Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cold War: Breach of the Fulda Gap Scenario

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cold War: Breach of the Fulda Gap Scenario

    This is probably one of the most common what-ifs ever done (for those who dont know, it's basically it's the clichéd predicted showdown between Eastern Warsaw Pact and Western NATO armies in the German plains during the Cold War). To keep interest I'm gonna mix the scenario up a bit:

    -Time Period, foreign policies, and manpower of the 1970s-80s (Post Vietnam/Pre-Afghanistan)
    -Technology of the 2000s (Post Cold War military equipment can be used)
    -Nuclear option excluded (for the sake of keeping within the realm of Conventional War) (non-nuclear WMDs allowed)
    -Potential aftereffects/repercussions of the attack are welcome.
    Last edited by Red Team; 22 Mar 12,, 22:57.
    "Draft beer, not people."

  • #2
    Does the exclusion include 1KT TB weapons?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Red Team View Post
      -Time Period, foreign policies, and manpower of the 1970s-80s (Post Vietnam/Pre-Afghanistan)
      -Technology of the 2000s (Post Cold War military equipment can be used)
      .
      The technology gap between Russia and the NATO countries in the 2000s is much greater than what it was between the Soviet Union and NATO in the 70s. If you want to keep things interesting, sticking to what was available in the 70s time frame would be better IMHO.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
        Does the exclusion include 1KT TB weapons?
        Any non-nuclear WMDs are allowed. TB = Thermobaric I'm assuming?

        Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
        The technology gap between Russia and the NATO countries in the 2000s is much greater than what it was between the Soviet Union and NATO in the 70s. If you want to keep things interesting, sticking to what was available in the 70s time frame would be better IMHO.
        Yeah I didn't wanna go that route just because of the large amount of repeats I've seen of that scenario on other forums (especially trying to avoid the eventuality of a major debate between Soviet vs. NATO tanks), so I opted for the 2000s tech. Russian arms industry is still pretty respectable in the 2000s tech era. However the quantity of vital resources (manpower, fuel, # of equipment etc.) still correspond to the 1970s level for this scenario.
        "Draft beer, not people."

        Comment


        • #5
          Isn't US policy to view biological or chemical weapon use the same as nukes and to reply in kind?
          Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

          Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

          Comment


          • #6
            Gimme a go on the machines: Fulda Gap - Wargame European Escalation Wiki

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
              Isn't US policy to view biological or chemical weapon use the same as nukes and to reply in kind?
              I thought the US policy for proportioned response only called for nuclear retaliation towards a nuclear threat? Even so, the assumption for this scenario still remains the same, no nukes, just non-nuclear WMDs (MOAB, Scuds, CWs etc.).
              "Draft beer, not people."

              Comment


              • #8
                Firestorm Reply

                "The technology gap between Russia and the NATO countries in the 2000s is much greater than what it was between the Soviet Union and NATO in the 70s."

                The training gap is even more pronounced. The net effect of that high, high level of training and equipment is battle dominance. Essentially you're discussing a Soviet Army of 1990 taking on DESERT STORM postured for defense in central Europe.

                Without overwhelming surprise the Soviets stall at the IGB.
                "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by S2 View Post
                  "The technology gap between Russia and the NATO countries in the 2000s is much greater than what it was between the Soviet Union and NATO in the 70s."

                  The training gap is even more pronounced. The net effect of that high, high level of training and equipment is battle dominance. Essentially you're discussing a Soviet Army of 1990 taking on DESERT STORM postured for defense in central Europe.

                  Without overwhelming surprise the Soviets stall at the IGB.
                  So, what, M1A1's and M2's, backed-up by a layered air defense consisting of A-10's, AH-64D's, OH-58D's and, possibly, AH-1W's? No chance for the Soviet M-72/80's . . . . .
                  "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Red Team View Post
                    I thought the US policy for proportioned response only called for nuclear retaliation towards a nuclear threat?
                    Every single CIMEX and WINTEX exercise in the 80s used a Soviet chemical attack as pretext for NATO opening up with nukes.
                    Last edited by kato; 23 Mar 12,, 09:11.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I recall reading that the reason NATO stationed 'tactical nuclear weapons' in Europe was due to the imbalance of forces in favour of the Soviet Union. If this was indeed the case at the time then surely in a purely conventional battle the 'hordes' would have overcome the western defences given time. With sufficient reserves in Eastern Germany and our NATO reserves further away a conventional defence can only hold so long... That was my understanding for the reason of stationing these missiles though my knowledge limited I admit.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Who will launch the attack (I assume Soviets) and with what objectives?
                        No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                        To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Red Team View Post
                          I thought the US policy for proportioned response only called for nuclear retaliation towards a nuclear threat? Even so, the assumption for this scenario still remains the same, no nukes, just non-nuclear WMDs (MOAB, Scuds, CWs etc.).
                          That takes the fun out of it, besides in the 1970's they were very much in love with the nukes .
                          J'ai en marre.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The air war fought in the early days would actually decide the outcome of the ground warfare in this scenario.
                            sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              wouldn't be much of an air war, either. the ISR and 5th-gen fighter capabilities would overwhelm most of the 4/4.5s that this strange USSR would have.

                              scenario is just a bit too weird. if we assume a scenario where the USSR survives up until the very day, they would STILL have a vastly shrunken military-- their GDP just couldn't handle the 1970s/80s-sized military armed with modern stuff. hell, we probably couldn't, not without bumping our defense spending up 3-4x (percentage-wise!) from our cold war highs.
                              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X