LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteIs Lammersdorf in there somewhere? (Yes, I love Red Storm Rising)Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
It's (or was) part of the IV German Military District and thus served as a major communications node.*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
Chimo
Is Lammersdorf in there somewhere? (Yes, I love Red Storm Rising)
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
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.
"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?
Both.
Two primary targets for the Soviets were the nuclear facilities and garrison at Lop Nor and and the capital Beijing (Peking).
Chimo
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).
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!
Chimo
No problem
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....
I would so much rather move that shrub...
And I am still on the phone....
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...
Last edited by troung; 17 Apr 05, at 03:09.
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
$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.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
I'm married.
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.
Chimo
Do you think she is punishing you for something?
Just do what I do. Plant it in that hole and pretend to have a pulled back. Make her feel guilty.
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.
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?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.
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.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.
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.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.
Last edited by lwarmonger; 18 Apr 05, at 06:29.
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.
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?
Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 18 Apr 05, at 16:19.
Chimo
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.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.
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.
Happy to be unmarried.... came close once but thats a different story...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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: