Thread: World War Three

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

And does that mean nukes?

Hypothetical situation. Please humor me.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

I think that it's important for everyone to remember that in a protracted conflict there is a big economic element. Very strong armed forces can make up for some disparity, but asking a country to beat another country with 10 times it's population and 5 times it's national income in a protracted war is a little unrealistic. In a short war it is most certainly possible, but if each side has the will to fight to the finish, and neither side is capable of rapidly conquering the other, the side that has 5 times the economy will win.

So now you are setting another condition - it must be a long war.

So far we have
- no nukes
- the Russians getting weaker
- the Chinese getting stronger
- the war being long enough for Chinese factories to build more tanks than the Russians can destroy
- but not long enough that the Russians can secure deals for their border security elsewhere to enable them to move every last Ivan to the Chinese border
- the Russians responding differently to the Chinese invasion than they have to any other invader in the past 300 years
- no major power coming to the aid of Russia

Sure, fine, under those conditions I guess the Chinese could take Siberia.

-dale

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

And those two brigades could have held off a Soviet Guard's tank army? As I recall (and once again, my memory could very well be imperfect), the 8th Guards army was deployed against the American corps, and the 1st Guards Tank army was immediately behind them. That is the echelon in Germany that was deployed against American forces. Units from the Fronts in Ukraine, Poland, and Russia proper would have been on the way. Would two brigades have been sufficient to do more than make local counter-attacks?

The 11ACR had the dubious duty of slowing down the Soviets. The 4CMBG is the VII Corps strategic reserves. In short, the 11ACR is the 1st line of defence and the 4CMBG is the last line of defence. If the 11ACR can slow down the Soviets enough (24 hours) than VII Corps could man their prepared defences and blunt the Soviet onslaught long enough for Operation REFORGER to shift the balance. If not, the Soviets would be gunning for the 4CMBG and with its destruction, so would be VII Corps. However, if 4CMBG somehow survives, then VII Corps is still a viable force and could retreat and regroup, again, allowing time for REFORGER.

Both are theories. In either case, no one on either side could NOT see this thing going nuke. It's either us nuking them to stop them or them nuking us to blast us open.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

And those two brigades could have held off a Soviet Guard's tank army?

That's essentially what they were there to do - chew up as much of the forward elements as they possibly could. Of course, had the Sovs ever come across the Gap like they threatened, we would have nuked them anyway.

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

So now you are setting another condition - it must be a long war.

So far we have
- no nukes
- the Russians getting weaker
- the Chinese getting stronger
- the war being long enough for Chinese factories to build more tanks than the Russians can destroy
- but not long enough that the Russians can secure deals for their border security elsewhere to enable them to move every last Ivan to the Chinese border
- the Russians responding differently to the Chinese invasion than they have to any other invader in the past 300 years
- no major power coming to the aid of Russia

Sure, fine, under those conditions I guess the Chinese could take Siberia.

-dale

My original conditions were about a total war between Russia and China. Since neither nation can conquer the other, it is automatically implied that the war will be long. I have also consistantly stated that throughout this debate. This is hardly new information on my part.

Originally Posted by dalem

Of course, had the Sovs ever come across the Gap like they threatened, we would have nuked them anyway.

-dale

You really think that an American president would commit national suicide to protect West Germany from communism? I don't things are that certain at all. Mabe back in the days before the Russian's caught up with our nuclear edge, but in the late 70's and 80's? I doubt it.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

My original conditions were about a total war between Russia and China. Since neither nation can conquer the other, it is automatically implied that the war will be long. I have alse consistantly stated that throughout this debate. This is hardly new information on my part.

But we've been at pains to show you that a logn war = nukes. A short war = Chinese defeat. So you set the condition of no nukes, so we brought up other reasonable things that would factor into a long war with no nukes, and you disallowed those. Plus your other caveats.

But clearly you already know the answer to your own question, and that answer is "China wins". So sure, China wins if you want.

-dale

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

The 11ACR had the dubious duty of slowing down the Soviets. The 4CMBG is the VII Corps strategic reserves. In short, the 11ACR is the 1st line of defence and the 4CMBG is the last line of defence. If the 11ACR can slow down the Soviets enough (24 hours) than VII Corps could man their prepared defences and blunt the Soviet onslaught long enough for Operation REFORGER to shift the balance. If not, the Soviets would be gunning for the 4CMBG and with its destruction, so would be VII Corps. However, if 4CMBG somehow survives, then VII Corps is still a viable force and could retreat and regroup, again, allowing time for REFORGER.

Both are theories. In either case, no one on either side could NOT see this thing going nuke. It's either us nuking them to stop them or them nuking us to blast us open.

Why would either side initiate nuclear use? I'm still confused on that point. Even assuming a fairly clean sweep against opposing tactical systems (aircraft, artillery, ect.) you still have the obliteration of each side's homeland. "Better dead that red" is a nice slogan, but when it comes down to it, do you really see either side thinking it's worth it? Overkill means that our second strike capability can still kill the enemy several times over, so emerging victorious in a nuclear struggle means that a slightly larger percentage of your population survives. Why would either side do it?

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

You really think that an American president would commit national suicide to protect West Germany from communism? I don't things are that certain at all. Mabe back in the days before the Russian's caught up with our nuclear edge, but in the late 70's and 80's? I doubt it.

That's the beauty of MAD isn't it? It's not whether I will, it's whether you think I will. And I think yes, they would have, most of them.

Reading your above response, I'm not sure you understand the "plan" for battlefield tactical nukes and their intended role, and their unintended but possibly unavoidable consequences.

-dale

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Why would either side initiate nuclear use? I'm still confused on that point. Even assuming a fairly clean sweep against opposing tactical systems (aircraft, artillery, ect.) you still have the obliteration of each side's homeland. "Better dead that red" is a nice slogan, but when it comes down to it, do you really see either side thinking it's worth it? Overkill means that our second strike capability can still kill the enemy several times over, so emerging victorious in a nuclear struggle means that a slightly larger percentage of your population survives. Why would either side do it?

That's why we called it World War III. If REFORGER gets running, the Soviets lost the ground war. They had to win before REFORGER gets started. For us, the reasons are obvious.

Originally Posted by dalem

But we've been at pains to show you that a logn war = nukes. A short war = Chinese defeat. So you set the condition of no nukes, so we brought up other reasonable things that would factor into a long war with no nukes, and you disallowed those. Plus your other caveats.

But clearly you already know the answer to your own question, and that answer is "China wins". So sure, China wins if you want.

-dale

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.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

You're looking at the wrong thing when talking about holding off the WP and REFORGER. REFORGER was intended to drive the Soviets back. Holding the line falls to two brigades, the 11ACR and the 4CMBG.

How could two brigades hold the line against 167 divisions?? Unless they are in some sort of modern day Thermoclycea(sp? or battle?) where a small group of Spartans held off an entire Persian army in the pass, those 2 brigades would be overwhelmed easily.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

How could two brigades hold the line against 167 divisions?? Unless they are in some sort of modern day Thermoclycea(sp? or battle?) where a small group of Spartans held off an entire Persian army in the pass, those 2 brigades would be overwhelmed easily.

You've missed the explaination

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sho...1507#post71507

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

You've missed the explaination

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sho...1507#post71507

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?

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.

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