Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 352

Thread: NATO vs. Warsaw Pact

  1. #16
    New Member alton987's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Nov 04
    Posts
    22
    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...
    For it is a mad world and it will get madder if we allow the minorities, be they dwarf or giant, orangutan or dolphin, nuclear-head or water-conversationalist, pro-computerologist or Neo-Luddite, simpleton or sage, to interfere with aesthetics. ("Coda" 1979)

  2. #17
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    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.

  3. #18
    New Member alton987's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Nov 04
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by M21Sniper
    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.
    For it is a mad world and it will get madder if we allow the minorities, be they dwarf or giant, orangutan or dolphin, nuclear-head or water-conversationalist, pro-computerologist or Neo-Luddite, simpleton or sage, to interfere with aesthetics. ("Coda" 1979)

  4. #19
    Regular Metak's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Feb 05
    Location
    Alberta,Canada
    Posts
    75
    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?

  5. #20
    New Member alton987's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Nov 04
    Posts
    22

    France

    Quote Originally Posted by Metak
    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...
    For it is a mad world and it will get madder if we allow the minorities, be they dwarf or giant, orangutan or dolphin, nuclear-head or water-conversationalist, pro-computerologist or Neo-Luddite, simpleton or sage, to interfere with aesthetics. ("Coda" 1979)

  6. #21
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    "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.
    Last edited by Bill; 10 Apr 05, at 01:46.

  7. #22
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    "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...
    Last edited by Bill; 10 Apr 05, at 02:04.

  8. #23
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    TU-22 Blinder:



    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:



    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
    Last edited by Bill; 10 Apr 05, at 01:39.

  9. #24
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    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...
    Last edited by Bill; 10 Apr 05, at 02:04.

  10. #25
    Regular Metak's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Feb 05
    Location
    Alberta,Canada
    Posts
    75
    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.

  11. #26
    Banned deadkenny's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Apr 05
    Posts
    428
    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).

  12. #27
    Regular Metak's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Feb 05
    Location
    Alberta,Canada
    Posts
    75
    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?

  13. #28
    Banned Senior Contributor dalem's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Columbia Heights, MN
    Posts
    13,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Metak
    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

  14. #29
    Banned deadkenny's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Apr 05
    Posts
    428
    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.
    Last edited by deadkenny; 10 Apr 05, at 12:35.

  15. #30
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    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).

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Turkey turning cool to NATO
    By Ray in forum The Field Mess
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 14 Sep 08,, 12:26
  2. Baku - NATO Membership?
    By Ironduke in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 26 Aug 08,, 08:21
  3. The Causes & Consequences of Strategic Failure in Afghanistan & Iraq
    By lulldapull in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 20 May 08,, 08:48
  4. For global security increase the NATO
    By Ray in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 13 Oct 06,, 18:26
  5. Project Afghanistan: Pakistan and NATO
    By Ray in forum Operation Enduring Freedom and Af-Pak
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 21 May 06,, 23:08

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •