far as Aš, then Bayreuth, Mosbach, and Sarrebourg, Chaumont (all points exclusively for the Czechoslovak Front).

The meeting point with the 8th Guards Army should be supported by the forces and means of the Czechoslovak Front.

On the left – the Southern Group of Forces and the Hungarian People’s Army will cover the state borders of Hungary.

The dividing line with them: state border of the ČSSR with the Hungarian People’s Republic, and then the northern borders of Austria, Switzerland, and Italy.



4. The 1st Army (19th and 20th mechanized rifle divisions, 1st and 13th tank divisions, 311st artillery missile brigade) with 312nd heavy artillery brigade, 33rd antitank artillery brigade without 7th antitank artillery regiment, the 2nd bridge-building brigade without the 71st bridge-building battalion, the 351st and 352nd engineering battalions of the 52nd engineering brigade.

The immediate task is to defeat the enemy’s group of the 2nd Army Corps of the FRG and the 7th US Army in interaction with the 8th Guards Army of the 1st Western Front, and to develop advance in the direction of Neustadt, Nuremberg, Ansbach, and with part of forces in interaction with units of the 8th Guards Army in the direction of Bamberg, by D1 to take control of the line Bayreuth, Amberg, Schmidmühlen; and by the end of D2 to arrive on the line Höchstadt, Schwabach, Heiden.

The further task is to advance in the direction of Ansbach, Crailsheim, Stuttgart; to defeat the advancing operative reserves of the enemy, and by the end of D4 take control of the line past Mosbach, Bietigheim, Nürtingen.

Subsequently to be ready to develop the advance in the direction of Stuttgart, Strasbourg, Epinal.

The dividing line on the left is Poběžovice, Schwandorf, Weissenburg, Heidenheim, Reutlingen (all the points except Heidenheim, are inclusive for the 1st Army).

Headquarters – in the forest 1 kilometer south of Stříbro.

The axis of the movement is Stříbro, Grafenwöhr, Ansbach, Schwäbisch Hall.



5. The 4th Army (2nd and 15th mechanized rifle divisions, 4th and 9th tank divisions, 321st artillery missile brigade) with 7th antitank artillery brigade and 33rd antitank artillery brigade, 71st bridge-building battalion of the 2nd bridge-building brigade, 92nd bridge-building battalion and 353rd engineering battalion.

The immediate task is to defeat the enemy group of the 2nd Army Corps of the FRG in cooperation with the troops of the 1st Army and to develop advance in the direction of Regensburg, Ingolstadt, Donauwörth, and with part of forces in the direction Straubing, Munich; and by the end of D1 to take control of the line Schmidmühlen, Regensburg, Passau; by the end of D2 – Eichstätt, Moosburg, Mühldorf.

The subsequent task is to advance in the direction of Donauwörth, Ulm, to defeat the advancing formations of the 1st French Army and by the end of D4 to take control of the line Metzingen, Memmingen, Kaufbeuren.

Subsequently to be ready to develop advance in the direction of Ulm, Mulhouse, Besançon. Headquarters – 6 kilometers northwest of Strakonice.

The axis of movement is – Strakonice, Klatovy, Falkenstein, Kelheim, Rennertshofen, Burgau.



6. The Missile Forces of the Front must in the first nuclear strike destroy the group of forces of the 7th US Army, part of forces of the 2nd Army Corps of the FRG, and part of the air defense forces of the enemy.

Subsequently, the main efforts should be concentrated on defeating the advancing operative and strategic reserves and also the newly discovered means of nuclear attack of the enemy.

In order to fulfill the tasks set to the front, the following ammunition shall be used:

-- for the immediate task--44 operative-tactical and tactical missiles with nuclear warheads;

-- for the subsequent task--42 operative-tactical and tactical missiles with nuclear warheads;

-- for unexpectedly arising tasks--10 operative-tactical and tactical missiles with nuclear warheads shall be left in the Front’s reserve.

The commander of Missile Forces shall receive special assembly brigades with special ammunition, which shall be transferred to the Czechoslovak Front in the following areas: 2 kilometers to the East of Jablonec, and 3 kilometers to the East of Michalovce.

The use of special ammunition–only with permission of the Supreme Commander of the Unified Armed Forces.



7. Aviation. The 10th Air Force– the 1st fighter division, 2nd and 34th fighter-bomber division, 25th bomber regiment, 46th transport air division, 47thair reconnaissance regiment and 45th air reconnaissance regiment for target guidance.

Combat tasks:

With the first nuclear strike to destroy part of forces of the 2nd Army Corps of the FRG, two command and targeting centers, and part of the air defense forces of the enemy.

Upon the beginning of combat actions to suppress part of air defense forces of the enemy in the following regions: Roding, Kirchroth, Hohenfels, Amberg, Pfreimd, Nagel, and Erbendorf.

To uncover and destroy operative and tactical means of nuclear attack, command and control aviation forces in the following regions: Weiden, Nabburg, Amberg, Grafenwöhr, Hohenfels, Regensburg, and Erlangen.

During the operation to give intensive support to combat actions of the troops of the front: on D1 – 6 group sorties of fighter bombers, from D2 to D5 – 8 group sorties of fighter bombers and bombers daily, and from D6 to D8 – 6 group sorties of fighter bombers and bombers daily. The main effort should be concentrated on supporting the troops of the 1st Army.

In cooperation with forces and means of the air defense of the country, fronts and neighbors – to cover the main group of forces of the Front from air strikes by the enemy.

To ensure the landing of reconnaissance troops and general airborne forces on D1 and D2 in the rear of the enemy.

To ensure airborne landing of the 22nd airborne brigade on D4 in the area north of Stuttgart, or on D5 in the area of Rastatt, or on D6 in the area to the east of Mulhouse.

To carry out air reconnaissance with concentration of main effort on the direction of Nuremberg, Stuttgart, and Strasbourg with the goal of locating means of nuclear attack, and in order to determine in time the beginning of operations and the direction of the advancing operative reserves of the enemy.

In order to fulfill the tasks set for the front, it will be required to use the following weapons:

-- for the immediate task -- 10 nuclear bombs;

-- for subsequent tasks – 7 nuclear bombs;

-- for resolving unexpectedly arising tasks – 2 nuclear bombs shall be left in the Front’s reserve.

The 57th Air Force, consisting of the 131st fighter division, 289th fighter-bomber regiment, 230th and 733rd bomber regiment and 48th air reconnaissance regiment, arriving by D1 from the Carpathian military district, is to remain under operative subordination to the Czechoslovak Front until the fifth to sixth day for 5 army sorties.

The Army has a determined the limit of: combat sets of air bombs – 3, combat sets of air-to-air missiles – 2, combat sets of aviation cartridges – 2, and fuel – 3 rounds of army refueling.

Combat tasks:

-- in cooperation with the 10th Air Force to find and destroy the means of nuclear attack of the enemy, its aviation and command and control centers with concentration of main efforts on the direction of Nuremberg, Strasbourg;

-- to support combat actions of the troops of the Front when they force the rivers Naab, Neckar, Rhine, and when they counter attackof the enemy;

-- to support combat actions of the 22nd airborne brigade in the areas of its landing;

-- to protect the troops of the front from air strikes by the enemy;

-- to carry out air reconnaissance with concentration of the main effort on discovering the means of nuclear attack and deep operative and strategic reserves of the enemy.

The 184th heavy bomber regiment of long-range aviation should use nuclear bombs in the first nuclear strike against headquarters of the 2nd Army Corps of the FRG, 7th US Army, 2nd/40 Corporal artillery batallion, 2nd/82 Corporal artillery batallion, 5th/73 Sergeant artillery batallion, and the main group of forces of the 4th mechanized division and 12th tank division of the 2nd Army Corps of the FRG. Total use of nuclear bombs – 16. Use of special combat ammunition –only with permission of the Supreme Commander of the Unified Armed Forces.



8. Air Defense

7th Air Defense Army of the country – 2nd and 3rd air defense corps.

Combat tasks:

-- in cooperation with air defense forces of the Front and the air defense of the neighbors in the united air defense system of countries of the Warsaw Treaty to repel massive air strikes of the enemy with concentration of main effort on the direction Karlsruhe, Prague, Ostrava.

-- not to allow reconnaissance and air strikes of the enemy against our groups of forces, especially in the area of the Czech Lands, against aircraft on the airfields, and against important political and economic centers of the country, as well as communications centers. The main effort should be concentrated on protecting the areas of Prague, Ostrava, Brno and Bratislava;

-- upon the beginning of combat actions, troops of the Czechoslovak Front with anti-aircraft missile forces to continue to defend most important areas and objects of the country, with forces of fighter aviation to defend objects of the Front after the advancing troops.


Air Defense troops of the Front

Combat tasks:

--Upon the beginning of combat action of the Front, to take part in the general air defense system of the Warsaw Treaty countries with all forces and resources to cover the main group of the Front's troops.

--During the operation, in cooperation with the 7th Air Defense Army, units of 10th and 57th Air Force and the air defense of the 1st Western Front, to cover the troops of the front from the air strikes of the enemy in the process of their passing over the border mountains, and also during the crossing of the rivers Neckar and Rhine to cover the missile forces and command and control centers



9. The 22nd airborne brigade is to be ready to be deployed from the region of Prostějov, Niva, Brodek to the region north of Stuttgart on D4 or to the region of Rastatt on D5, or to the region to the east of Mulhouse on D6 with the task of capturing and holding river crossings on Neckar or Rhine until the arrival of our troops.



10. Reserves of the Front.

The 3rd, 18th, 26th, and 32nd mechanized rifle divisions of the Southern Group of Forces, the 14th and 17th tank divisions are to concentrate in the regions designated on the decision map in the period from D3 to D5.

The 6th engineering brigade by D3 is to be concentrated in the region of Panenský Týnec, and Bor, past Slaný, to be ready to ensure force crossing of the rivers Neckar and Rhine by the troops of the Front.

The 103rd chemical warfare batallion from D2 to be stationed in the region of Hluboš, past Příbram, past Dobříš. The main effort of radiation reconnaissance should be concentrated in the region of Hořovice, Blovice, and Sedlčany.

Objects of special treatment should be deployed in the areas of deployment of command and control centers of the Front, the 331st front brigade, and also in the regions of concentration of the reserve divisions of the Front.



11. Material Maintenance of the Rear The main effort in the material maintenance of the rear of the troops of the Front should be concentrated throughout the entire depth of the operation in the area of the 1st Army's advance.

To support the troops of the 1st Army, the 10th and 57th Air Forces should deploy to the forward front base number 1 and the base of the 10th Air Force in the region to the West of Plzeň by the end of D2; troops of the 4th Army should deploy the forward front base number 2 in the region to the south of Plzeň.

Field pipeline is to be deployed in the direction of Roudnice, Plzeň, Nuremberg, and Karlsruhe and used for provision of aircraft fuel.

Rebuilding of railroads should be planned on the directions Cheb-Nuremberg or Domažlice-Schwandorf-Regensburg-Donauwörth.

Two roads should be built following the 1st Army, and one front road throughout the entire depth of the operation following the 4th Army.

The Ministry of National Defense of the ČSSR will assign material resources, including full replacement of the ammunition used during the operation for the troops of the Czechoslovak Front.

Support for the 57th Air Force should be planned taking into account the material resources located in the territory of the ČSSR for the Unified Command.

Use of material resources should be planned as follows:

-- ammunition – 45,000 tons

-- combustible-lubricating oil – 93, 000 tons

-- including aircraft fuel – 40, 000 tons

-- missile fuel:

-- oxidizer—220 tons

-- missile fuel – 70 tons

Automobile transportation of the Front should be able to supply the troops with 70, 000 tons of cargo during the operation.

Transportation of the troops should be able to carry 58, 000 tons of cargo. By the end of the operation the troops should have 80% of mobile reserves available. In D1 and D2 hospital bed network for 10 to 12 thousand sick and wounded personnel is to be deployed.

By the end of the operation the hospital bed network should cover 18% of the hospital losses of the Front.



12. Headquarters of the Front should be deployed from the time “X” plus 6 hours –5 kilometers to the east of Strašice. The axis of movement – Heilbronn, Horb, Epinal.

Reserve Command Post – forest, to the north of Březová

Advanced Command Post – forest 5 kilometers to the east of Dobřany

Rear Command Post – Jince-Obecnice

Reserve Rear Command Post – past Dobřany, Slapy, past Mníše

Headquarters of MNO – object K-116, Prague.





Minister of National Defense of the ČSSR

General of the Army [signed] Bohumír Lomský

Head of the General Staff of Czechoslovak People’s Army

Colonel General [signed] Otakar Rytíř



Head of the Operations Department of the General Staff

Major General [signed] Václav Vitanovský

11 October 1964



[Rectangular seal:]

Ministry of National Defense

General Staff – Operations Department

Section: Operations Room

Received: 20.10.1964

No. 008074/ZD-OS 64, 17 sheets



Executed in one copy of 17 sheets

Executed by Major General Jan Voštera

[signed] Gen. Voštera

14 October 1964



[Translated from the original Russian by Dr. Svetlana Savranskaya, Research Fellow, National Security Archive, George Washington University, and Anna Locher, Research Assistant, Center for Security Studies and Conflict Research, Zurich.]

troung
19 Apr 05,, 06:21
I think NATO would have a good shot with the tank battles.

The Chieftan as used by Iran was able to actually take head on hits from 115mm AP T-62 guns and stay in the fight. Soviet guns generally had bigger bores but the shells themselves were not as good.

The bulk of the Soviet/WP tank fleet would have been the 100mm armed T-55 and 115mm T-62. NATO had a strong tank fleet with Chieftans (best armed and armored tank around), M-60, M-48A3/A5, Leo-1, Centurion and even the AMX-30 (HEAT rounds still worked very well back in 1973). The NATO L-7 105mm gun could kill any practically any tank at the time, in fact it could kill T-72s head on. The 120mm on the Chieftan could kill anything. Now on the flip side the WP could have more or less killed any NATO tank. Even a BMD-1 could kill an M-60 with its gun or the AT-3 on top. This was before ERA so HEAT rounds were even more deadly then they are today (compared to the most capable tanks at the time) and 1973 put the fear of god into tankers.

Now post Yom Kipper/Rahmadan War and the fact the lessons had not been fully understood there would be no doubt fears of Soviet units with AT-3s and RPG-7s inflicted big time tank losses.

The Soviets would be flooding the rear lines with paratroopers and commandos which would have been lavishly armed with anti tank weapons and no doubt caused much confusion to NATO units in the rear and the ones moving up to the front. Of course the BMD-1 which entered service in 1970 was only shown to the world in 1973 (late 73) and would have caused big time confusion giving Russian airborne mobility and firepower. Put some of those 9 WP airborne divisions behind the lines along with commandos and one has a lot of confusion.

-----
-----

1980s WP vs. NATO is more fun :tongue:

lwarmonger
20 Apr 05,, 05:33
1980s WP vs. NATO is more fun :tongue:

Because we win hands down. After Reagan's arms buildup and the new generation of weapons platforms, the Soviets stopped having a chance with merely conventional means.

Bill
20 Apr 05,, 06:42
"The Soviets would be flooding the rear lines with paratroopers and commandos which would have been lavishly armed with anti tank weapons and no doubt caused much confusion to NATO units in the rear and the ones moving up to the front."

I don't see Soviet transports operating in NATO controlled airspace as a realistic possibility.

Officer of Engineers
20 Apr 05,, 07:05
Actually, this raises another point. We were expected to air insert TF and battle groups against the 2nd and 3rd echelon assembly points but to this day, I've not heard which units were tasked with that nor how was it to be achieved?

Bill
20 Apr 05,, 07:43
That makes two of us.

troung
20 Apr 05,, 20:32
Because we win hands down. After Reagan's arms buildup and the new generation of weapons platforms, the Soviets stopped having a chance with merely conventional means.

Actually no. The Soviets had a huge SEAD force (bigger then NATOs) and well constructed plans on how to use it to cut swaths through NATO AD with 1000 plane missions as well as smaller operations at the same time to flood NATO and inflict damage without concern for their own losses. And the WP had many more BVR s******* (MiG-23MF/ML/MLD, MiG-25, MiG-29, MiG-31) then NATO. And they had more PGM s******* then NATO as well. Plus the large numbers of T-80s, T-64s, and T-72s and newer more lethal ATGMs.

It's not as easy as one might think. They are nto as bad as you might think. Never say hands down, hands down implies some sort of route ;)


I don't see Soviet transports operating in NATO controlled airspace as a realistic possibility.

Who says NATO would control much airspace at the start of the war? Actually in those scary first days the VVS would probably have taken a degree of contol due to raw numbers and shock.


Actually, this raises another point. We were expected to air insert TF and battle groups against the 2nd and 3rd echelon assembly points but to this day, I've not heard which units were tasked with that nor how was it to be achieved?

The 82nd airborne, 101st airmobile, French airborne division, French 2nd REP, Belgain paracommandos, UK Airborne Regiment, German Airborne units. Mostly lightly armed units with small arms, machine guns, mortars, light AT weapons and some artillery. Well those are the only major airborne forces in NATO. Yet many units had battle hardened officers and NCOs due to fighting in COIN conflicts in Asia and Africa. Yet really those units mostly had conducted smaller unit action in COIN conflicts not fighting echelons of tanks. I would guess that hunting down guerillas recuires a different skill set then fighting of scores of T-55s and BMP-1s.

The 82nd had something like 50-60 M-551s at the time while a normal USSR airborne division had around 300 BMD-1s.

Compared to the WP/USSR airborne NATO units are not as potent a force in terms of mobility and firepower.

At this time as well the USSR should have had as many as 700 Mi-8 transport helicopters and a few hundred Mi-6s (400 maybe) as well as Mi-4s.

Bill
20 Apr 05,, 21:53
"Who says NATO would control much airspace at the start of the war?"

That would be me. :)

Officer of Engineers
20 Apr 05,, 22:04
The 82nd airborne, 101st airmobile, French airborne division, French 2nd REP, Belgain paracommandos, UK Airborne Regiment, German Airborne units. Mostly lightly armed units with small arms, machine guns, mortars, light AT weapons and some artillery. Well those are the only major airborne forces in NATO. Yet many units had battle hardened officers and NCOs due to fighting in COIN conflicts in Asia and Africa. Yet really those units mostly had conducted smaller unit action in COIN conflicts not fighting echelons of tanks. I would guess that hunting down guerillas recuires a different skill set then fighting of scores of T-55s and BMP-1s.

The point that both M21 and myself were trying to raise is that we know of no battleplan as to how and where to use these forces.

troung
21 Apr 05,, 01:22
That would be me.

I don't know but by numbers and sheer shock value they would have some degree of control of the skies at the start of a war. Gaggles of MiG-23MS, MiG-21F-13/MF/PFMs, MiG-17s, Su-17s, Su-20s, Su-7s, IL-28s, Tu-16s would be able to take some degree of control early on. They would be up againist Mirage III/5s, F-5A/Bs, Mirage F-1s, F-104s and F-4s which are better but would be outnumbered and rapidly put under heavy pressure from VVS/WP assaults on their own bases and the massive fighter sweeps.

And of course the WP/VVS were ready to take massive airplane losses and contuine strikes flying in big formations. And not like the entire USAF would be there engines revving to take off. Rather small detachments of NATO airforces were on QR duties (hell I think the Danish had like 6 F-5As on QRA).

So I would think it would be NATO airforces fighting on the defensive rather quickly.


The point that both M21 and myself were trying to raise is that we know of no battleplan as to how and where to use these forces.

Maybe to preceed a NATO counterattack after/if the WP losses their steam in the advance. Before that the best these forces could do would be to harass the enemies rear, and I wonder if we would be ready to lose so many well troops for what could be a very small delay.

lwarmonger
21 Apr 05,, 01:30
Actually no. The Soviets had a huge SEAD force (bigger then NATOs) and well constructed plans on how to use it to cut swaths through NATO AD with 1000 plane missions as well as smaller operations at the same time to flood NATO and inflict damage without concern for their own losses. And the WP had many more BVR s******* (MiG-23MF/ML/MLD, MiG-25, MiG-29, MiG-31) then NATO. And they had more PGM s******* then NATO as well. Plus the large numbers of T-80s, T-64s, and T-72s and newer more lethal ATGMs.

It's not as easy as one might think. They are nto as bad as you might think. Never say hands down, hands down implies some sort of route ;)


I'm not saying that the Soviets were going to be routed (it would have been a tough fight, and very bloody), nor did I mean to imply it, but realistically, they did not have much hope of winning (meaning NATO was almost definitely going to emerge victorious) by purely conventional means after the very early 80's. Their tanks were simply too inferior after the widespread introduction of the M-1, Challenger, and Leopard II tanks, and their air strength was being increasingly outpaced by NATO due to their inability to build and maintain the advanced righters necessary to keep up (especially in the electronic warfare and ground support realms).



Who says NATO would control much airspace at the start of the war? Actually in those scary first days the VVS would probably have taken a degree of contol due to raw numbers and shock.


Would the Soviets have control over both their airspace and NATO airspace? They didn't have that big of an advantage in numbers. Those transport streams would be awfully vulnerable.

lwarmonger
21 Apr 05,, 01:36
lwarmonger,

Forget the 10 days to Rhine scenario. That depended on nukes.

Sorry, had completely forgotten. 1973 it was nukes from the get-go, with no question of a conventional stage first.

lwarmonger
21 Apr 05,, 01:57
Depends on which scenario you use. The actual deployment plan is still a classified state secret in Moscow.


Just going from the maps I've seen.



I'm under the assumption that the mobilization has not even started. We can bring the air elements of REFORGER in place alot sooner than they can man even the Cat B divisions.


Alright then. But even with that being the case, wouldn't that not apply to those category A divisions in Russia? I'm assuming that the Soviet forces in the DDR and involved areas would have had some kind of stepped up training prior to the attack, so why not the ones in Russia as well? Even if they didn't, then the cat A divisions in Russia proper are still just as prepared as the ones used to launch the assault, so wouldn't bringing those complete formations up be easier?



It's alot faster to insert companies and battalions into decimated formations than to bring a fresh division forward when a warning order was not even issued.


I was always under the impression that Soviet divisions were designed to disintegrate, as each of their component parts was used to fulfill it's function (identify weak spots, blast a hole, exploit the hole in order to prepare the way for follow on formations), which is one of the reasons there was never much provision for extensive logistics. Wouldn't it be easier to bring already created formations forward than recreating largely destroyed formations from the ground up?



Just reaching the Rhine ain't going to stop REFORGER. The Rhine has always been considered the 2nd line of defence (the first is the FGR-GDR and the FGR-CSSR borders). There were delayed actions already in place to get the bulk of the forces across if the 1st line is deemed unattainable. Thus, just because the Soviets reached the Rhine within 10 days did not mean the corps are destroyed.


Would those contingencies function properly in the face of large scale special forces, air, and missile attack? It would be infinitely preferable for reforger to be conducted within the FRG.



That is if they can take those positions before they're manned.


Which was a major goal of theirs.



Not valid at all. The Soviets ain't going to try to maul every line brigade or even division. They would be looking for a breakthrough point and then bypass then supposedly strong pockets of resistence (meaning leaving perfectly combat capable forces in their lines of march. They were relying on follow on echelons to deal with these forces. That is assuming that these forces do not beat a hasty retreat across the Rhine.


I'm not saying that they were going to maul every line brigade or division. But if they got through to the Rhine (assuming that SACEUR remained true to the forward defense policy), then they have hurt us at least as much as we have hurt them.

This essentially means two fronts. One against the Lanzhou Military Region and the other against the Beijing and Shenyang Military Regions.




The Soviets attacking seemed the better bet but with only 45 divisions, taking the 3 garrisons ain't going to be easy and certainly requiring rapid re-enforcements.

Let me qualify myself here. In 1973, the Soviet Far East divisions were at full strength in preparation for a nuke strike to Lop Nor. Cat B and C divisions would not have been mobilized, otherwise, giving NATO plenty of warning to man their own defences.

Thus, here is the situation, do you throw your hastily formed battalions and regiments against NATO or against China and if against China, at the LZMR or the BJMR/SYMR?

Wouldn't those 45 divisions provide a proper striking force for destroying stronger Chinese formations though? If I'm reading you correctly, the Soviet difficulties primarily consist of insufficient manpower to cover the sheer length of their border with China given their objectives (objectives consisting of protecting the trans-Siberian Railroad and population centers/bases). As I was saying before, couldn't some of those mobilized category B or C divisions provide the manpower that was lacking (there were most certainly a lot of them)? These problems work both ways too. The Chinese are not mobilized either, and have limited forces that would be useful for an offensive to the North (even an extremely decentralized one). In fact, they would be less prepared than the Soviets, as the Soviets would have already had prepared themselves for the invasion of Western Europe, and as such would have taken into account the possibility of Chinese intervention.

troung
21 Apr 05,, 01:57
Would the Soviets have control over both their airspace and NATO airspace? They didn't have that big of an advantage in numbers. Those transport streams would be awfully vulnerable.

In the opening days they very well could have some degree of control actually.

They would have run a massive counter air action on NATO bases from the start flying in large formations. This is before ARH BVR missiles so even the BVR edge would not be balance shifting with the low PK kill rates of the AIM-7E-2.


(especially in the electronic warfare and ground support realms).

Actually Soviet SEAD and ECM systems did work suprising well if we are talking about the 1980s. During the Iran Iraq war Soviet downgraded ECM pods were able to jam the HAWK missile and their SEAD missiles were able to kill the radars. The Soviets themselves were able to heaviliy blind enemy radars with stand off jammers. A few Tu-16s jammers blinded the Pakistani border and their F-16s and conducted missions right on the border without being messed with. The Soviets had plans to launch 1000 plane packages to cut NATO AD apart, these packages would have fighters, SEAD planes, strikers, bombers and jammers and they planned for big operations. During the early to mid 1980s it was about 8000 WP planes to 3000 NATO planes.

The VVS/WP actaully had more planes capable of SEAD missions, more BVR equipped fighters as well as PGM users. RAF Tornados lacked PGM capability during the cold war and many/most Tornado ADVs actually lacked radars (had cement ballasts in the noses). German Tornados could only do AShM PGM strikes and dumb bombs on ground targets. German F-4Fs lacked BVR at the time. Most F-16s did dumb bombing only in NATO during the 1980s. And lets no forget the fact NATO still had the F-5A and F-104 in big numbers so it was far from an all F-15/F-16 force ;) . The VVS had scores of Su-17s and MiG-27s which could fire Kh-29L/Ts, Kh-25Ps, Kh-28s, Kh-25Ls and guided bombs. The Su-24Ms could also fire PGMs. A pair of MiG-23MLDs is not that deadly to an F-15 but a few dozen flying as a regiment is deadly seeing as everyone (minus the F-14As) would be SARH shooting.

So they are not as primitve as many seem to think. NATO probably might win as things on the ground are more in their favor (defensive war on terrain they know and drill on very often).

(Some has to play devils advocate)

lwarmonger
21 Apr 05,, 04:37
In the opening days they very well could have some degree of control actually.

They would have run a massive counter air action on NATO bases from the start flying in large formations. This is before ARH BVR missiles so even the BVR edge would not be balance shifting with the low PK kill rates of the AIM-7E-2.


Wouldn't much of their air effort be focused on ground support and counterbattery missions though?



Actually Soviet SEAD and ECM systems did work suprising well if we are talking about the 1980s. During the Iran Iraq war Soviet downgraded ECM pods were able to jam the HAWK missile and their SEAD missiles were able to kill the radars. The Soviets themselves were able to heaviliy blind enemy radars with stand off jammers. A few Tu-16s jammers blinded the Pakistani border and their F-16s and conducted missions right on the border without being messed with. The Soviets had plans to launch 1000 plane packages to cut NATO AD apart, these packages would have fighters, SEAD planes, strikers, bombers and jammers and they planned for big operations. During the early to mid 1980s it was about 8000 WP planes to 3000 NATO planes.

The VVS/WP actaully had more planes capable of SEAD missions, more BVR equipped fighters as well as PGM users. RAF Tornados lacked PGM capability during the cold war and many/most Tornado ADVs actually lacked radars (had cement ballasts in the noses). German Tornados could only do AShM PGM strikes and dumb bombs on ground targets. German F-4Fs lacked BVR at the time. Most F-16s did dumb bombing only in NATO during the 1980s. And lets no forget the fact NATO still had the F-5A and F-104 in big numbers so it was far from an all F-15/F-16 force ;) . The VVS had scores of Su-17s and MiG-27s which could fire Kh-29L/Ts, Kh-25Ps, Kh-28s, Kh-25Ls and guided bombs. The Su-24Ms could also fire PGMs. A pair of MiG-23MLDs is not that deadly to an F-15 but a few dozen flying as a regiment is deadly seeing as everyone (minus the F-14As) would be SARH shooting.

So they are not as primitve as many seem to think. NATO probably might win as things on the ground are more in their favor (defensive war on terrain they know and drill on very often).

(Some has to play devils advocate)

I guess what I was talking about was AWACS and electronic warfare birds. I don't think our respective electronic warfare aircraft and AWACS have ever been fully tested in an have ever faced off against one another, and we had quite an advantage in electronics even then (although I'm not sure whether military applications had caught up by that point). Also, the F-15's (and the F-14's too) were designed to operate in an environment where they were heavily outnumbered, were they not?

Officer of Engineers
21 Apr 05,, 05:30
Just going from the maps I've seen.

Actually, I want to thank you. I've discovered a whole new resource on the internet because of your questions.

The Parallel History Project on NATO and the Warsaw Pact (http://www.isn.ethz.ch/php)

Enjoy


Alright then. But even with that being the case, wouldn't that not apply to those category A divisions in Russia?

No, because there are at least three other Fronts to which those divisions could be applied. Southern Europe, Central Asia, and Eastern Siberia. If these forces are shifted Europeanwise, then, they would be replacing an entire front, and not just divisions.


I'm assuming that the Soviet forces in the DDR and involved areas would have had some kind of stepped up training prior to the attack, so why not the ones in Russia as well? Even if they didn't, then the cat A divisions in Russia proper are still just as prepared as the ones used to launch the assault, so wouldn't bringing those complete formations up be easier?

Any step up training is a sign. There has NOT been one case where we did not match their training and they ours.


I was always under the impression that Soviet divisions were designed to disintegrate, as each of their component parts was used to fulfill it's function (identify weak spots, blast a hole, exploit the hole in order to prepare the way for follow on formations), which is one of the reasons there was never much provision for extensive logistics. Wouldn't it be easier to bring already created formations forward than recreating largely destroyed formations from the ground up?

But it is not creating from ground up. They're inserting new battalions into regiments and new regiments into divisions. In other words, they're inserting fresh units into combat committed echelons.


Would those contingencies function properly in the face of large scale special forces, air, and missile attack? It would be infinitely preferable for reforger to be conducted within the FRG.

Well, you've got me there. However, you've also limited your scope. SpecOps, air, and missile attacks has never taken nor held ground ... and they never will.


Which was a major goal of theirs.[/qutoe]

Well, two things here. West of the Rhine, they could not have achieved without nukes. No way in hell could they have achieved it East of the Rhine even with nukes.

[QUOTE=lwarmonger]I'm not saying that they were going to maul every line brigade or division. But if they got through to the Rhine (assuming that SACEUR remained true to the forward defense policy), then they have hurt us at least as much as we have hurt them.

You're misunderstanding Soviet doctrine (Deep Battle) and also ours (Isolation and Reduction). In both cases, we're not out to kill the major formations but to make them irrevelent. In their case, they aim to fix the main force in place so that they cannot move while moving to kill the reserves and thus, deny the main force any chance of a counter-stoke.

Except that if we have contigencies to accept a move (but NOT to accept a defeat) against the strategic reserves. Please do study Von Mainstein's counters against Zuhkov's Operations Mars and Uranus.

More specifically in our case, we have plans to use our strategic reserves to cover a retreat for the main force across the Rhine.


Wouldn't those 45 divisions provide a proper striking force for destroying stronger Chinese formations though? If I'm reading you correctly, the Soviet difficulties primarily consist of insufficient manpower to cover the sheer length of their border with China given their objectives (objectives consisting of protecting the trans-Siberian Railroad and population centers/bases).

You're not reading me correctly. The Russians have a two front war against China, more specifically against Eastern China and against Western China. Western China directly threatens the railway. Eastern China directly threatens Vladivostok. Eliminating one threat does not eliminate the other.


As I was saying before, couldn't some of those mobilized category B or C divisions provide the manpower that was lacking (there were most certainly a lot of them)? These problems work both ways too. The Chinese are not mobilized either, and have limited forces that would be useful for an offensive to the North (even an extremely decentralized one). In fact, they would be less prepared than the Soviets, as the Soviets would have already had prepared themselves for the invasion of Western Europe, and as such would have taken into account the possibility of Chinese intervention.

No, you're misreading alot of things here. We're not allowing NATO to come to full strength, meaning that we're not allowing the Soviet Cat B and C divisions to full strength (that's the red flag to get NATO to step up).

In 1973, both the Soviets and the Chinese were at full strength in preparation for war against one another.

Those are the historic facts to which we have to work with.

troung
21 Apr 05,, 06:29
I guess what I was talking about was AWACS and electronic warfare birds. I don't think our respective electronic warfare aircraft and AWACS have ever been fully tested in an have ever faced off against one another, and we had quite an advantage in electronics even then (although I'm not sure whether military applications had caught up by that point).

Soviers had a large EW force and jammers on/in Su-17s, Su-24s, MiG-25s, Tu-16s, Tu-22s and other planes.


Also, the F-15's (and the F-14's too) were designed to operate in an environment where they were heavily outnumbered, were they not?

Only the F-14 back then with the AIM-54 which was ARH.

The F-15A/C only had the AIM-7F/M which could only be fired at one target. Put that up in a swarm not talking a 2 on 2. Then think about the rather low PK rations (25% or so) of the AIM-7 and you have a bad picture. The WP had by the 1980s a large amount of planes with BVR weapons even if most of those weapons are comparable to the AIM-7E-2 they would be fired in big groups which the Iran Iraq war showed makes up for things. The Soviets made up for things with big formations.

The other BVR planes in NATO were F/A-18s (AIM-7F), CF-18A/Bs (AIM-7F), Mirage 2000C/Bs (Super 530D), Mirage F-1C/Es (Super 530D), F-4Es (AIM-7E), F-104S (Aspide), F-4M/K (Skyflash I). All were SARH. And back in the 1980s most NATO planes actually lacked BVR (F-5A, Mirage III/5, F-104, F-4F, Tornado IDS/GR). The British Tornado ADV was flying around with a cement balance in the nose (no BVR in other words). The Super 530D for example was a good SARH with good snap up snap down and was meant to engage two types of targets, high flying MiG-25s and low flying Su-24s and was even able to kill F-14s in the Gulf. But yet fighting swarms of planes and firing within a NEZ (to hav a chance of making the kill) does make it hard to make a kill, wouldn't you say?

Now up close the AIM-9P-4/L and R-550 Mk.2 were very common and better then most WP missiles (R-13, R-60). Of course the Soviets were bringing out the R-73E which used a HMS.


Wouldn't much of their air effort be focused on ground support and counterbattery missions though?

They had artillery for much of that, artillery being the god of war in Russia. Russian artillery had a longer range then NATO guns at the time and a numbers edge as well. They had large numbers of mobile MLRS like the BM-21 (122mm), RM-70 (122mm) and BM-24 (240mm) which could handle the CB roles. The biggest weakness in their tube systems was the fact they were towed.

The first focus of the VVS/WP would be putting as big a hurt on NATO airbases and C3 sites. Think of the 6 day war airstrikes and then multiply the striking force by a thousand. Cripple or at least inflict severe damage the NATO airforces in the ETO and it makes things easier as NATO is forced into a standing start as they have already started the race. Leaves NATO playing catch up in the air.

lwarmonger
21 Apr 05,, 06:50
Actually, I want to thank you. I've discovered a whole new resource on the internet because of your questions.

The Parallel History Project on NATO and the Warsaw Pact (http://www.isn.ethz.ch/php)

Enjoy


You are welcome sir. And thank you.



No, because there are at least three other Fronts to which those divisions could be applied. Southern Europe, Central Asia, and Eastern Siberia. If these forces are shifted Europeanwise, then, they would be replacing an entire front, and not just divisions.


Then why bother rebuilding the divisions of the shattered front?



Any step up training is a sign. There has NOT been one case where we did not match their training and they ours.


But something they would need to do, if a merely conventional war came about. It would also tell more, as they have a lot more cat A divisions than NATO had in Europe.



Well, you've got me there. However, you've also limited your scope. SpecOps, air, and missile attacks has never taken nor held ground ... and they never will.


They don't need to take or hold ground. They simply need to disrupt the movement of the eqipment away from WP armored forces.



You're misunderstanding Soviet doctrine (Deep Battle) and also ours (Isolation and Reduction). In both cases, we're not out to kill the major formations but to make them irrevelent. In their case, they aim to fix the main force in place so that they cannot move while moving to kill the reserves and thus, deny the main force any chance of a counter-stoke.


Yes, but if they have reached the Rhine, then they have achieved their objectives, meaning that we are probably far more damaged than they (our reserves have been ravaged and our front line forces are ripe for destruction by their follow on formations).



Except that if we have contigencies to accept a move (but NOT to accept a defeat) against the strategic reserves. Please do study Von Mainstein's counters against Zuhkov's Operations Mars and Uranus.


Roger.



More specifically in our case, we have plans to use our strategic reserves to cover a retreat for the main force across the Rhine.


Strategic reserves? Would these be the reforger divisions and perhaps the French Army? I can't think of many other formations that would be available at that point.



You're not reading me correctly. The Russians have a two front war against China, more specifically against Eastern China and against Western China. Western China directly threatens the railway. Eastern China directly threatens Vladivostok. Eliminating one threat does not eliminate the other.


Aren't those 45 divisions deployed against both?



No, you're misreading alot of things here. We're not allowing NATO to come to full strength, meaning that we're not allowing the Soviet Cat B and C divisions to full strength (that's the red flag to get NATO to step up).

In 1973, both the Soviets and the Chinese were at full strength in preparation for war against one another.

Those are the historic facts to which we have to work with.

Yes, but we are envisioning a two month war against NATO aren't we? Wouldn't that be sufficient time to start getting those B and C formations up? Even partially reconstituted C divisions would be sufficient for guarding fixed points against Chinese infantry, and free up valuable cat A divisions for offensive operations.

lwarmonger
21 Apr 05,, 06:54
Soviers had a large EW force and jammers on/in Su-17s, Su-24s, MiG-25s, Tu-16s, Tu-22s and other planes.


Yeah, but how effective would they have been against their American equivalents? Our AWACS and EW aircraft have never gone up against their Soviet counterparts.

Officer of Engineers
21 Apr 05,, 07:04
Then why bother rebuilding the divisions of the shattered front?

Because of the need to sustain battle momentum.


But something they would need to do, if a merely conventional war came about. It would also tell more, as they have a lot more cat A divisions than NATO had in Europe.

We have a substantially larger reserves than they do. All our and theirs warplans are based upon the fact that we could not field those reserves in time. Canada alone can field a corps within 60 days.

Thus, EVERYTHING to NOT get our warning orders issued.


They don't need to take or hold ground. They simply need to disrupt the movement of the eqipment away from WP armored forces.

Speed bumps and very ineffective ones behind the Rhine.


Yes, but if they have reached the Rhine, then they have achieved their objectives, meaning that we are probably far more damaged than they (our reserves have been ravaged and our front line forces are ripe for destruction by their follow on formations).

No, it does not mean that at all. The best historic example of a Soviet Deep Battle was Manchuria, 1945 in which 80% of the IJA Kuangtum Army never saw combat.


Strategic reserves? Would these be the reforger divisions and perhaps the French Army? I can't think of many other formations that would be available at that point.

No, they do not mean that. If REFORGER got into place, then they're front line troops. The strategic reserves I've been stating are actually front line units. In the case of VII Corps, the 4th Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group stationed at Canadian Forces Base Lahrs, FRG.


Aren't those 45 divisions deployed against both?

In support of a nuclear armed strike. But again, we've taken nukes out of the equation. Much like the 10 day march to the Rhine, the strategic picture against the Chinese changed dramatically without nukes.


Yes, but we are envisioning a two month war against NATO aren't we? Wouldn't that be sufficient time to start getting those B and C formations up? Even partially reconstituted C divisions would be sufficient for guarding fixed points against Chinese infantry, and free up valuable cat A divisions for offensive operations.

Except the fact that ALL sides would be rushing to flush out the reserves. And on that, the Soviets are on the losing side. The Chinese alone had a militia numberring in the millions and with even a 30 days warning, more than able to flush the front lines.

troung
21 Apr 05,, 07:08
Yeah, but how effective would they have been against their American equivalents? Our AWACS and EW aircraft have never gone up against their Soviet counterparts.

A small detachment (2-4) of Tu-22Ps blinded the PAF GCI on the border and fighters in around 1987 as Tu-22Ms hit the border without anything (F-16As) coming up and no one knowing where they were untill the bombs hit and still no planes went up. Libyan Mi-8s with jammers blinded the Egyptian radar net in the 1970s during their short war. And the Iraqis were able to blind HAWK sites. The Russians and WP had a big jamming force as well.

As for how effective againist ours who knows, no doubt ours were better. But if they take over from the start we would be stuck playing catch up.

The 1000 plane raids that were planned would take full use of blinding and killing radars and SAMs as the VVS hit airbases and C-3 centers trying to behead NATO. 3 of those missions were to be launched a day along with smaller formations of strikers well escorted by fighters attacking other sites. Big formations like that (moving in waves) would be hard/nearly impossible to stop as a whole and the Soviets didn't care as much about losses as we do these days.

lwarmonger
21 Apr 05,, 07:44
Because of the need to sustain battle momentum.


Wouldn't bringing up the new front accomplish that? Where are these replacements coming from anyways?



We have a substantially larger reserves than they do. All our and theirs warplans are based upon the fact that we could not field those reserves in time. Canada alone can field a corps within 60 days.


Yeah, but their category A divisions are readily accessable.



Speed bumps and very ineffective ones behind the Rhine.


Attack the units assigned to take them out of there in addition to attacking the sites themselves. Lightly armed rear area units should be fairly easily disrupted, as should command and control for them, and commando units operating in conjuction with air strikes... The Spetznaz/airborne forces don't have to take the equipment, they just have to delay it's evacuation until the armoured columns get there.



No, it does not mean that at all. The best historic example of a Soviet Deep Battle was Manchuria, 1945 in which 80% of the IJA Kuangtum Army never saw combat.


But that was an operation against an opponent with next to no mobile reserves, which is why the operation was so successful. Not going to happen against an entirely mechanized army like that in West Germany.



No, they do not mean that. If REFORGER got into place, then they're front line troops. The strategic reserves I've been stating are actually front line units. In the case of VII Corps, the 4th Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group stationed at Canadian Forces Base Lahrs, FRG.


So basically it is whatever forces can be put together into coherant battle groups from front line forces?



In support of a nuclear armed strike. But again, we've taken nukes out of the equation. Much like the 10 day march to the Rhine, the strategic picture against the Chinese changed dramatically without nukes.


Damn rules of engagement!!!!



Except the fact that ALL sides would be rushing to flush out the reserves. And on that, the Soviets are on the losing side. The Chinese alone had a militia numberring in the millions and with even a 30 days warning, more than able to flush the front lines.

Yeah, but could those militias be committed to offensive operations? Could they be deployed quickly inside of China (Chinese infrastructure is far from extensive in 73)? Could they then be supplied for their march into the Soviet Union? Those C divisions could have been used in a defensive or offensive role. The Chinese militia?

Officer of Engineers
21 Apr 05,, 14:38
Wouldn't bringing up the new front accomplish that? Where are these replacements coming from anyways?

Timing is the issue. The time taken for a new front to come up is also the the time a corps needs to get across the Rhine. A regiment marches much faster than a front.


Yeah, but their category A divisions are readily accessable.

And readily committed and readily in need of rebuilding.


Attack the units assigned to take them out of there in addition to attacking the sites themselves. Lightly armed rear area units should be fairly easily disrupted, as should command and control for them, and commando units operating in conjuction with air strikes... The Spetznaz/airborne forces don't have to take the equipment, they just have to delay it's evacuation until the armoured columns get there.

While their Air Assault elements have substantially more fire assets than our airborne elements, they are no match for even a single armoured battle group. If it deemed necessary, VII Corps could release the 4CMBG to deal with the incursion while the VII Corps HQ itself acts as its own strategic reserves


But that was an operation against an opponent with next to no mobile reserves, which is why the operation was so successful. Not going to happen against an entirely mechanized army like that in West Germany.

From my vantage point, at least three out of five strategic reserve units would remain in tact. There was simply no way for the Soviets to maul 5 corps. They'll smash into all 5, trying to find one breakthrough. At the very best, they would cut off one corp which would leave the four others to retreat in good order.

Foreign Military Studies Office Publications - COUNTERPOINT TO STALINGRAD, Operation Mars (November-December 1942): Marshal Zhukov's Greatest Defeat (http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/issues/countrpt/countrpt.htm)


So basically it is whatever forces can be put together into coherant battle groups from front line forces?

No, REFORGER forces already have their taskings and it's not adhoc.


Yeah, but could those militias be committed to offensive operations? Could they be deployed quickly inside of China (Chinese infrastructure is far from extensive in 73)? Could they then be supplied for their march into the Soviet Union? Those C divisions could have been used in a defensive or offensive role. The Chinese militia?

While the Chinese would love to paint a picture of their militia as guerrilla fighters and sabateours, the sexist job they have is recee. However, the greatest contribution that the militia could make is the LOG train, ie human mules. I have an entire collection of a militia formed division just carrying supplies during the 79 Sino-VN War.

Also, just how much training do you need to grab a guy, sit his ass down on a spot and tell him to shoot whatever comes his way and then place a machine gun behind him so that he doesn't run away?

lwarmonger
22 Apr 05,, 04:25
Timing is the issue. The time taken for a new front to come up is also the the time a corps needs to get across the Rhine. A regiment marches much faster than a front.


But frittering away one's reserve forces piecemeal is less effective than using them as a concentrated mass isn't it?


While their Air Assault elements have substantially more fire assets than our airborne elements, they are no match for even a single armoured battle group. If it deemed necessary, VII Corps could release the 4CMBG to deal with the incursion while the VII Corps HQ itself acts as its own strategic reserves


The Canadian battle group can not be everywhere. And the goal of the special and airborne forces is not to defeat our rear area troops, but to disrupt them. That they have a chance of accomplishing, as their goal would be to delay the withdrawal of the yet to be manned pre-positioned equipment so it can be overrun by Soviet armor.



From my vantage point, at least three out of five strategic reserve units would remain intact. There was simply no way for the Soviets to maul 5 corps. They'll smash into all 5, trying to find one breakthrough. At the very best, they would cut off one corp which would leave the four others to retreat in good order.


I'm not saying that they are going to destroy NATO in West Germany. What I am saying, is that if they manage to reach the Rhine, they'll have hurt NATO at least as much as NATO has hurt them. That becomes especially true if they have cut off a NATO corps or two in West Germany. Either way, there was no way that deep battle would succeed as well against NATO as it did against the Japanese in Manchuria, simply because the Japanese lacked mobile reserves. NATO is almost entirely mechanized, and as such far less vulnerable to being cut off.


No, REFORGER forces already have their taskings and it's not adhoc.


Then what are the other strategic reserves? The Canadian Mechanized brigade isn't capable of doing the job for more than one corp (not enough men or equipment), and looking at the rest of the front, it would appear that most units would be engaged very quickly. I really don't see any strategic reserves worthy of the name, other than those being mobilized in the United States. Our airborne formations are nowhere near heavy or mobile enough to make the fighting withdrawal required, and would be better employed elsewhere. Other than that, all I can think of is the French, and Belgian and Dutch reserve units.



While the Chinese would love to paint a picture of their militia as guerrilla fighters and sabateours, the sexist job they have is recee. However, the greatest contribution that the militia could make is the LOG train, ie human mules. I have an entire collection of a militia formed division just carrying supplies during the 79 Sino-VN War.


A relatively confined war, as was Korea, with limited objectives and not a lot of geographical scope. Compared to the sheer area where this war would be taking place in Siberia, how useful would porters really be for resupply?



Also, just how much training do you need to grab a guy, sit his ass down on a spot and tell him to shoot whatever comes his way and then place a machine gun behind him so that he doesn't run away?

How useful would that be on the offensive, against enemy mechanized divisions with lots of room to manuever? Not very, unless I miss my guess.

Officer of Engineers
22 Apr 05,, 04:59
But frittering away one's reserve forces piecemeal is less effective than using them as a concentrated mass isn't it?

1st, they're not being grittering away piecemeal. They're whole combat regiments being inserted to committed divisions.

2nd, they're not reserves. They're the 2nd and 3rd echelons.


The Canadian battle group can not be everywhere. And the goal of the special and airborne forces is not to defeat our rear area troops, but to disrupt them. That they have a chance of accomplishing, as their goal would be to delay the withdrawal of the yet to be manned pre-positioned equipment so it can be overrun by Soviet armor.

You're not seeing the picture. The 4CMBG is ONLY the VII Corps strategic reserves. They are not whole NATO's reserve. Each corp would have a brigade specifically tasked as its strategic reserves.

Each corp will only deal with the specific threats to its own rear area. To prevent any disruption in VII Corp's rear area is the job of the 4CMBG and that's where any Soviet air assualt element specifically tasked against VII Corp would be overwhelmed. Each of the other corp would also have similar bdes performing the same job.


I'm not saying that they are going to destroy NATO in West Germany. What I am saying, is that if they manage to reach the Rhine, they'll have hurt NATO at least as much as NATO has hurt them. That becomes especially true if they have cut off a NATO corps or two in West Germany. Either way, there was no way that deep battle would succeed as well against NATO as it did against the Japanese in Manchuria, simply because the Japanese lacked mobile reserves. NATO is almost entirely mechanized, and as such far less vulnerable to being cut off.

And render any chance of a Soviet victory inconceiveable. If three or four corps manages to cross the Rhine, then the re-enforcements from North America couple with the reserve mobilization would render the numeric advantage to NATO.


Then what are the other strategic reserves? The Canadian Mechanized brigade isn't capable of doing the job for more than one corp (not enough men or equipment), and looking at the rest of the front, it would appear that most units would be engaged very quickly. I really don't see any strategic reserves worthy of the name, other than those being mobilized in the United States. Our airborne formations are nowhere near heavy or mobile enough to make the fighting withdrawal required, and would be better employed elsewhere. Other than that, all I can think of is the French, and Belgian and Dutch reserve units.

I have to look up the orbat for that one but 7ARCOM is V Corps. I don't know III Corps nor any of the BW Corps.


A relatively confined war, as was Korea, with limited objectives and not a lot of geographical scope. Compared to the sheer area where this war would be taking place in Siberia, how useful would porters really be for resupply?

But the OPOBJs would be centred around very specific areas - Lop Nor, Harbin, Beijing, Shenyang, and Vladivostok. Also, the battle areas of the 1979 1st Sino-Vietnam War would at least match in geographic scope of the Eastern Chinese front.


How useful would that be on the offensive, against enemy mechanized divisions with lots of room to manuever? Not very, unless I miss my guess.

Unless they're sitting inside those garrisons to which the Soviets must take - Lop Nor for instance.

Blademaster
22 Apr 05,, 05:25
Does anybody ever consider that Russians may not go for the whole thing but by piecemeal after piecemeal separated by long lulls of peace?

Like for example, the Soviets would stop at the Rhine and dig in and declare a ceasefire and dare the rest of NATO to continue the war. At this point, no nukes has been exchanged and the rest of NATO will be suscetiple to nuclear blackmail and Soviet has gained some land.

I would consider that as a victory if I reunite Germany under the communism flag. I believe Hitler and Napolean's mistakes were trying to conquer the whole Europe in one swoop. History has shown that to be practically impossible. The Romans didn't conquer Europe in a day and neither did the British conquer India in a day. It took 2 centuries to master control over Europe for the Romans and a century and half for the British over India.

Officer of Engineers
22 Apr 05,, 05:35
That's a political decision. Both the Warsaw Pact and NATO militaries have an Area centric OPOBJ in which we seek to annihalate each other in those battle areas.

lwarmonger
22 Apr 05,, 20:18
1st, they're not being grittering away piecemeal. They're whole combat regiments being inserted to committed divisions.

2nd, they're not reserves. They're the 2nd and 3rd echelons.


But wouldn't committing an entire Army in regiment sized packets to existing formations be considered committing them peacemeal? Committing the army as a group would be concentrated?

Also, I was always under the impression that the role of the 2nd and 3rd echelons
was to exploit holes created by the first echelon. Isn't exploitation a function of reserves? Or am I just getting my terms mixed up here?



You're not seeing the picture. The 4CMBG is ONLY the VII Corps strategic reserves. They are not whole NATO's reserve. Each corp would have a brigade specifically tasked as its strategic reserves.


At what point, assuming that the Soviets do not create a major breakthrough, are those strategic reserves used?



Each corp will only deal with the specific threats to its own rear area. To prevent any disruption in VII Corp's rear area is the job of the 4CMBG and that's where any Soviet air assualt element specifically tasked against VII Corp would be overwhelmed. Each of the other corp would also have similar bdes performing the same job.


But how is the formation acting as a strategic reserves supposed to act as a coherant force if it is dispersed hunting down special forces and airborne elements?



And render any chance of a Soviet victory inconceiveable. If three or four corps manages to cross the Rhine, then the re-enforcements from North America couple with the reserve mobilization would render the numeric advantage to NATO.


So Russia has to destroy most of those corp in front of the Rhine, which it can't do without nuclear weapons? In the 80's, I'd say you are 100% correct, but in 73? Wouldn't those armies smashing into the various NATO corps do quite a bit of damage, even if they didn't break through? I only say this because the Soviet advantage in numbers is so marked, and we are not yet to the days of chobham armor.


But the OPOBJs would be centred around very specific areas - Lop Nor, Harbin, Beijing, Shenyang, and Vladivostok. Also, the battle areas of the 1979 1st Sino-Vietnam War would at least match in geographic scope of the Eastern Chinese front.

Really? I thought it was only a couple of hundred miles to Hanoi, and there really wasn't very good terrain for a war of manuever there (plus the Chinese were advancing against an equally unmechanized force). Also, wasn't one of the big reasons for the failure of the Chinese in that conflict a break down in supply?



Unless they're sitting inside those garrisons to which the Soviets must take - Lop Nor for instance.

Without nuclear weapons in the equation, why is taking Lop Nor, or any point in China for that matter, absolutely essential?

Officer of Engineers
24 Apr 05,, 18:49
*** DEEP BREATH ***


But wouldn't committing an entire Army in regiment sized packets to existing formations be considered committing them peacemeal? Committing the army as a group would be concentrated?

The issue is timing, mobilization, and battle momentum. The Cat B and C div cannot mobilize before hostilities. That would be a sign for us to rush the air elements of REFORGER into place. The Cat A div, once hitting our lines, would have battle momentum and once achieved, you better not stop. Else you allow NATO to retreat, regroup, re-evaluate, and re-committ on our terms. So, what kind of forces can you mobilize from the start of hostilities to the point just before the Cat A div runs out steam? And how would you committ them with effect?


Also, I was always under the impression that the role of the 2nd and 3rd echelons was to exploit holes created by the first echelon. Isn't exploitation a function of reserves? Or am I just getting my terms mixed up here?

Like I've said before, you have alot of things to unlearn. Reserves are part of a singular committement. Ecehlons are another individual committement.


At what point, assuming that the Soviets do not create a major breakthrough, are those strategic reserves used?

Most obvious one, the counter-attack.


But how is the formation acting as a strategic reserves supposed to act as a coherant force if it is dispersed hunting down special forces and airborne elements?

1st of all, the WP air assualt elements are being committed at the bde level. They don't have the fuel to go far and certainly do not have the fire assets to spread out. There's a point where you spread your units too thin to do anything and for the Soviets, the bde is it.

2nd, the corps strategic reserves ain't interested in snipers or even pltn size harrassement forces. They are the corps' strategic reserves, not the policemen for evey bn and coy out there.

3rd, each TF/BG would have its own protection forces at the the pltn lvl and thus, do not have to go crying for help for evey little inconvience.


So Russia has to destroy most of those corp in front of the Rhine, which it can't do without nuclear weapons? In the 80's, I'd say you are 100% correct, but in 73? Wouldn't those armies smashing into the various NATO corps do quite a bit of damage, even if they didn't break through? I only say this because the Soviet advantage in numbers is so marked, and we are not yet to the days of chobham armor.

If they can get through the minefields and earthworks. No matter how good armour technology will advance, it will never out-do good old Mother Earth.

However, the Soviets never had the kind of numeric superiority you're thinking of. It was 173 WP div against 87 NATO div. Soviet doctrine calls for 5-6 to 1 numeric superiority and 8-10 to 1 in fire superiority to do the kind of damage nukes would do. Thus, in general overall terms, they cannot maul the 5-6 corps facing them. The best they can do is to fix some of them in place while they mass for local superiority.

So, no, they cannot destroy most of those corps before the Rhine. The best they can do is to reach the Rhine and then cut off the escape for all the other corps and that is a strong tactical improbability.


Really? I thought it was only a couple of hundred miles to Hanoi, and there really wasn't very good terrain for a war of manuever there (plus the Chinese were advancing against an equally unmechanized force). Also, wasn't one of the big reasons for the failure of the Chinese in that conflict a break down in supply?

Without nuclear weapons in the equation, why is taking Lop Nor, or any point in China for that matter, absolutely essential?

Looking at a map would tell you all the answers.

Bill
25 Apr 05,, 16:13
You two are still going at it huh?

LOL...Sir, you're wasting thine breath.

lwarmonger
02 May 05,, 04:18
The issue is timing, mobilization, and battle momentum. The Cat B and C div cannot mobilize before hostilities. That would be a sign for us to rush the air elements of REFORGER into place. The Cat A div, once hitting our lines, would have battle momentum and once achieved, you better not stop. Else you allow NATO to retreat, regroup, re-evaluate, and re-committ on our terms. So, what kind of forces can you mobilize from the start of hostilities to the point just before the Cat A div runs out steam? And how would you committ them with effect?


Alright, this brings up a couple of additional questions sir. First, just how much preparation did the Soviets intend to put into an attack upon West Germany? Launching it straight from exercises would give their troops a bit more training, but it would also meet a somewhat alerted NATO. And launching the attack straight from the barracks would mean that a lot if Soviet units are not prepared for offensive operations, would it not (most militaries are not at full war readiness all the time)? Also, if the category B and C divisions were not meant to be used in offensive operations, what were they there for? If the initial offensive fails, were they to back up the remnants? Or were they simply there to occupy conquered territory?



Like I've said before, you have alot of things to unlearn. Reserves are part of a singular committement. Ecehlons are another individual committement.


So the purpose of the Soviet 2nd and 3rd echelons was to reinforce the first echelon?



Most obvious one, the counter-attack.


What were plans for when the Soviet invasion had been repelled (assuming that a strategic nuclear exchange had not taken place by this time... only tactical nukes being used)? Was an invasion of Eastern Europe in the cards? Or would NATO leadership content itself with a stalemate in Germany?



1st of all, the WP air assualt elements are being committed at the bde level. They don't have the fuel to go far and certainly do not have the fire assets to spread out. There's a point where you spread your units too thin to do anything and for the Soviets, the bde is it.


But wouldn't enough of them cause significant problems, especially among transport companies?



2nd, the corps strategic reserves ain't interested in snipers or even pltn size harrassement forces. They are the corps' strategic reserves, not the policemen for evey bn and coy out there.


But didn't the Soviets have a lot of airborne formations? I'm just wondering how many subdivisions these reserves would have to be broken into to deal with the threat to the NATO rear areas.



3rd, each TF/BG would have its own protection forces at the the pltn lvl and thus, do not have to go crying for help for evey little inconvience.


Protection at the platoon level? I'm sorry sir, but I do not understand what you mean.



However, the Soviets never had the kind of numeric superiority you're thinking of. It was 173 WP div against 87 NATO div. Soviet doctrine calls for 5-6 to 1 numeric superiority and 8-10 to 1 in fire superiority to do the kind of damage nukes would do. Thus, in general overall terms, they cannot maul the 5-6 corps facing them. The best they can do is to fix some of them in place while they mass for local superiority.


Well, I guess the question I'm asking is how much damage could the fixing elements do to the NATO corp they are facing? Would it be significant? I'm not saying that they are going to destroy those corp, but to what extent would the fixing elements damage them?



So, no, they cannot destroy most of those corps before the Rhine. The best they can do is to reach the Rhine and then cut off the escape for all the other corps and that is a strong tactical improbability.


But what about damaging those corps to the point where they would have difficulty carrying out large scale offensive operations?


Alright, here is a question. How would you handle this situation, if you were in STAKVA's position sir? I'm not asking for standard Russian doctrine or what we thought there planning was, but how would you deal with a two front war against NATO and China in 1973 without nukes if you were the one making the calls?

Officer of Engineers
03 May 05,, 04:30
You two are still going at it huh?

LOL...Sir, you're wasting thine breath.

Feels like hitting my head against a brick wall.

Officer of Engineers
03 May 05,, 04:42
Alright, this brings up a couple of additional questions sir. First, just how much preparation did the Soviets intend to put into an attack upon West Germany? Launching it straight from exercises would give their troops a bit more training, but it would also meet a somewhat alerted NATO. And launching the attack straight from the barracks would mean that a lot if Soviet units are not prepared for offensive operations, would it not (most militaries are not at full war readiness all the time)? Also, if the category B and C divisions were not meant to be used in offensive operations, what were they there for? If the initial offensive fails, were they to back up the remnants? Or were they simply there to occupy conquered territory?

So the purpose of the Soviet 2nd and 3rd echelons was to reinforce the first echelon?

Do not read more into my statements than what's there. This was a very scenario specific reply in response to a no nuke scenario and in fact within months of the last nuke being withdrawn.

In general terms and not scenario specifice, both the WP and NATO expects some sort of political warning to at least get warning orders issued to both REFORGER and 2nd echelon elements.


What were plans for when the Soviet invasion had been repelled (assuming that a strategic nuclear exchange had not taken place by this time... only tactical nukes being used)? Was an invasion of Eastern Europe in the cards? Or would NATO leadership content itself with a stalemate in Germany?

1st, there's no such thing as a tactical nuclear exchange.

There may have been plans for a counter invasion but it would not have been part of my briefing which was the way it should. We would not know what units are left to provisionally put together a sufficient force. That is if it still made sense for counter-invading a radioactive wasteland.


But wouldn't enough of them cause significant problems, especially among transport companies?

How many of them can you insert into a single AO?


But didn't the Soviets have a lot of airborne formations? I'm just wondering how many subdivisions these reserves would have to be broken into to deal with the threat to the NATO rear areas.

They had 6 div but most are trained at the bde lvl.


Protection at the platoon level? I'm sorry sir, but I do not understand what you mean.

Every svc bn had a pltn specifically for force protection.


Well, I guess the question I'm asking is how much damage could the fixing elements do to the NATO corp they are facing? Would it be significant? I'm not saying that they are going to destroy those corp, but to what extent would the fixing elements damage them?

But what about damaging those corps to the point where they would have difficulty carrying out large scale offensive operations?

Not enough. Do the math with the numbers I gave you.


Alright, here is a question. How would you handle this situation, if you were in STAKVA's position sir? I'm not asking for standard Russian doctrine or what we thought there planning was, but how would you deal with a two front war against NATO and China in 1973 without nukes if you were the one making the calls?

Way above my pay grade.

lwarmonger
03 May 05,, 06:28
In general terms and not scenario specifice, both the WP and NATO expects some sort of political warning to at least get warning orders issued to both REFORGER and 2nd echelon elements.


Then how did the Soviets hope to disrupt reforger?



1st, there's no such thing as a tactical nuclear exchange.


So in the event of a conflict, each side planned to initiate a full scale strategic nuclear strike right off the bat? What would be the point? Although I can understand how winning in 10 days becomes more important in that scenario. After that, there wouldn't be much ability to supply the attacking formations left.



There may have been plans for a counter invasion but it would not have been part of my briefing which was the way it should. We would not know what units are left to provisionally put together a sufficient force. That is if it still made sense for counter-invading a radioactive wasteland.


True enough.



They had 6 div but most are trained at the bde lvl.


That is quite a lot of manpower... assuming they could deploy most of it into West Germany, wouldn't that be sufficient to tie down our strategic reserves? Also, how much airlift capacity did the Soviet Union have to move those airborne formations?

Officer of Engineers
04 May 05,, 05:25
Then how did the Soviets hope to disrupt reforger?

Nukes.

You should really read the PHP site. 1st, the only war plane we had from the Warsaw Pact are the Czechs and that's only because they fielded the only independent corps in the entire pact.

What you have been reading/studying is our projections based upon our study of their doctrines and their exercises. We were extremely wrong about their war plans. So, their desire to disrupt REFORGER is based upon our read of their exercises that corresponded with Ex REFORGER.


So in the event of a conflict, each side planned to initiate a full scale strategic nuclear strike right off the bat? What would be the point? Although I can understand how winning in 10 days becomes more important in that scenario. After that, there wouldn't be much ability to supply the attacking formations left.

Have you even read the Czech document? It states over 100 nukes to be used in the 1st stage of the attack. That alone crosses the line between strategic and tactical exchanges.

Even still based upon our read at the lines, there is no such thing as a tactical nuclear exchange simply because of the escalation. We nuke them to stop their advance and they nuke us to blast us open. Now, I know you would take that to be litterally but what that means is that they would nuke a corps HQ while we would nuke an assembly area.

Two or three of that and we again cross into a strategic exchange, especially when you consider that the Czechs planned to be in Lyon following nuke strikes onto French territory.


That is quite a lot of manpower... assuming they could deploy most of it into West Germany, wouldn't that be sufficient to tie down our strategic reserves? Also, how much airlift capacity did the Soviet Union have to move those airborne formations?

How many can you fit into a single AO?

lwarmonger
04 May 05,, 05:41
What you have been reading/studying is our projections based upon our study of their doctrines and their exercises. We were extremely wrong about their war plans. So, their desire to disrupt REFORGER is based upon our read of their exercises that corresponded with Ex REFORGER.

I see. That makes sense, and does kind of render the airborne disruptions pointless, as they would pale in comparison with the havoc sown by the nuclear strikes.



Have you even read the Czech document? It states over 100 nukes to be used in the 1st stage of the attack. That alone crosses the line between strategic and tactical exchanges.

Even still based upon our read at the lines, there is no such thing as a tactical nuclear exchange simply because of the escalation. We nuke them to stop their advance and they nuke us to blast us open. Now, I know you would take that to be litterally but what that means is that they would nuke a corps HQ while we would nuke an assembly area.

Two or three of that and we again cross into a strategic exchange, especially when you consider that the Czechs planned to be in Lyon following nuke strikes onto French territory.


I did read the Czech document sir, and from what I understood those 130+ nukes would be concentrated upon NATO forces and air defenses, as well as our tactical nuclear capability in West Germany (with a few nukes in reserve for targets of opportunity). Also, they are comprised entirely of air and short range missile delivered warheads.

Pretty much what I mean by a strategic nuclear exchange is a full nuclear strike from our and their ICBM delivered nukes upon the respective homelands (both cities and counterforce). Would their be a difference between us nuking an assembly area in East Germany using a bomber delivered nuke, and nuking Kiev or Leningrad with a Minuteman ICBM? Or would the second the first nuke went off over an airbase or VII Corp headquarters, our respective deterants obliterate one another?

lwarmonger
04 May 05,, 05:58
On a related note sir, I do appreciate you taking the time to help me understand a lot of this. I have learned quite a bit from our discussions, and you are not "banging your head against a brick wall." I've always tended to look at things from a power politic perspective before, instead of a doctrinal perspective. It is much harder to unlearn things than it is to learn them, but I do understand quite a bit more about military actions on the operational level than I did when I first came to this board, and I thank you.

Officer of Engineers
04 May 05,, 05:58
Pretty much what I mean by a strategic nuclear exchange is a full nuclear strike from our and their ICBM delivered nukes upon the respective homelands (both cities and counterforce). Would their be a difference between us nuking an assembly area in East Germany using a bomber delivered nuke, and nuking Kiev or Leningrad with a Minuteman ICBM? Or would the second the first nuke went off over an airbase or VII Corp headquarters, our respective deterants obliterate one another?

You're forgetting a few things. My home in Germany was CFB Lahr. The city got over 42,000 people. It's the same of all our homes in Germany. Any attack on a military target will result with a corresponding civilian collateral damage upto and including the political leadership.

2nd, we fielded nukes that can and do reach into the Soviet homeland and while counterforce in nature, both the Pershing II and the Tomahawk cruise missiles will have a devastating effect on both their civilian population and the political leadership.

3rd, both France and the UK had their own nuclear arsenals independent of NATO and while the US may be reluctant to nuke Moscow in defence if Lahr, France would have no compulsion in defence of Lyon.

So, no, everyway you look at this, there is no such thing as limited nuclear war.

lwarmonger
04 May 05,, 06:05
You're forgetting a few things. My home in Germany was CFB Lahr. The city got over 42,000 people. It's the same of all our homes in Germany. Any attack on a military target will result with a corresponding civilian collateral damage upto and including the political leadership.


I guess this comes to the question "if a German city is destroyed, would an American president actually have treated it like an American city?" Fortunately we will never know.



2nd, we fielded nukes that can and do reach into the Soviet homeland and while counterforce in nature, both the Pershing II and the Tomahawk cruise missiles will have a devastating effect on both their civilian population and the political leadership.


But would we use nukes against Russia if they had refrained from using them against the US? Would that be SACEUR's call or the American presidents?



3rd, both France and the UK had their own nuclear arsenals independent of NATO and while the US may be reluctant to nuke Moscow in defence if Lahr, France would have no compulsion in defence of Lyon.

So, no, everyway you look at this, there is no such thing as limited nuclear war.

Wouldn't a way of the Soviets neutralizing that possibility is having clearly stated objectives beforehand? For example, the conquest of West Germany and the Low countries, while guaranteeing France's independence (while restricting nuclear usage to West Germany and the Low Countries... sparing Britain as well).

lwarmonger
04 May 05,, 06:07
I'm looking at a similar situation to what the Soviets tried in "WWIII", by John Hackett.

Officer of Engineers
04 May 05,, 06:14
I guess this comes to the question "if a German city is destroyed, would an American president actually have treated it like an American city?" Fortunately we will never know.

He better. He would lose two allies (the Canadians and the Germans) up front if he did not. And the rest would start looking somewhere else to save their own butts. Also, you're forgetting the fact that up until we got the CF-18s, Canadian CF-104s carried American nukes (on a dual release authorization).


But would we use nukes against Russia if they had refrained from using them against the US? Would that be SACEUR's call or the American presidents?

The point is that the Soviets would have use nukes against the US. Against US territory, citizens, and assets. Just not on CONUS. However, the Pershings and the Tomahawks were poised against the SS-20s. Just look at the map on where all three were stationed. You cannot avoid civilian damage in all three cases.


Wouldn't a way of the Soviets neutralizing that possibility is having clearly stated objectives beforehand? For example, the conquest of West Germany and the Low countries, while guaranteeing France's independence (while restricting nuclear usage to West Germany and the Low Countries... sparing Britain as well).

The Netherlands is under both the US and the UK nuclear umbrella.

Officer of Engineers
04 May 05,, 06:19
On a related note sir, I do appreciate you taking the time to help me understand a lot of this. I have learned quite a bit from our discussions, and you are not "banging your head against a brick wall." I've always tended to look at things from a power politic perspective before, instead of a doctrinal perspective. It is much harder to unlearn things than it is to learn them, but I do understand quite a bit more about military actions on the operational level than I did when I first came to this board, and I thank you.

Didn't see this before. You're very welcome.

Like I said you've got a lot to unlearn and there are times I have to force you to confront your own errors and that was a bit frustrating than giving field lectures to cadets who don't know any better.


I'm looking at a similar situation to what the Soviets tried in "WWIII", by John Hackett.

No doubt, the Soviets had read Sir John and even Tom Clancy would have a class or two but you noticed here that I have always ignored what the enemy will do and concentrated on what the enemy CAN do.

lwarmonger
05 May 05,, 02:12
The Netherlands is under both the US and the UK nuclear umbrella.

True enough, however the use of nuclear weapons is a political decision. Most presidents and Prime Ministers (or Soviet general secretaries for that matter) would not wish to preside over the destruction of their respective nations... which is exactly what would have happened if those SSBN's and missile silos became involved. I'm sure that an American President would have no problem using smaller nuclear weapons over Eastern Europe in response to a Soviet nuclear offensive (or breakthrough) in West Germany/the Low countries, but employing them against Russia proper when the United States hasn't been touched...? National suicide doesn't rank high on the list of things presidents want to go down in history for. Better dead than red is a good slogan... but when push comes to shove, I think there would be at least some reluctance to initiate strikes against Soviet cities if American/British cities had not been touched yet.

On a related note sir, in NATO who had authority for release for our tactical and strategic nukes? Did SACEUR have the authority to initiate tactical nuclear use on his own, or did he have to consult with the American president first (I do know that the French reserved control over their nuclear arsenal for themselves). And did SACEUR have access to ICBM's in CONUS and on submarines, or merely tactical nuclear weapons on in theater forces?

Officer of Engineers
05 May 05,, 02:24
True enough, however the use of nuclear weapons is a political decision. Most presidents and Prime Ministers (or Soviet general secretaries for that matter) would not wish to preside over the destruction of their respective nations... which is exactly what would have happened if those SSBN's and missile silos became involved.

The Netherlands is to the UK what Canada is to the US. If you can imagine Canada not being under an American nuclear response, then and only then, can you imagine the UK not responding a Soviet nuking the Netherlands.


I'm sure that an American President would have no problem using smaller nuclear weapons over Eastern Europe in response to a Soviet nuclear offensive (or breakthrough) in West Germany/the Low countries, but employing them against Russia proper when the United States hasn't been touched...?

Where do you think the SS-20 silos and the rear echelon assembly points are?


National suicide doesn't rank high on the list of things presidents want to go down in history for. Better dead than red is a good slogan... but when push comes to shove, I think there would be at least some reluctance to initiate strikes against Soviet cities if American/British cities had not been touched yet.

It's national suicide not to respond, especially when your own citizens are dying under a relentless nuclear onslaught. And you're not getting it. Russian cities are already targetted simply by the Soviet army deployment schema.


On a related note sir, in NATO who had authority for release for our tactical and strategic nukes? Did SACEUR have the authority to initiate tactical nuclear use on his own, or did he have to consult with the American president first (I do know that the French reserved control over their nuclear arsenal for themselves). And did SACEUR have access to ICBM's in CONUS and on submarines, or merely tactical nuclear weapons on in theater forces?

SACEUR must be authorized by the President and all other dual release authorities (ie, Canada in the case of the CF-104s) before he had use. ICBMs were under the command of SAC.

lwarmonger
05 May 05,, 02:33
The Netherlands is to the UK what Canada is to the US. If you can imagine Canada not being under an American nuclear response, then and only then, can you imagine the UK not responding a Soviet nuking the Netherlands.


Is Belgium afforded the same protection sir?



Where do you think the SS-20 silos and the rear echelon assembly points are?


So those rear area assembly points would be taken out by Tomahawk delivered nukes?



It's national suicide not to respond, especially when your own citizens are dying under a relentless nuclear onslaught. And you're not getting it. Russian cities are already targetted simply by the Soviet army deployment schema.


Were we planning to use ICBM's to take out those assembly areas in Russia proper, or tactical nukes? Also, I was assuming there was a difference between nuking CONUS with ICBM's and nuking West Germany with SSM's, artillery and aircraft. Apparently I was incorrect in that assumption.



SACEUR must be authorized by the President and all other dual release authorities (ie, Canada in the case of the CF-104s) before he had use. ICBMs were under the command of SAC.

Did SAC have independant launch authority? And how were the British nukes (tactical and IRBM) included in the defense of Europe?

Officer of Engineers
05 May 05,, 03:03
Is Belgium afforded the same protection sir?

Under the North Atlantic Treaty Article V, "An attack on one is an attack on all."


So those rear area assembly points would be taken out by Tomahawk delivered nukes?

Were we planning to use ICBM's to take out those assembly areas in Russia proper, or tactical nukes? Also, I was assuming there was a difference between nuking CONUS with ICBM's and nuking West Germany with SSM's, artillery and aircraft. Apparently I was incorrect in that assumption.

Did SAC have independant launch authority? And how were the British nukes (tactical and IRBM) included in the defense of Europe?

Class Protected info. You don't have a need-to-know. What I can tell you is that the Pershing IIs and the Tomahawks were directly linked to the SS-20s.

TopHatter
05 May 05,, 03:16
Any rational and educated person would shudder at the thought of even a "limited, tactical" exchange of nuclear weaponry.
Both the US and the UK film studios produced "after the bomb" movies.
I've only seen The Day After many years after it first came out. At first I was slightly amused at the "early 80s TV movie" aspects of the production. Then I felt myself getting colder by the minute as international tensions ratcheted up until finally a crowd of people sees the sky filled with the exhaust plumes of ICBMs and someone wonders aloud what they are. I can still hear John Lithgow's character saying in comprehending horror "Those are Minuteman III's"

Bill
05 May 05,, 06:15
SIOP(Single Integrated Operational Plan) was the US militarys one and only nuclear response plan. The US SIOP battleplan called for exactly one response to any Soviet nuclear attack on the US or on any ally....

Total thermonuclear warfare.

barrowaj
05 May 05,, 06:23
SIOP(Single Integrated Operational Plan) was the US militarys one and only nuclear response plan. The US SIOP battleplan called for exactly one response to any Soviet nuclear attack on the US or on any ally....

Total thermonuclear warfare.Bluff.

Bill
05 May 05,, 06:24
Maybe..........................

Care to call it?

So far, no one has. Are you the nutter that would be the first?
The US has nuked civilians.

Twice.

Feeling lucky?

dalem
05 May 05,, 08:00
Maybe..........................

Care to call it?

So far, no one has. Are you the nutter that would be the first?
The US has nuked civilians.

Twice.

Feeling lucky?

Hell, I'd do it. Retaliate, I mean.

-dale

troung
08 May 05,, 07:14
Been reading about the French plans for war.

They seemed to have wanted to avoid MOUT and forest combat in favor of mobile flanking operations on the bigger yet less responsive WP unit. Also they wanted to dodge the head on assaults by the WP and try to rapidly out flank them. They were not going to hold at all costs but try and fight mobile and avoid giving a tempting artillery target and fighting meatgrinders with Russia in every city. They would try and slow the frontal attacks and then flank them.

Back in 1973 they had big numbers of AMX-30s, AMX-13s and AML-90s all of which could kill a 1973 model MBT. France was also the first nation to employ air launched ATGMs in combat (Algeria). The SS-11 was capable of killing any tank of the day and could be fitted to helicopters and ground vehicles. Even some AMX-13s mounted them on top of the gun. HEAT weapons were very deadly back then as we all know.

The French had a decent SP artillery force with the Mk-F3 (155mm) and Mk-61 (105mm) both using the AMX-13 chassis. Niether one had a NBC system nor a turrent but the Mk-61 at least had a roof (Mk-F3 was open). Still they could both keep up with mobile units. Their towed force was nothing special with the Modele-50 (155mm) and M-101 (105mm). They also had a few AMX-13DCA 30mm radar guided systems mounted on the AMX-13 hull. The M-3 wheeled APC had entered service in 1971 and they had numbers of the tracked AMX-VCI APC.

Like the other ex colonial powers they had a strong veteran NCO cadre in light infantry, commando and parachute units. Yet by 1973 most of their small arms were rather dated (7.5mm MAS-49/56, 7.5mm AA-52, 9mm MAT-49) even though suprisingly they built the excellent G-3 under license it was not issued to French soldiers :rolleyes: .

Yet on the other hand they would have had high morale and have known nad have trained on the ground they would be fighting on.

Of course their nuke force was a large part of their spending. So wonder what they would have looked like if that massive chunk of their spending had not been around to take up money. The French army was only to be a trip wire as the nuclear force was supposed to really do the war ending killing ;) .

WeeGiZ
08 May 05,, 07:39
Been reading about the French plans for war.

They seemed to have wanted to avoid MOUT and forest combat in favor of mobile flanking operations on the bigger yet less responcive WP unit. Also they wanted to dodge the head on assaults by the WP and try to rapidly out flank them. They were not going to hold at all costs but try and fight mobile and avoid giving a tempting artillery target and fighting meatgrinders with Russia in every city.

Back in 1973 they had big numbers of AMX-30s, AMX-13s and AML-90s all of which could kill a 1973 model MBT. France was also the first nation to employ air launched ATGMs in combat (Algeria). Like the other ex colonial powers they had a strong veteran NCO cadre in light infantry, commando and parachute units. Yet by 1973 most of their small arms were rather dated (7.5mm MAS-49/56, AA-52, 9mm MAT-49) even though suprisingly they built the excellent G-3 under lisence it was not issued to French soldiers :rolleyes: .

Yet on the other hand they would have had high morale and have known they ground they would be fighting on.

Of course their nuke force was a large part of their spending. So wonder what they would have looked like if that massive chunk of their spending had not been around to take up money...

WP don't know much about numbers, but I think I read somewhere in this forum, that there were concentrated 173 WP divisions near border with NATO vs ~80-90 NATO divisions. So French doctrine seems very nice, but at least as think, these flankin operations againts superior forces (in numbers) would be let's say not easy, just maybe IF WP ground troops were immobile targets (and I dont think they were - almost all infantry regiments were mounted on BTR's, BMP's + airborne with BMD's, that COULD kill any French armored vehicle. AMX''s and AML's also could be EASYLI killed by any MBT or BMP-1. And wast numbers of Soviet tanks (BTW by the time maybe the best models in the world...) could make outcome not positive to the French light tanks And IF the NATO would agressors, their motivation couldn't be so high. But there's no doubt about their NCO's, commando and parachute units quality, yet they operated far less succesive firearms. (it's the man, not the piece of steel in his hands makes differnce:))
NBC is out of options ;)

troung
08 May 05,, 07:52
WP don't know much about numbers, but I think I read somewhere in this forum, that there were concentrated 173 WP divisions near border with NATO vs ~80-90 NATO divisions.

Let us not forget that Greece and Turkey were also in NATO. 173 WP divisions were not on the border with Germany. Soviet tactics called for a 3 to 1 ratio to attack.


these flankin operations againts superior forces (in numbers) would be let's say not easy

One has to wonder what the forces would look like after going through the meat grinder called West Germany. More or less the best units would be gone replaced in line by less well equipped ones and of course more fresh NATO units would be arriving from CONUS, Canada and the UK.


And wast numbers of Soviet tanks (BTW by the time maybe the best models in the world...) could make outcome not positive to the French light tanks

T-62s and T-55s were not the best in the world. Basically back then everyone could easily kill everyone. The best armed and armored tank around was the Chieftan which had other problems... but could take a hit... ;)


And IF the NATO would agressors, their motivation couldn't be so high.

The French plans were defensive. Basically NATOs plans were defensive.


almost all infantry regiments were mounted on BTR's, BMP's + airborne with BMD's, that COULD kill any French armored vehicle.

That is true for the BMP-1s and BMD-1s but not the BTRs which had machine guns.

Might want to check Version-2 of my last post ;) .

WeeGiZ
08 May 05,, 08:53
EDIT 1. I wasn'tt sure about numbers;)I think it was about whole NATO forces along border with Soviets... maybe my training is "soviet like", but on all offensive operations it's likely to have 3:1 ratio.
2. What about T-64? whicha was emplouyed by the time (in fact by the time there was already T-64A model) with low profile, 115mm/125mm smoothbore canon, high power/weight ratio? I read somewhere,that in Israel-Arab conflict Israel AMX's "spend more time hiding from Arab - T-xx fire,than confronting them..."still its Internet, so any1 can write anything:)
3. Yes, sorry my mistake, it was from other thread I remembered "IF Patton got his wish to attack Soviets"..heh you simply cannt be the BAD guys;)
I KNOW that NATO is defensive organization.
4. Yes, I simply was mentioning the mobility of infantry regiments.;)
Briefly: BMP-1 & BMD-1 armament: 73mm smoothbore canon "Grom" + AT-2 "Maliutka" launcher + 7.62mm machinegun. BTR - 14.5mm KPVT machine gun + coax 7.62mm PKT.
5. Will check ;)
6. OT: before Poland joined NATO, on one of the strategic railway station's they were asked, if they can let pass through them 1 division per 24h...the polsih answer was "that in a Soviet times, during a war, it was calculated at least for 2 divisions to go through...". (it's all about logistics)

troung
08 May 05,, 19:21
What about T-64? whicha was emplouyed by the time (in fact by the time there was already T-64A model) with low profile, 115mm/125mm smoothbore canon, high power/weight ratio?

Not terribly many were around. And more then likely very few would get through Germany if any. It was actually out gunned by the 120mm Chieftan. And even the T-72 could be and can still be killed with the L-7 105mm gun.


I read somewhere,that in Israel-Arab conflict Israel AMX's "spend more time hiding from Arab - T-xx fire,than confronting them..."still its Internet, so any1 can write anything

The IDF was all about head on assaults which gave the AMX-13 issues. Charging an AMX-13 head on into dug in enemy units is not a great idea at all if you are loss shy. The AMX-13 is for moving and not a stand still slugging match.

Still the IDF had the 75mm version and not the 90mm version. The 90mm could easily kill a T-62 head on. The 75mm version with a HEAT round could kill the T-55 though not with an AP round head on. And some French models had an extra sting in the form of the SS-11 missile along with the main gun.

The French also had a anti tank helicopter force with Allouettes with the SS-11 missile. France had already used them in action during Algeria for cave busting operations.


Briefly: BMP-1 & BMD-1 armament: 73mm smoothbore canon "Grom" + AT-2 "Maliutka" launcher + 7.62mm machinegun. BTR - 14.5mm KPVT machine gun + coax 7.62mm PKT.

AT-3 not AT-2. And 1973 was before lessons about how to actually use the BMP-1 came through. The BMP-1s would have led the infantry or charged in with the infantry and taken gloulish losses. That is how the Soviets trained and planned to use them before the awful losses in the 1973 war forced them to step back and look at things.


I think it was about whole NATO forces along border with Soviets... maybe my training is "soviet like", but on all offensive operations it's likely to have 3:1 ratio.

The numbers are right but I was pointing out that not all the WP divisions were on the German border. So basically the French would not be facing 173 divisions in France. That was my whole point.

WeeGiZ
09 May 05,, 08:04
1. I think it's reversible - T-xx's could be killed by AMX's as well as AMX's by T-xx's.
And yes, Soviets were outgunned by Chieftain (which was quite "underpowered and Firepower and protection emphasized at cost of mobility"), but how many were deployed by 1973? And at lest first MK's of it were not agile as T-xx's.
BTW tanks are all designated for mobile warfare:)
2. Need to check info for Soviet helos, but if I remember Hind ws introduced just in ~1976...and thats a hell of a machine for it's time!!! I believe it would be wrecking havoc amongst AMX's...but still it was just in 1976...
3. I believe not always BMP's would be charging without tank support. And against infantry it would quite solid support..
4. Sorry, my mistake :)

troung
10 May 05,, 23:51
BTW tanks are all designated for mobile warfare

Some more then others ;)


And yes, Soviets were outgunned by Chieftain (which was quite "underpowered and Firepower and protection emphasized at cost of mobility"), but how many were deployed by 1973? And at lest first MK's of it were not agile as T-xx's

Around 1000 were used by the British. That was the only NATO tank which was a total over match to WP tanks.


I think it's reversible - T-xx's could be killed by AMX's as well as AMX's by T-xx's.

It is very much so.


Need to check info for Soviet helos, but if I remember Hind ws introduced just in ~1976...and thats a hell of a machine for it's time!!! I believe it would be wrecking havoc amongst AMX's...but still it was just in 1976...

The Mi-24A got its first work out during the Ogedan war between Ethiopia and Somalia back in 1977. The first couple should have entered service very late in 1973 with Russia. At that time they used 12.7mm machine guns, rockets and the AT-2 missile.


I believe not always BMP's would be charging without tank support. And against infantry it would quite solid support..

In 1973 the BMP-1s were to either lead the infantry or take them up into the enemy. That training led to ghoulish losses on the part of BMP-1 crews in 1973. It took a few years for the Soviets to put the lessons they had learned from the Arabs into use and have the BMP-1 act as fire support for dismounts.

Bill
11 May 05,, 05:08
"Around 1000 were used by the British. That was the only NATO tank which was a total over match to WP tanks. "

Are you forgetting about the Leopard 1?

In 1973 that was the best tank in the world IMO.

"The Mi-24A got its first work out during the Ogedan war between Ethiopia and Somalia back in 1977. The first couple should have entered service very late in 1973 with Russia. At that time they used 12.7mm machine guns, rockets and the AT-2 missile."

In 1973 the US Army had about 1,000 AH-1 Cobras in service. Attack helos was one area the NATO forces enjoyed a huge advantadge in at that time.

troung
11 May 05,, 06:22
Are you forgetting about the Leopard 1? In 1973 that was the best tank in the world IMO.

Oh I had meant in terms of giving and taking to the enemy. No NATO tank back then coulfd give and take hits like the Chieftan. Iranian Chieftans sometimes took multiple head on 115mm AP hits and kept in action. I can't think of anything else back in 1973 which could take a hit like that.

I do agree that pretty much any NATO MBT with the L-7 105mm had a firepower edge over Russian armor.

All around the Leopard 1 might have been the best but the Chieftan had a big time armor and gun edge over anything around. It's weakness was its engine.


In 1973 the US Army had about 1,000 AH-1 Cobras in service. Attack helos was one area the NATO forces enjoyed a huge advantadge in at that time.

Very true. NATO had employed Attack Helicopters with ATGMs since really the 1950s in the form of the SS-11 and Alloutte in France. And the AH-1 is even better then both the Mi-24A and Allouette in terms of firepower. The TOW was years ahead of the AT-2.

WeeGiZ
11 May 05,, 11:05
"Around 1000 were used by the British. That was the only NATO tank which was a total over match to WP tanks. "

Are you forgetting about the Leopard 1?

In 1973 that was the best tank in the world IMO.

"The Mi-24A got its first work out during the Ogedan war between Ethiopia and Somalia back in 1977. The first couple should have entered service very late in 1973 with Russia. At that time they used 12.7mm machine guns, rockets and the AT-2 missile."

In 1973 the US Army had about 1,000 AH-1 Cobras in service. Attack helos was one area the NATO forces enjoyed a huge advantadge in at that time.

105mm L7 gun - good. 70mm frontal armor - very weak...height - 2.64m - not impresive...almost 0.5 higher than WP MBT..but maybe with a computerised sighting systems it doesn matter?
Mi-24 armament: "one 12.7 mm (0.5-in) JakB-12.7 machine gun; provision for 2400 kg (5,291 lb) of disposable stores, including bombs, rocket-launcher pads, dispenser weapons, cannon pads, grenade launchers, anti-tank missile, drop tanks and ECM pads, carried on four underwing and two wing tip pylons"
Don't know if it's true, but: "...Compensation comes from high speed (it is still one of the fastest assault helicopters in the world) and fighter-like agility, provided by powerful engines and rotor design. Its cabin provides room not only for eight servicemen, but also for extra ammunition and fuel. Though it may be re-loaded by crew (or by 'passengers') in the very vicinity of combat field without returning to base.."

Rokosowksy
19 May 05,, 17:37
I personally think Soviets could defeat NATO in conventional warfare anytime but that was most probable in the mid-1980's!

Bill
19 May 05,, 17:55
"I personally think Soviets could defeat NATO in conventional warfare anytime but that was most probable in the mid-1980's!"

The mid-80s is when it was least probable.

dalem
19 May 05,, 18:10
I personally think Soviets could defeat NATO in conventional warfare anytime but that was most probable in the mid-1980's!

Does Spock have a beard where you come from?

-dale

Rokosowksy
19 May 05,, 18:51
The mid-80s is when it was least probable.

No! I think in the early 1980's USSR reached a peak of its military power! Twenty years of enomous Brezhnev's military buildup took effect. USSR added a qualitative balance to its quantitative superiority over NATO. Reagan's "new arms race" was simply a propagandist clownery! If we compare Soviet and US military arm's purchases in the 1980's, we have to agree that Soviets outrun US several times!
Besides Warsaw Pact had a lot of geographical advantages over NATO in Europe. Though best equipped, manned and trained Soviet troops were situated at 200-300 km distance from Rhine river and English Chanell! Warsaw Pact forces could attack FRG and Low Countries with SEVEN FRONTS simultaneously! Because all WP troops were highly mobile and gunned forces I am sure NATO couldn't withstand such a powerful punch in every part of frontline! If Soviet forces had broken NATO defence in one point, there would have meant NATO's defeat in Europe! Simply NATO didn't possess sufficient reserves and time to mend any hole in the frontline before Soviet OMG's would penetrate NATO's rear areas and disrupt NATO's logistic infrastructure.
Soviet war machine was similiar to the "combine harvester" with its follow-on echelons structure. Soviets had THREE strategic echelons formed against Western Europe and NATO had only ONE plus a quite limited reinforcements from US and Canada. And that is why NATO always relied on nuclear weapons in defence of Europe...

dalem
19 May 05,, 18:55
But all the Soviet equipment was junk and the Sovs themselves were drunk and ill-trained. The 80s were the nadir of Sov-Pact fantasies of strength and capability.

-dale

Rokosowksy
19 May 05,, 19:08
But all the Soviet equipment was junk and the Sovs themselves were drunk and ill-trained.

Muhaha! Soviet equipment in the 1980's was a junk??? You are talking nonsense, man! We can discute every type of Soviet military equipment and I am sure that I convince you all your mistakes!
As for drunken Soviet soldiers...If Soviet Army had launched a surprise attack on NATO in the Friday's night, Soviet soldiers would have caught drunken US soldiers in the German whore's beds! :biggrin:

dalem
19 May 05,, 19:41
Muhaha! Soviet equipment in the 1980's was a junk??? You are talking nonsense, man! We can discute every type of Soviet military equipment and I am sure that I convince you all your mistakes!
As for drunken Soviet soldiers...If Soviet Army had launched a surprise attack on NATO in the Friday's night, Soviet soldiers would have caught drunken US soldiers in the German whore's beds! :biggrin:

Junk & drunk dude, junk & drunk.

But I will cease attempting to disabuse you of your elaborate fantasy world. Please continue to believe that the USSR was a viable military force in the 1980s.

-dale

Rokosowksy
19 May 05,, 20:01
Junk & drunk dude, junk & drunk.

You are the best example of junk and drunk member of degenerated society of American morons!

Officer of Engineers
19 May 05,, 20:07
No! I think in the early 1980's USSR reached a peak of its military power!

There are so many wrong operational assumptions here that I don't know where to begin. Obviously, another guy who never served a day in his life.

Major Dad
20 May 05,, 02:50
LOL I just can't imagine why that Afghan thing didn't work out. :confused:

Bill
20 May 05,, 03:38
The US had already introduced the "Big 5" weapons systems in the 80s.

The M-1, M-2, MLRS, Apache, and the M-16A2. The United States Army was at the very peak of it's power in the mid-late 80s.

The USN had absolute control of the seas, and the USAF F-15C was by far the best air superiority fighter in the world, just as the F-16 was the best light fighter in the world, and both were in service in large numbers(especially the F-16, which was in service with several NATO countries).

Seriously, in the mid-80s, NATO would've cleaned the Soviets motherloving clock.

dalem
20 May 05,, 08:38
Call me crazy, but I smell rambo again.

-dale

WeeGiZ
20 May 05,, 14:10
LOL I just can't imagine why that Afghan thing didn't work out. :confused:
Think abou Vietnam - you'll find similarities

TopHatter
20 May 05,, 17:19
Call me crazy, but I smell rambo again.

-dale

Can't honestly call you crazy...I'm thinking the same thing.

Did you get a kick out of that "drunk member of degenerated society of American morons" line?


(Note to self: Must remember to stop by the liquor store and get a couple more bottles of Captain Morgain....)

Rokosowksy
20 May 05,, 20:12
The US had already introduced the "Big 5" weapons systems in the 80s.

The M-1, M-2, MLRS, Apache, and the M-16A2.

Muhaha!!! USSR also introduced its "Big 20" weapons systems: T-80BW/U, BMP-2, BMD-2, BTR-80, MTLBu, 2S7, 2S9, 2S19, BM-22, BM-30, Mi-26, Mi-28, AK-74MS, SA-10, SA-11, SA-12, SA-15, SA-19, SS-21, and the SS-23!!! BUT USSR produced SIX TIMES MORE ALL THESE WEAPONS than this wretched mummer Ronny Reagan !!! :biggrin:


The USN had absolute control of the seas,

Muhaha!!! Yes, absolute control over seas ...until 400 Soviet subs and 1000 heavy bombers both equipped with hipersonic antiship cruise missiles would have arrived on Atlantic! :biggrin:


and the USAF F-15C was by far the best air superiority fighter in the world,

Muhaha!!! But much worse than Soviet Su-27 Flanker which possessed more advanced missiles, laser/thermal target seeker, helmet mounted sight and was much more manoeuvrable!!! F-14 was also only a cheap imitation of the best interceptor ever built - the Soviet MiG-31 with first introduced airborne steered phazed array radar!!! :biggrin:


just as the F-16 was the best light fighter in the world

Muhahaha!!! F-16A was also much inferior than Soviet MiG-29A, which had BVR capability for example!!! :biggrin:


and both were in service in large numbers(especially the F-16, which was in service with several NATO countries).

Muhahaha!!! USSR had also 1500 MiG-31, MiG-29 and Su-27 brand-new fighters not mentioned 4000 remaining fighters like MiG-23, MiG-25, Su-15TM!!! :biggrin:


Seriously, in the mid-80s, NATO would've cleaned the Soviets motherloving clock.

Thoroughly otherwise!!! In 1980's USSR would have smashed US Army to ashes! :biggrin:

TopHatter
20 May 05,, 21:34
I could pick every one of those points apart. But why bother?
This guy doesn't even know that the F-14 became operational in the fleet 2 years before the MiG-31 was even a development aircraft. The F-14 was a copy? I don't think so.

dalem
20 May 05,, 21:45
Muhaha!!! USSR also introduced its "Big 20" weapons systems: T-80BW/U, BMP-2, BMD-2, BTR-80, MTLBu, 2S7, 2S9, 2S19, BM-22, BM-30, Mi-26, Mi-28, AK-74MS, SA-10, SA-11, SA-12, SA-15, SA-19, SS-21, and the SS-23!!! BUT USSR produced SIX TIMES MORE ALL THESE WEAPONS than this wretched mummer Ronny Reagan !!! :biggrin:

Crap tanks, crap APCs, decent helicopters, crap rifles, a bewildering array of crappy to decent SAMs, and questionably crappy SSMs.

Overall, a pile of crap. And if you really are a Sov-worshipper then I guess I understand your love of big production numbers. Hope at least one or two of those fine udarniki weren't sweating vodka when they welded all that crap together to fine Soviet tolerances, huh?



Muhaha!!! Yes, absolute control over seas ...until 400 Soviet subs and 1000 heavy bombers both equipped with hipersonic antiship cruise missiles would have arrived on Atlantic! :biggrin:

And soon arrived on the Atlantic abyssal plain in twisted pieces.



Muhaha!!! But much worse than Soviet Su-27 Flanker which possessed more advanced missiles, laser/thermal target seeker, helmet mounted sight and was much more manoeuvrable!!! F-14 was also only a cheap imitation of the best interceptor ever built - the Soviet MiG-31 with first introduced airborne steered phazed array radar!!! :biggrin:

Long shift at the shoe factory? F-14 and F-15 arrived before the crappy Sov imitations you mention.



Muhahaha!!! F-16A was also much inferior than Soviet MiG-29A, which had BVR capability for example!!! :biggrin:

Hard to BVR when your radar isn't installed and your crappy few AWACS-role platforms are pinwheeled into the landscape.



Muhahaha!!! USSR had also 1500 MiG-31, MiG-29 and Su-27 brand-new fighters not mentioned 4000 remaining fighters like MiG-23, MiG-25, Su-15TM!!! :biggrin:

We had the Germans and the Brits to back us up and screen that second-tier crap while our deep strike packages dropped every bridge in Eastern Europe that drunken Soviet engineers ever wished they could build.



Thoroughly otherwise!!! In 1980's USSR would have smashed US Army to ashes! :biggrin:

Woulda tired NATO out to be sure. Target rich environments are a strain on the senses, so I hear.

Anyway, as fun as this has been, I still think you're jon_j_rambo returned.

-dale

Rokosowksy
20 May 05,, 23:06
Crap tanks, crap APCs, decent helicopters, crap rifles, a bewildering array of crappy to decent SAMs, and questionably crappy SSMs.

Overall, a pile of crap. And if you really are a Sov-worshipper then I guess I understand your love of big production numbers. Hope at least one or two of those fine udarniki weren't sweating vodka when they welded all that crap together to fine Soviet tolerances, huh?

With all your crap "arguments" listed above you only confirmed that you are simply a walkin piece of stupidity! :biggrin:


nd soon arrived on the Atlantic abyssal plain in twisted pieces.

I think you meant your beggarly US aircraft carriers - really the simplest targets do destroy by missiles in any modern naval warfare! :biggrin:


Long shift at the shoe factory? F-14 and F-15 arrived before the crappy Sov imitations you mention.

When modern Soviet fighters arrived in the mid-1980's, US 1970's vintage F-14/15/16 jalopies became a piece of junk! :biggrin:


Hard to BVR when your radar isn't installed and your crappy few AWACS-role platforms are pinwheeled into the landscape.

Soviet fighters without radars??? Get sober, you deplorable drunkard!
And how much time your twenty crappy E-3A, which NATO had in Europe in 1980's, would have withstood a massive Soviet missile and air attacks on their several unprepared airfields, budy??? :biggrin:


We had the Germans and the Brits to back us up and screen that second-tier crap while our deep strike packages dropped every bridge in Eastern Europe that drunken Soviet engineers ever wished they could build.

Yes! Germans possesed trashy F-104s "Flying Coffins" and Britons had aging F-4s "Phantoms". And with these museum relics they were going to penetrate the world's most sophisticated air defence system in Eastern Europe??? So I inform you that 10000 SAM launchers and radar sites waited for these "Kamikaze" suckers, pal! :biggrin:


Woulda tired NATO out to be sure. Target rich environments are a strain on the senses, so I hear.

Anyway, as fun as this has been, I still think you're jon_j_rambo returned.

I think you are simply a product of US morons directed propaganda brainwashing! :biggrin:


I could pick every one of those points apart. By why bother?

Simply try, dodger and you will see as I demolish your "arguments"! :biggrin:

Bill
20 May 05,, 23:29
Soviet equipment is (usually vastly) inferior to western equipment, everyone with half a brain knows that. Which explains why you don't...

Rokosowksy
20 May 05,, 23:35
Soviet equipment is (usually vastly) inferior to western equipment, everyone with half a brain knows that. Which explains why you don't...

Rather only an American dumbs belive in such a ****! :biggrin:

Bill
20 May 05,, 23:54
Yeah, OK comrade.

The Soviet 'empire' was such a menace that the US crushed them without even firing a shot. Whooo.....such a boogey man.

LOL.

The Soviet Union was the epitome of a paper tiger.

Rokosowksy
21 May 05,, 00:21
USSR was the most military powerful country in the mankind history! US was simply a military migdet squab compared with communist empire. Thank God you American morons that III Word War didn't emerge because your country would be obliterated together with your European puppets! USSR's downfall was caused by this stupid traitor Gorbie. So don't say ********s that USSR's breakdown was some your contribution, you retarded Yankees!
"The paper tiger" is a famous Mao's description of your perverted homeland! All the world knows it except stupid Americans of course! :biggrin:

TopHatter
21 May 05,, 00:39
USSR was the most military powerful country in the mankind history! US was simply a military migdet squab compared with communist empire. Thank God you American morons that III Word War didn't emerge because your country would be obliterated together with your European puppets! USSR's downfall was caused by this stupid traitor Gorbie. So don't say ********s that USSR's breakdown was some your contribution, you retarded Yankees!
"The paper tiger" is a famous Mao's description of your perverted homeland! All the world knows it except stupid Americans of course! :biggrin:

Has anybody done an ISP check on this person? Or an IQ test?

Bill
21 May 05,, 02:02
Why bother, he's a troll, regardless of where he hails from.

Broken
21 May 05,, 02:50
USSR was the most military powerful country in the mankind history! US was simply a military migdet squab compared with communist empire. Thank God you American morons that III Word War didn't emerge because your country would be obliterated together with your European puppets! USSR's downfall was caused by this stupid traitor Gorbie. So don't say ********s that USSR's breakdown was some your contribution, you retarded Yankees!
"The paper tiger" is a famous Mao's description of your perverted homeland! All the world knows it except stupid Americans of course! :biggrin:

I seriously doubt any knowledgable Russian would agree.

troung
21 May 05,, 02:59
Guys he doesn't even know the areas the USSR was better then NATO in. And I ain't telling those areas.... ;)


14 was also only a cheap imitation of the best interceptor ever built - the Soviet MiG-31 with first introduced airborne steered phazed array radar!!!

The F-14 entered service first and unlike the MiG-31 has actually seen combat. Also the MiG-31 used a SARH missile while the F-14 used the ARH AIM-54. No contest. Also the F-14 can tangle with enemy fighters up close unlike the MiG-31.

Plus the majority of NATO planes could use the AIM-9L. Rather few WP planes used the R-60 which BTW was nothing compared to the AIM-9L. The MiG-29A during the 1980s mostly employed the R-60MK.


Muhahaha!!! F-16A was also much inferior than Soviet MiG-29A, which had BVR capability for example!!!

The R-27R... no comment... and F-16ADFs did have the far more capable AIM-7F/M.


Think abou Vietnam - you'll find similarities

All things said America did a better job during the 2nd Indochina war fighting a far more capable enemy then the USSR did in Afghanistan... the air battles over North Vietnam went much better then the air battles near the Pak border...


mentioned 4000 remaining fighters like MiG-23, MiG-25, Su-15TM!!!

None of which could tangle with F-15s, F-14s or even F-16s.


USSR was the most military powerful country in the mankind history!

It was a rotten house which fell down really hard...

Rokosowksy
21 May 05,, 15:25
Guys he doesn't even know the areas the USSR was better then NATO in. And I ain't telling those areas....

Muhaha! We have another headless Yankee here! Let's watch his scribbles! :biggrin:


The F-14 entered service first and unlike the MiG-31 has actually seen combat. Also the MiG-31 used a SARH missile while the F-14 used the ARH AIM-54. No contest. Also the F-14 can tangle with enemy fighters up close unlike the MiG-31.

I meant situation when both F-14 and MiG-31 were in service. You are wrong guy, because F-14 possessed a lot more inferior radar than MiG-31! Soviet fighter had also a thermal sight. F-14 could engage several target simultaneusly solely when all targets were close to each other! On the other hand MiG-31 could engage targets placed in stratosphere and a few meter over the ground in the same time! Moreover MiG-31s had a unique APD-518 real-time data transmission system, far more capable than American JTIDS introduced a decade later!


Plus the majority of NATO planes could use the AIM-9L. Rather few WP planes used the R-60 which BTW was nothing compared to the AIM-9L. The MiG-29A during the 1980s mostly employed the R-60MK.

Muhaha! R-60 and R-2S missiles were used by Soviet Arab allies in order to mask a real Soviet capabilities in that area! In 1980s Soviet Air Force had already introduced a revolutionary R-73 missile - the best dogfight missile ever seen! Your AIM-9L was a crap against R-73, dude! :biggrin:


The R-27R... no comment... and F-16ADFs did have the far more capable AIM-7F/M.

Muhaha! F-16ADFs constituted a few percent of all F-16A's amount of production. They were used only in US to improve completely leacky NORAD ADF system based on 1950's vintage F-106 mammoths! So F-16ADF had never based in Europe before the end of Cold War!
Why did you mention only a R-27R missile??? Maybe you don't know anything about R-27T, R-27RE, R-27TE, R-27P and...R-27AE - first medium range ARH missile introduced on Su-27 Flankers in 1986 - FOUR YEARS BEFORE AIM-120 began service in USAF???


All things said America did a better job during the 2nd Indochina war fighting a far more capable enemy then the USSR did in Afghanistan... the air battles over North Vietnam went much better then the air battles near the Pak border...

Muhaha!!! What a ****!!! More stupid air campain than McNamara's guided "Rolling Thunder" operation never seen before in the annals of military art! This idiot ordered US aircrafts to bomb a telegraphic pillars as Soviet SAMs although he knew about it very well! :biggrin:


None of which could tangle with F-15s, F-14s or even F-16s.

But they were good enough to shot down F-100s, F-104s, F-4s, Mirage-IIIs, Mirage-F1s and similiar western junk! :biggrin:


It was a rotten house which fell down really hard...

Rather NATO was a military rotten house in the 1980s and before! I only regret that USSR/WP forces didn't attack this western bawdy-house at that time! Now everybody would know WHO was a military world's champion in 1980s! :biggrin:

leib10
21 May 05,, 17:05
Far more inferior radar than the F-14!? Pssht! I'd like to see what would happen if a formation of MiG-31's even tried to take on a formation of F-14's. No contest. :rolleyes:

dalem
21 May 05,, 18:29
I meant situation when both F-14 and MiG-31 were in service.

You mean like when the tiny number of MiG-31s were patrolling over the Rodina and the 15 or so wings of F-14s were actively flying all over the world with our CVBGs? Those situations?



You are wrong guy, because F-14 possessed a lot more inferior radar than MiG-31! Soviet fighter had also a thermal sight. F-14 could engage several target simultaneusly solely when all targets were close to each other!

A formation of bombers at 100nm is pretty much going to define "close to each other", isn't it?

And a thermal sight on a high-altitude interceptor like the MiG-31 is useful for exactly what again?

Go away Roko-Rambo, this is one of your least-amusing personas.

-dale

Rokosowksy
21 May 05,, 19:58
You mean like when the tiny number of MiG-31s were patrolling over the Rodina and the 15 or so wings of F-14s were actively flying all over the world with our CVBGs? Those situations?

Tiny number of MiG-31s??? I inform you that USSR produced almost 500 MiG-31s, ignorant! :biggrin::


A formation of bombers at 100nm is pretty much going to define "close to each other", isn't it?

Of course formation of Soviet antiship cruise missiles arrived at your crappy CVBGs from different directions and at various altitudes also constitute a "close to each other" in your half-minded head! :biggrin:


And a thermal sight on a high-altitude interceptor like the MiG-31 is useful for exactly what again?

Yes, very useful! Especially when Foxhound is hunting for your primitive cruise missiles and obsolete B-1 bombers! :biggrin:


Go away Roko-Rambo, this is one of your least-amusing personas.

So try to use your computer to support your retarded mind because your statements are very wretched, goat! :biggrin:

leib10
21 May 05,, 22:15
And what do you have that's better than the B-1 that isn't rotting on some remote airfield due to lack of funds for parts, maintenance, and fuel?

Praxus
21 May 05,, 23:06
Rokosowksy, what is it that makes you love the cruelest, most destructive slave state in the history of the world?

Is it nationalism? Is it a genuine belief in Soviet Communism? Or do you think it makes you cool?

Rokosowksy
21 May 05,, 23:57
And what do you have that's better than the B-1 that isn't rotting on some remote airfield due to lack of funds for parts, maintenance, and fuel?

It seems that fascism is dead everywhere in the world except US and especially crankly Texas! :biggrin:


Rokosowksy, what is it that makes you love the cruelest, most destructive slave state in the history of the world?

Is it nationalism? Is it a genuine belief in Soviet Communism? Or do you think it makes you cool?

Better look at your perverted, deceitful, false country inhabited by the world's most stupid, degenerated, revengeful, unfair, blind society and ruled by some dull clown from Texas who is capable only for feed cows on prairie! :biggrin:

Praxus
22 May 05,, 00:18
Better look at your perverted, deceitful, false country inhabited by the world's most stupid, degenerated, revengeful, unfair, blind society

This isn't an answer. In fact, it's a complete evasion. What you feel the US is, has no bearing on why you think the Soviet Union is virtuous.


and ruled by some dull clown from Texas who is capable only for feed cows on prairie! :biggrin:

As opposed to an ex-KGB agent hell bent on turning Russia into a fascist state?

Unlike Soviet Russia, the United States is ruled by an elected president, and an elected legislature limited by a constitution.

Bill
22 May 05,, 17:44
Speaking of the Soviet Union....

"That was a time when only the dead could smile."
~ Anna Akhmatova

TopHatter
23 May 05,, 15:02
It seems that fascism is dead everywhere in the world except US and especially crankly Texas! :biggrin:



Better look at your perverted, deceitful, false country inhabited by the world's most stupid, degenerated, revengeful, unfair, blind society and ruled by some dull clown from Texas who is capable only for feed cows on prairie! :biggrin:


21 posts and a short vacation. I'm mildly surprised he made it that far

Bill
23 May 05,, 17:49
Took me a while to vector Gio onto the troll. ;)

TopHatter
24 May 05,, 05:38
Took me a while to vector Gio onto the troll. ;)

Let's work on those FAC skills a little, shall we? ;)

Bill
24 May 05,, 06:58
LOL, my FAC skills were never more than rudimentary. I was always much better with arty. :)

WeeGiZ
26 May 05,, 10:29
But all the Soviet equipment was junk and the Sovs themselves were drunk and ill-trained. The 80s were the nadir of Sov-Pact fantasies of strength and capability.

-dale
OT: hm, almost everywhere I see that Soviet military "..equipment was junk and the Sovs themselves were drunk and ill-trained..." backo from..from...long ago? :confused: :confused: Please answer me question: if so, soviets were "evil empire",your direct enemies (you like to overthrow dictators,right??) with a junk and drunk and ill-trained soldiers. why, WHY HALF OF THE EUROPE HAD TO STAY UNDER THEIR OPPRESION FOR MORE LIKE 50 YEARS? My country is small, it was taken to Soviet Union by force.. (there were no fighting as our leaders wanted to avoid civilian casualties)...
PEACE.

Officer of Engineers
26 May 05,, 13:02
Had there been war, there would have been a fight, there's no doubt about that and both sides would do a hell of alot of bleeding. However, Soviet/Russian/Chinese operational thinking is a hell of alot different than ours. Yes, their stuff and the people questionable but those would be factor in as to where and when to use them, either as canon fodder or to mop up what's left of the meat grinders.

We'll stop their latest and greatest cold and hard ... but we would not be in a poor position afterwards, especially after wasting our ammo.

dalem
26 May 05,, 17:50
OT: hm, almost everywhere I see that Soviet military "..equipment was junk and the Sovs themselves were drunk and ill-trained..." backo from..from...long ago? :confused: :confused: Please answer me question: if so, soviets were "evil empire",your direct enemies (you like to overthrow dictators,right??) with a junk and drunk and ill-trained soldiers. why, WHY HALF OF THE EUROPE HAD TO STAY UNDER THEIR OPPRESION FOR MORE LIKE 50 YEARS? My country is small, it was taken to Soviet Union by force.. (there were no fighting as our leaders wanted to avoid civilian casualties)...
PEACE.

Without knowing anything about which country you are from I would suspect it is because even a junky tank run by drunken midgets is pretty effective at cowing and killing civilians, especially when nations that could have theoretically backed you up chose not to.

And as your last sentence says, sometimes people would rather not fight and choose to submit. If your leaders did that to you I feel badly for you.

-dale

WeeGiZ
26 May 05,, 19:49
Without knowing anything about which country you are from I would suspect it is because even a junky tank run by drunken midgets is pretty effective at cowing and killing civilians, especially when nations that could have theoretically backed you up chose not to.

And as your last sentence says, sometimes people would rather not fight and choose to submit. If your leaders did that to you I feel badly for you.

-dale
Which country???Almost whole East Europe, Baltic States were under soviets regime. At ~1939 we had to let establish soviets a military bases at our soil...when they moved enaugh troops here, they demanded us to join USSR (they claimed it was voluntary :eek: decision). We simply couldn't win THAT war, if one would...
Nations that we were relying to: France,UK (they sold Poland, Check etc for Hitler, even if they had mutual protection pacts...), later US, that's radio stations were translating BS to our guerillias for almos 9 years like "yeah, we will help you etc. and so on)...on one hand i don't blame you, but on second....

dalem
26 May 05,, 21:13
Which country???Almost whole East Europe, Baltic States were under soviets regime. At ~1939 we had to let establish soviets a military bases at our soil...when they moved enaugh troops here, they demanded us to join USSR (they claimed it was voluntary :eek: decision). We simply couldn't win THAT war, if one would...
Nations that we were relying to: France,UK (they sold Poland, Check etc for Hitler, even if they had mutual protection pacts...), later US, that's radio stations were translating BS to our guerillias for almos 9 years like "yeah, we will help you etc. and so on)...on one hand i don't blame you, but on second....

I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you Finnish? If so, you got screwed - having to side with Devil #1 because Devil #2 wanted to grab you by the throat - not an enviable position.

Anyway, the original discussion isn't about keeping a civilian population under control, it's about fighting a war. My broad description of Sov equipment as "junk and drunk" is largely accurate. However, look at this thread and others for discussions about how much that would or would NOT have mattered in the case of a real NATO-v-Pact scenario.

-dale

WeeGiZ
27 May 05,, 07:29
I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you Finnish? If so, you got screwed - having to side with Devil #1 because Devil #2 wanted to grab you by the throat - not an enviable position.

Anyway, the original discussion isn't about keeping a civilian population under control, it's about fighting a war. My broad description of Sov equipment as "junk and drunk" is largely accurate. However, look at this thread and others for discussions about how much that would or would NOT have mattered in the case of a real NATO-v-Pact scenario.

-dale
Yes it went off-topic - sorry :redface: So it remains rethorik question, why West didn't attacked East (Patton wanted that right?) - who cares about junk and drunk :biggrin:
P.S.I'm from Baltic states - Lithuania..