Thread: World War Three

Why did Reagan spend so much money enhancing American conventional forces if not to stop the need for a nuclear exchange? And I'm still not sold on the idea of one side being willing to destroy everyone on both sides in order to avoid a conventional defeat. Even if we held the Russians, driving them back would have been incredibly difficult, just given the sheer number of reserves they would have been able to call up. If they threatened us with nuclear use, we could probably be made to negotiate a peace while demanding minimal concessions. If the reverse held true, why would the United States have destroyed itself and it's allies to prevent defeat at Soviet hands? If we did that, then everything would have been over, whereas if we simply pulled back, they still would never have been able to beat us on our home soil. We could have continued to hold England, and eventually made a come back during a Soviet moment of weakness. Obliterating both sides for what is, at best, a minor tactical advantage is not sound militarily or politically. Each side had more than enough tactical delivery systems to negate the other sides advantage fairly quickly, and any offensive through a gap created by a nuclear detonation would grind to a halt once the fuel ran out anyways (no resupply when your supply depots are gone).

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

I don't recall disallowing anything other than nukes(?). I acknowledged American entry as a possibility, but also pointed out that it was not a certainty. I also pointed out that constantly shifting a majority of their army back and forth is a bit beyond Russia's financial capabilities. Other than that, this has been a debate regarding China's and Russia's current military capabilities, and there I may be right or wrong, depending on the actual efficacy of Russia's armed forces. The primary caveat that I've put in is no nukes. National will would most likely be existantm to similar degrees on both sides. If you disagree with that, then I do believe you to be wrong. Russia cannot conquer China quickly. If you disagree with that, then I definately think you are wrong. Russia being weaker is not a condition, but China being stronger most certainly is. A condition backed up by a lot of economic trends too. I'm confused as to what other conditions I've set on this scenario that you think are so unreasonable.

Then we are talking past each other.

-dale

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Why did Reagan spend so much money enhancing American conventional forces if not to stop the need for a nuclear exchange?

1) America's conventional forces were perceived as very weak after the ravages of the 70s. Reagan conservatism believes that a weak military is a very very bad thing.

2) I believe there is at least a kernel of truth to the "Reagan wanted to force the Sovs to spend on an arms race to break them" idea.

And I'm still not sold on the idea of one side being willing to destroy everyone on both sides in order to avoid a conventional defeat.

Then it's a good thing you were never President.

Even if we held the Russians, driving them back would have been incredibly difficult, just given the sheer number of reserves they would have been able to call up.

Not really. Just take a few weeks to shoot down their air force and use the USAF/NATO doctrine of Deep Strike to cut off the Sov spearheads from their support - eventually they whither and die and you ship them back to Moscow.

If they threatened us with nuclear use, we could probably be made to negotiate a peace while demanding minimal concessions.

Mmmm, no. Except possibly for Carter, Presidents have usually had something called balls, and the Sovs knew it, which is one of the reasons none of this ever happened: as nutty as the Sovs were, they weren't insane. Now admittedly, what West Germany might have agreed to or not is of course a different affair - it was their yard the tac nukes would have been going off in. Then again, you have the escalation scenarios which lead to Very Bad Mojo for everyone.

If the reverse held true, why would the United States have destroyed itself and it's allies to prevent defeat at Soviet hands? If we did that, then everything would have been over, whereas if we simply pulled back, they still would never have been able to beat us on our home soil. We could have continued to hold England, and eventually made a come back during a Soviet moment of weakness. Obliterating both sides for what is, at best, a minor tactical advantage is not sound militarily or politically. Each side had more than enough tactical delivery systems to negate the other sides advantage fairly quickly, and any offensive through a gap created by a nuclear detonation would grind to a halt once the fuel ran out anyways (no resupply when your supply depots are gone).

Look, the tac nukes were there, they were integrated into the battle plans, they would have most likely been needed and used. The strategic nukes were/are here, and if you say you are going to nuke the USSR if they nuke you, you have to do it, or they will know you're a wimp and they will just come after you when they are done with Europe.

I would.

-dale

Except possibly for Carter, Presidents have usually had something called balls

Politely put, I would say they were good poker players!

Originally Posted by dalem

Then we are talking past each other.

-dale

I agree with that. My original point had nothing to do with what we ended up discussing anyways. Basically, I was using the China vs Russia great war w/o nukes as a yardstick by which to measure China's power in terms of traditional great power standing. Since the ultimate test of the nation state is total war, that was the scenario I was assuming to test the national will, military, and economic capacity of China to wage war. While such a conflict is not likely in the near future, it is a tool to see where China is at in terms of overall national strength. Then we got into likely short term scenarios, where neither side was committed to total war in the traditional sense. And now, we seem to be having that discussion, and a discussion on Warsaw Pact vs NATO scenarios.

The original scenario that I envisioned did occur 30 years in the future, and was China vs the United States, not China vs Russia.

Guess I got a little side tracked, and that has not been helped by the fact that I've been carrying on near simultanious debates on two different subjects with both you and OoE (lots of fun by the way).

I'm not very good at multi-tasking.

Originally Posted by dalem

1)
Then it's a good thing you were never President.

Not really. Just take a few weeks to shoot down their air force and use the USAF/NATO doctrine of Deep Strike to cut off the Sov spearheads from their support - eventually they whither and die and you ship them back to Moscow.

Mmmm, no. Except possibly for Carter, Presidents have usually had something called balls, and the Sovs knew it, which is one of the reasons none of this ever happened: as nutty as the Sovs were, they weren't insane. Now admittedly, what West Germany might have agreed to or not is of course a different affair - it was their yard the tac nukes would have been going off in. Then again, you have the escalation scenarios which lead to Very Bad Mojo for everyone.

Look, the tac nukes were there, they were integrated into the battle plans, they would have most likely been needed and used. The strategic nukes were/are here, and if you say you are going to nuke the USSR if they nuke you, you have to do it, or they will know you're a wimp and they will just come after you when they are done with Europe.

I would.

You say this so callously. Would such a decision be easy to make? The likelyhood of escalation once the first tactical nukes began detonating would be very high, and as an American President, your first duty is to the American people. Sacrificing some for the good of the whole is a big part of leadership, sacrificing the majority for no purpose is irresponsible at best. I am not saying that the United States would not nuke the USSR or vise versa if they were nuked first. If they nuke us, we will nuke them back because we have nothing to lose by doing so. What I am saying is that the politicians on each side would try and avoid using nuclear weapons altogether, because using them means death for most of your country. A president who went nuclear because the Soviet's had broken through (by conventional means) on the North German plains would be very likely killing off his country, and most of the other countries involved, just to avoid a conventional defeat. That isn't having balls, that is neglecting ones duties as President.

Originally Posted by dalem

Just take a few weeks to shoot down their air force and use the USAF/NATO doctrine of Deep Strike to cut off the Sov spearheads from their support - eventually they whither and die and you ship them back to Moscow.

How much of our airforce would be left by the time we were finished beating down the Russian airforce? How much damage would their SAM's be able to do to our strike capability? This wouldn't be Iraq here, fighting against small amounts of 2nd rate equipment in the open desert (where there is little cover, and fortifications stick out like a sore thumb). The SAM belts that the Russian's were capable of setting up would have been far greater than any that have yet been faced, and the Russian air force was no slouch. Their technology was pretty good too, with the Mig-29 and the SU-27 being some of the world's premier fighters. I seriously doubt it would be as easy as you say, and I consider it highly unlikely that NATO's airforces would have been very capable of cutting WP supply lines. Impeding them yes, but completely cutting them after fighting a war of attrition over West Germany?

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

I agree with that. My original point had nothing to do with what we ended up discussing anyways. Basically, I was using the China vs Russia great war w/o nukes as a yardstick by which to measure China's power in terms of traditional great power standing. Since the ultimate test of the nation state is total war, that was the scenario I was assuming to test the national will, military, and economic capacity of China to wage war. While such a conflict is not likely in the near future, it is a tool to see where China is at in terms of overall national strength. Then we got into likely short term scenarios, where neither side was committed to total war in the traditional sense. And now, we seem to be having that discussion, and a discussion on Warsaw Pact vs NATO scenarios.

The original scenario that I envisioned did occur 30 years in the future, and was China vs the United States, not China vs Russia.

Guess I got a little side tracked, and that has not been helped by the fact that I've been carrying on near simultanious debates on two different subjects with both you and OoE (lots of fun by the way).

I'm not very good at multi-tasking.

No probs. I'm sure at least half of any misunderstanding was on my shoulders.

-dale

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

You say this so callously. Would such a decision be easy to make? The likelyhood of escalation once the first tactical nukes began detonating would be very high, and as an American President, your first duty is to the American people. Sacrificing some for the good of the whole is a big part of leadership, sacrificing the majority for no purpose is irresponsible at best. I am not saying that the United States would not nuke the USSR or vise versa if they were nuked first. If they nuke us, we will nuke them back because we have nothing to lose by doing so. What I am saying is that the politicians on each side would try and avoid using nuclear weapons altogether, because using them means death for most of your country. A president who went nuclear because the Soviet's had broken through (by conventional means) on the North German plains would be very likely killing off his country, and most of the other countries involved, just to avoid a conventional defeat. That isn't having balls, that is neglecting ones duties as President.

An easy decision? Yes and no. But one must remember that the policy of the U.S. was to reserve first strike if the Sovs came west. If I were elected President it would be my duty to fulfill that policy, yes? So that part of it is easy. But the fact that it would clearly be such a catastrophic decision would make the run-up to that kind of decision a very difficult process.

-dale

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

How much of our airforce would be left by the time we were finished beating down the Russian airforce?

How much damage would their SAM's be able to do to our strike capability? This wouldn't be Iraq here, fighting against small amounts of 2nd rate equipment in the open desert (where there is little cover, and fortifications stick out like a sore thumb). The SAM belts that the Russian's were capable of setting up would have been far greater than any that have yet been faced, and the Russian air force was no slouch. Their technology was pretty good too, with the Mig-29 and the SU-27 being some of the world's premier fighters. I seriously doubt it would be as easy as you say, and I consider it highly unlikely that NATO's airforces would have been very capable of cutting WP supply lines. Impeding them yes, but completely cutting them after fighting a war of attrition over West Germany?

Actually, no matter in what time period you set the conflict the Sov air force is a bad bet. I know the Sov/Russian stuff gets talked up a bunch here on these boards, but it's not that good. Their ground forces were overrated too, but we're talking air power. As I say above, the Sovs had a lot of planes but not a lot of quality planes. The MiG-29 and SU-27 were just coming on-line in the 80s, and aren't really very good planes compared to their NATO counterparts anyway. The lesser stuff, the MiG-23s and -21s, would have been handled well enough by the F-4s and the Euro stuff. Note that even the Sovs knew they would lose the air battles, hence the need for many of the hand-held SAMs for their front line troops - they knew that every battlefield would have Alphajets and A-10s over it. Conversely, NATO, even defensively-minded, did not see the need for such - we'd be shooting down the Fencers and Frogfoots (Frogfeet? ) long before they got to the battlefield.

So once it's all shot down, we have the Deep Strike, which would certainly have a tougher time, but would get the job done. The Sovs wouldn't be able to build the kind of SAM belts you mention in West Germany - it would have been mobile SAMs and the like. Still capable, but not like a true fixed position.

It's easy to see a lot of this stuff now that the Iron Curtain is gone and the true state of the Soviet military is known. Back then, when they claimed they were holding Aces and laid their bet down, we could NOT afford to play as if they were bluffing. If all those T-64s and -72s and -80s really did have engines and transmissions and ammo that worked, it could have been very very iffy for NATO.

-dale

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Ok I got it. Besides the 2 brigades, what other forces did NATO have manning the line?

Besides Reforger, what other forces in W. Europe would NATO have brought to bear on Warsaw Pact?

Gave you this before. Hope you have better luck this time

NATO Order of Battle June 1989

Warsaw Pact Order of Battle June 1989

Originally Posted by Blademaster

How long would Reforger take? 2 months? Judging by Gulf War I & II and the cries for speedier deployments, I highly doubt that US would pull off Reforger in less than 2 months.

Operation REFORGER consists of two parts. The immediate return of V and VII Corps divisions (and brigades) stationed in North America. This part is mainly flying in troops to pre-position equipment. Period required is 10 days.

The 2nd part is transport of via sea lanes, expected to take 30 days, but really dependent on how the USN will punch through.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

How long did Soviet estimate that they could conquer W. Europe and deny the landing & staging areas to US?

The Soviets had to take West Germany within 10 days.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

I've got a few, but there are a lot of discrepencies and disagreements as to how combat ready the Russian armed forces are, especially their army.

Nothing better to describe how combat ready the Russians are than actual combat.

Foreign Military Studies Office - Russia and the CIS

I really do suggests the articles by Colonels Thomas and Grau.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Nearly won is not as won. For some reason, the Germans were unable to win those battles even though they could have nearly won. I am pretty sure the German generals realized that but could never exploit their gains. That's what I'm sure wlwarmonger is referring to.

The point I was trying to make is that industrial capacity and numbers do not guarrantee victory. Zhukov lost alot more than the early disasters of Operation BARBAROSA and yet he won, not because he got the resources but that he knew how to use them. Put any of the earlier generals in place instead of Zhukov and you would've been met with disaster. Even here, Zhukov had to fight tooth and nail for every inch.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

In NATO, your doctrine of modern warfare is isolation & reduction, right? So how does that translate into defeating the enemy? Soviets say that in the Deep Battle, to kill the reserves means defeating the enemy. Is that the same for NATO? If it is, NATO has a different way of going about it, no?

Not quite, the Isolation is done via airpower, making the entire formation, including the reserves, irrevelent.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

NATO divisions can only sustain 25% before rendering as combat ineffective, right?

That's when we got way too many holes and not enough bodies to make and execute decisions. With the Soviet method, their decisions were made long before during the OPPLAN and by a higher HQ. Thus, they don't need to make any new decisions, just execute their current ones.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

I didn't know that Eisenhower threatened nukes. I thought that was MacArthur. Tell me, in light of this infoif it was Eisenhower, would he have conceded to MacArthur's demands that USA use the nukes against China?

MacArthur was fired by Truman for overstepping his authority and challenging that of the POTUS. Truman, therefore, could not give even a hint that MacArthur was in the right. Eisenhower did not have any such constraints but he did publically avoided giving MacArthur any leverage.