NATO vs. Warsaw Pact

[troung]

Because we win hands down. After Reagan's arms buildup and the new generation of weapons platforms, the Soviets stopped having a chance with merely conventional means.

Actually no. The Soviets had a huge SEAD force (bigger then NATOs) and well constructed plans on how to use it to cut swaths through NATO AD with 1000 plane missions as well as smaller operations at the same time to flood NATO and inflict damage without concern for their own losses. And the WP had many more BVR s******* (MiG-23MF/ML/MLD, MiG-25, MiG-29, MiG-31) then NATO. And they had more PGM s******* then NATO as well. Plus the large numbers of T-80s, T-64s, and T-72s and newer more lethal ATGMs.

It's not as easy as one might think. They are nto as bad as you might think. Never say hands down, hands down implies some sort of route ;)

I don't see Soviet transports operating in NATO controlled airspace as a realistic possibility.

Who says NATO would control much airspace at the start of the war? Actually in those scary first days the VVS would probably have taken a degree of contol due to raw numbers and shock.

Actually, this raises another point. We were expected to air insert TF and battle groups against the 2nd and 3rd echelon assembly points but to this day, I've not heard which units were tasked with that nor how was it to be achieved?

The 82nd airborne, 101st airmobile, French airborne division, French 2nd REP, Belgain paracommandos, UK Airborne Regiment, German Airborne units. Mostly lightly armed units with small arms, machine guns, mortars, light AT weapons and some artillery. Well those are the only major airborne forces in NATO. Yet many units had battle hardened officers and NCOs due to fighting in COIN conflicts in Asia and Africa. Yet really those units mostly had conducted smaller unit action in COIN conflicts not fighting echelons of tanks. I would guess that hunting down guerillas recuires a different skill set then fighting of scores of T-55s and BMP-1s.

The 82nd had something like 50-60 M-551s at the time while a normal USSR airborne division had around 300 BMD-1s.

Compared to the WP/USSR airborne NATO units are not as potent a force in terms of mobility and firepower.

At this time as well the USSR should have had as many as 700 Mi-8 transport helicopters and a few hundred Mi-6s (400 maybe) as well as Mi-4s.

[Bill]

"Who says NATO would control much airspace at the start of the war?"

That would be me. :)

[Officer of Engineers]

The 82nd airborne, 101st airmobile, French airborne division, French 2nd REP, Belgain paracommandos, UK Airborne Regiment, German Airborne units. Mostly lightly armed units with small arms, machine guns, mortars, light AT weapons and some artillery. Well those are the only major airborne forces in NATO. Yet many units had battle hardened officers and NCOs due to fighting in COIN conflicts in Asia and Africa. Yet really those units mostly had conducted smaller unit action in COIN conflicts not fighting echelons of tanks. I would guess that hunting down guerillas recuires a different skill set then fighting of scores of T-55s and BMP-1s.

The point that both M21 and myself were trying to raise is that we know of no battleplan as to how and where to use these forces.

[troung]

That would be me.

I don't know but by numbers and sheer shock value they would have some degree of control of the skies at the start of a war. Gaggles of MiG-23MS, MiG-21F-13/MF/PFMs, MiG-17s, Su-17s, Su-20s, Su-7s, IL-28s, Tu-16s would be able to take some degree of control early on. They would be up againist Mirage III/5s, F-5A/Bs, Mirage F-1s, F-104s and F-4s which are better but would be outnumbered and rapidly put under heavy pressure from VVS/WP assaults on their own bases and the massive fighter sweeps.

And of course the WP/VVS were ready to take massive airplane losses and contuine strikes flying in big formations. And not like the entire USAF would be there engines revving to take off. Rather small detachments of NATO airforces were on QR duties (hell I think the Danish had like 6 F-5As on QRA).

So I would think it would be NATO airforces fighting on the defensive rather quickly.

The point that both M21 and myself were trying to raise is that we know of no battleplan as to how and where to use these forces.

Maybe to preceed a NATO counterattack after/if the WP losses their steam in the advance. Before that the best these forces could do would be to harass the enemies rear, and I wonder if we would be ready to lose so many well troops for what could be a very small delay.

[lwarmonger]

Actually no. The Soviets had a huge SEAD force (bigger then NATOs) and well constructed plans on how to use it to cut swaths through NATO AD with 1000 plane missions as well as smaller operations at the same time to flood NATO and inflict damage without concern for their own losses. And the WP had many more BVR s******* (MiG-23MF/ML/MLD, MiG-25, MiG-29, MiG-31) then NATO. And they had more PGM s******* then NATO as well. Plus the large numbers of T-80s, T-64s, and T-72s and newer more lethal ATGMs.

It's not as easy as one might think. They are nto as bad as you might think. Never say hands down, hands down implies some sort of route ;)

I'm not saying that the Soviets were going to be routed (it would have been a tough fight, and very bloody), nor did I mean to imply it, but realistically, they did not have much hope of winning (meaning NATO was almost definitely going to emerge victorious) by purely conventional means after the very early 80's. Their tanks were simply too inferior after the widespread introduction of the M-1, Challenger, and Leopard II tanks, and their air strength was being increasingly outpaced by NATO due to their inability to build and maintain the advanced righters necessary to keep up (especially in the electronic warfare and ground support realms).

Who says NATO would control much airspace at the start of the war? Actually in those scary first days the VVS would probably have taken a degree of contol due to raw numbers and shock.

Would the Soviets have control over both their airspace and NATO airspace? They didn't have that big of an advantage in numbers. Those transport streams would be awfully vulnerable.

[lwarmonger]

lwarmonger,

Forget the 10 days to Rhine scenario. That depended on nukes.

Sorry, had completely forgotten. 1973 it was nukes from the get-go, with no question of a conventional stage first.

[lwarmonger]

Depends on which scenario you use. The actual deployment plan is still a classified state secret in Moscow.

Just going from the maps I've seen.

I'm under the assumption that the mobilization has not even started. We can bring the air elements of REFORGER in place alot sooner than they can man even the Cat B divisions.

Alright then. But even with that being the case, wouldn't that not apply to those category A divisions in Russia? I'm assuming that the Soviet forces in the DDR and involved areas would have had some kind of stepped up training prior to the attack, so why not the ones in Russia as well? Even if they didn't, then the cat A divisions in Russia proper are still just as prepared as the ones used to launch the assault, so wouldn't bringing those complete formations up be easier?

It's alot faster to insert companies and battalions into decimated formations than to bring a fresh division forward when a warning order was not even issued.

I was always under the impression that Soviet divisions were designed to disintegrate, as each of their component parts was used to fulfill it's function (identify weak spots, blast a hole, exploit the hole in order to prepare the way for follow on formations), which is one of the reasons there was never much provision for extensive logistics. Wouldn't it be easier to bring already created formations forward than recreating largely destroyed formations from the ground up?

Just reaching the Rhine ain't going to stop REFORGER. The Rhine has always been considered the 2nd line of defence (the first is the FGR-GDR and the FGR-CSSR borders). There were delayed actions already in place to get the bulk of the forces across if the 1st line is deemed unattainable. Thus, just because the Soviets reached the Rhine within 10 days did not mean the corps are destroyed.

Would those contingencies function properly in the face of large scale special forces, air, and missile attack? It would be infinitely preferable for reforger to be conducted within the FRG.

That is if they can take those positions before they're manned.

Which was a major goal of theirs.

Not valid at all. The Soviets ain't going to try to maul every line brigade or even division. They would be looking for a breakthrough point and then bypass then supposedly strong pockets of resistence (meaning leaving perfectly combat capable forces in their lines of march. They were relying on follow on echelons to deal with these forces. That is assuming that these forces do not beat a hasty retreat across the Rhine.

I'm not saying that they were going to maul every line brigade or division. But if they got through to the Rhine (assuming that SACEUR remained true to the forward defense policy), then they have hurt us at least as much as we have hurt them.

This essentially means two fronts. One against the Lanzhou Military Region and the other against the Beijing and Shenyang Military Regions.

The Soviets attacking seemed the better bet but with only 45 divisions, taking the 3 garrisons ain't going to be easy and certainly requiring rapid re-enforcements.

Let me qualify myself here. In 1973, the Soviet Far East divisions were at full strength in preparation for a nuke strike to Lop Nor. Cat B and C divisions would not have been mobilized, otherwise, giving NATO plenty of warning to man their own defences.

Thus, here is the situation, do you throw your hastily formed battalions and regiments against NATO or against China and if against China, at the LZMR or the BJMR/SYMR?

Wouldn't those 45 divisions provide a proper striking force for destroying stronger Chinese formations though? If I'm reading you correctly, the Soviet difficulties primarily consist of insufficient manpower to cover the sheer length of their border with China given their objectives (objectives consisting of protecting the trans-Siberian Railroad and population centers/bases). As I was saying before, couldn't some of those mobilized category B or C divisions provide the manpower that was lacking (there were most certainly a lot of them)? These problems work both ways too. The Chinese are not mobilized either, and have limited forces that would be useful for an offensive to the North (even an extremely decentralized one). In fact, they would be less prepared than the Soviets, as the Soviets would have already had prepared themselves for the invasion of Western Europe, and as such would have taken into account the possibility of Chinese intervention.

[troung]

Would the Soviets have control over both their airspace and NATO airspace? They didn't have that big of an advantage in numbers. Those transport streams would be awfully vulnerable.

In the opening days they very well could have some degree of control actually.

They would have run a massive counter air action on NATO bases from the start flying in large formations. This is before ARH BVR missiles so even the BVR edge would not be balance shifting with the low PK kill rates of the AIM-7E-2.

(especially in the electronic warfare and ground support realms).

Actually Soviet SEAD and ECM systems did work suprising well if we are talking about the 1980s. During the Iran Iraq war Soviet downgraded ECM pods were able to jam the HAWK missile and their SEAD missiles were able to kill the radars. The Soviets themselves were able to heaviliy blind enemy radars with stand off jammers. A few Tu-16s jammers blinded the Pakistani border and their F-16s and conducted missions right on the border without being messed with. The Soviets had plans to launch 1000 plane packages to cut NATO AD apart, these packages would have fighters, SEAD planes, strikers, bombers and jammers and they planned for big operations. During the early to mid 1980s it was about 8000 WP planes to 3000 NATO planes.

The VVS/WP actaully had more planes capable of SEAD missions, more BVR equipped fighters as well as PGM users. RAF Tornados lacked PGM capability during the cold war and many/most Tornado ADVs actually lacked radars (had cement ballasts in the noses). German Tornados could only do AShM PGM strikes and dumb bombs on ground targets. German F-4Fs lacked BVR at the time. Most F-16s did dumb bombing only in NATO during the 1980s. And lets no forget the fact NATO still had the F-5A and F-104 in big numbers so it was far from an all F-15/F-16 force ;) . The VVS had scores of Su-17s and MiG-27s which could fire Kh-29L/Ts, Kh-25Ps, Kh-28s, Kh-25Ls and guided bombs. The Su-24Ms could also fire PGMs. A pair of MiG-23MLDs is not that deadly to an F-15 but a few dozen flying as a regiment is deadly seeing as everyone (minus the F-14As) would be SARH shooting.

So they are not as primitve as many seem to think. NATO probably might win as things on the ground are more in their favor (defensive war on terrain they know and drill on very often).

(Some has to play devils advocate)

[lwarmonger]

In the opening days they very well could have some degree of control actually.

They would have run a massive counter air action on NATO bases from the start flying in large formations. This is before ARH BVR missiles so even the BVR edge would not be balance shifting with the low PK kill rates of the AIM-7E-2.

Wouldn't much of their air effort be focused on ground support and counterbattery missions though?

Actually Soviet SEAD and ECM systems did work suprising well if we are talking about the 1980s. During the Iran Iraq war Soviet downgraded ECM pods were able to jam the HAWK missile and their SEAD missiles were able to kill the radars. The Soviets themselves were able to heaviliy blind enemy radars with stand off jammers. A few Tu-16s jammers blinded the Pakistani border and their F-16s and conducted missions right on the border without being messed with. The Soviets had plans to launch 1000 plane packages to cut NATO AD apart, these packages would have fighters, SEAD planes, strikers, bombers and jammers and they planned for big operations. During the early to mid 1980s it was about 8000 WP planes to 3000 NATO planes.

The VVS/WP actaully had more planes capable of SEAD missions, more BVR equipped fighters as well as PGM users. RAF Tornados lacked PGM capability during the cold war and many/most Tornado ADVs actually lacked radars (had cement ballasts in the noses). German Tornados could only do AShM PGM strikes and dumb bombs on ground targets. German F-4Fs lacked BVR at the time. Most F-16s did dumb bombing only in NATO during the 1980s. And lets no forget the fact NATO still had the F-5A and F-104 in big numbers so it was far from an all F-15/F-16 force ;) . The VVS had scores of Su-17s and MiG-27s which could fire Kh-29L/Ts, Kh-25Ps, Kh-28s, Kh-25Ls and guided bombs. The Su-24Ms could also fire PGMs. A pair of MiG-23MLDs is not that deadly to an F-15 but a few dozen flying as a regiment is deadly seeing as everyone (minus the F-14As) would be SARH shooting.

So they are not as primitve as many seem to think. NATO probably might win as things on the ground are more in their favor (defensive war on terrain they know and drill on very often).

(Some has to play devils advocate)

I guess what I was talking about was AWACS and electronic warfare birds. I don't think our respective electronic warfare aircraft and AWACS have ever been fully tested in an have ever faced off against one another, and we had quite an advantage in electronics even then (although I'm not sure whether military applications had caught up by that point). Also, the F-15's (and the F-14's too) were designed to operate in an environment where they were heavily outnumbered, were they not?

[Officer of Engineers]

Just going from the maps I've seen.

Actually, I want to thank you. I've discovered a whole new resource on the internet because of your questions.

The Parallel History Project on NATO and the Warsaw Pact

Enjoy

Alright then. But even with that being the case, wouldn't that not apply to those category A divisions in Russia?

No, because there are at least three other Fronts to which those divisions could be applied. Southern Europe, Central Asia, and Eastern Siberia. If these forces are shifted Europeanwise, then, they would be replacing an entire front, and not just divisions.

I'm assuming that the Soviet forces in the DDR and involved areas would have had some kind of stepped up training prior to the attack, so why not the ones in Russia as well? Even if they didn't, then the cat A divisions in Russia proper are still just as prepared as the ones used to launch the assault, so wouldn't bringing those complete formations up be easier?

Any step up training is a sign. There has NOT been one case where we did not match their training and they ours.

I was always under the impression that Soviet divisions were designed to disintegrate, as each of their component parts was used to fulfill it's function (identify weak spots, blast a hole, exploit the hole in order to prepare the way for follow on formations), which is one of the reasons there was never much provision for extensive logistics. Wouldn't it be easier to bring already created formations forward than recreating largely destroyed formations from the ground up?

But it is not creating from ground up. They're inserting new battalions into regiments and new regiments into divisions. In other words, they're inserting fresh units into combat committed echelons.

Would those contingencies function properly in the face of large scale special forces, air, and missile attack? It would be infinitely preferable for reforger to be conducted within the FRG.

Well, you've got me there. However, you've also limited your scope. SpecOps, air, and missile attacks has never taken nor held ground ... and they never will.

[QUOTE=lwarmonger]Which was a major goal of theirs.[/qutoe]

Well, two things here. West of the Rhine, they could not have achieved without nukes. No way in hell could they have achieved it East of the Rhine even with nukes.

I'm not saying that they were going to maul every line brigade or division. But if they got through to the Rhine (assuming that SACEUR remained true to the forward defense policy), then they have hurt us at least as much as we have hurt them.

You're misunderstanding Soviet doctrine (Deep Battle) and also ours (Isolation and Reduction). In both cases, we're not out to kill the major formations but to make them irrevelent. In their case, they aim to fix the main force in place so that they cannot move while moving to kill the reserves and thus, deny the main force any chance of a counter-stoke.

Except that if we have contigencies to accept a move (but NOT to accept a defeat) against the strategic reserves. Please do study Von Mainstein's counters against Zuhkov's Operations Mars and Uranus.

More specifically in our case, we have plans to use our strategic reserves to cover a retreat for the main force across the Rhine.

Wouldn't those 45 divisions provide a proper striking force for destroying stronger Chinese formations though? If I'm reading you correctly, the Soviet difficulties primarily consist of insufficient manpower to cover the sheer length of their border with China given their objectives (objectives consisting of protecting the trans-Siberian Railroad and population centers/bases).

You're not reading me correctly. The Russians have a two front war against China, more specifically against Eastern China and against Western China. Western China directly threatens the railway. Eastern China directly threatens Vladivostok. Eliminating one threat does not eliminate the other.

As I was saying before, couldn't some of those mobilized category B or C divisions provide the manpower that was lacking (there were most certainly a lot of them)? These problems work both ways too. The Chinese are not mobilized either, and have limited forces that would be useful for an offensive to the North (even an extremely decentralized one). In fact, they would be less prepared than the Soviets, as the Soviets would have already had prepared themselves for the invasion of Western Europe, and as such would have taken into account the possibility of Chinese intervention.

No, you're misreading alot of things here. We're not allowing NATO to come to full strength, meaning that we're not allowing the Soviet Cat B and C divisions to full strength (that's the red flag to get NATO to step up).

In 1973, both the Soviets and the Chinese were at full strength in preparation for war against one another.

Those are the historic facts to which we have to work with.

[troung]

I guess what I was talking about was AWACS and electronic warfare birds. I don't think our respective electronic warfare aircraft and AWACS have ever been fully tested in an have ever faced off against one another, and we had quite an advantage in electronics even then (although I'm not sure whether military applications had caught up by that point).

Soviers had a large EW force and jammers on/in Su-17s, Su-24s, MiG-25s, Tu-16s, Tu-22s and other planes.

Also, the F-15's (and the F-14's too) were designed to operate in an environment where they were heavily outnumbered, were they not?

Only the F-14 back then with the AIM-54 which was ARH.

The F-15A/C only had the AIM-7F/M which could only be fired at one target. Put that up in a swarm not talking a 2 on 2. Then think about the rather low PK rations (25% or so) of the AIM-7 and you have a bad picture. The WP had by the 1980s a large amount of planes with BVR weapons even if most of those weapons are comparable to the AIM-7E-2 they would be fired in big groups which the Iran Iraq war showed makes up for things. The Soviets made up for things with big formations.

The other BVR planes in NATO were F/A-18s (AIM-7F), CF-18A/Bs (AIM-7F), Mirage 2000C/Bs (Super 530D), Mirage F-1C/Es (Super 530D), F-4Es (AIM-7E), F-104S (Aspide), F-4M/K (Skyflash I). All were SARH. And back in the 1980s most NATO planes actually lacked BVR (F-5A, Mirage III/5, F-104, F-4F, Tornado IDS/GR). The British Tornado ADV was flying around with a cement balance in the nose (no BVR in other words). The Super 530D for example was a good SARH with good snap up snap down and was meant to engage two types of targets, high flying MiG-25s and low flying Su-24s and was even able to kill F-14s in the Gulf. But yet fighting swarms of planes and firing within a NEZ (to hav a chance of making the kill) does make it hard to make a kill, wouldn't you say?

Now up close the AIM-9P-4/L and R-550 Mk.2 were very common and better then most WP missiles (R-13, R-60). Of course the Soviets were bringing out the R-73E which used a HMS.

Wouldn't much of their air effort be focused on ground support and counterbattery missions though?

They had artillery for much of that, artillery being the god of war in Russia. Russian artillery had a longer range then NATO guns at the time and a numbers edge as well. They had large numbers of mobile MLRS like the BM-21 (122mm), RM-70 (122mm) and BM-24 (240mm) which could handle the CB roles. The biggest weakness in their tube systems was the fact they were towed.

The first focus of the VVS/WP would be putting as big a hurt on NATO airbases and C3 sites. Think of the 6 day war airstrikes and then multiply the striking force by a thousand. Cripple or at least inflict severe damage the NATO airforces in the ETO and it makes things easier as NATO is forced into a standing start as they have already started the race. Leaves NATO playing catch up in the air.

[lwarmonger]

Actually, I want to thank you. I've discovered a whole new resource on the internet because of your questions.

The Parallel History Project on NATO and the Warsaw Pact

Enjoy

You are welcome sir. And thank you.

No, because there are at least three other Fronts to which those divisions could be applied. Southern Europe, Central Asia, and Eastern Siberia. If these forces are shifted Europeanwise, then, they would be replacing an entire front, and not just divisions.

Then why bother rebuilding the divisions of the shattered front?

Any step up training is a sign. There has NOT been one case where we did not match their training and they ours.

But something they would need to do, if a merely conventional war came about. It would also tell more, as they have a lot more cat A divisions than NATO had in Europe.

Well, you've got me there. However, you've also limited your scope. SpecOps, air, and missile attacks has never taken nor held ground ... and they never will.

They don't need to take or hold ground. They simply need to disrupt the movement of the eqipment away from WP armored forces.

You're misunderstanding Soviet doctrine (Deep Battle) and also ours (Isolation and Reduction). In both cases, we're not out to kill the major formations but to make them irrevelent. In their case, they aim to fix the main force in place so that they cannot move while moving to kill the reserves and thus, deny the main force any chance of a counter-stoke.

Yes, but if they have reached the Rhine, then they have achieved their objectives, meaning that we are probably far more damaged than they (our reserves have been ravaged and our front line forces are ripe for destruction by their follow on formations).

Except that if we have contigencies to accept a move (but NOT to accept a defeat) against the strategic reserves. Please do study Von Mainstein's counters against Zuhkov's Operations Mars and Uranus.

Roger.

More specifically in our case, we have plans to use our strategic reserves to cover a retreat for the main force across the Rhine.

Strategic reserves? Would these be the reforger divisions and perhaps the French Army? I can't think of many other formations that would be available at that point.

You're not reading me correctly. The Russians have a two front war against China, more specifically against Eastern China and against Western China. Western China directly threatens the railway. Eastern China directly threatens Vladivostok. Eliminating one threat does not eliminate the other.

Aren't those 45 divisions deployed against both?

No, you're misreading alot of things here. We're not allowing NATO to come to full strength, meaning that we're not allowing the Soviet Cat B and C divisions to full strength (that's the red flag to get NATO to step up).

In 1973, both the Soviets and the Chinese were at full strength in preparation for war against one another.

Those are the historic facts to which we have to work with.

Yes, but we are envisioning a two month war against NATO aren't we? Wouldn't that be sufficient time to start getting those B and C formations up? Even partially reconstituted C divisions would be sufficient for guarding fixed points against Chinese infantry, and free up valuable cat A divisions for offensive operations.

[lwarmonger]

Soviers had a large EW force and jammers on/in Su-17s, Su-24s, MiG-25s, Tu-16s, Tu-22s and other planes.

Yeah, but how effective would they have been against their American equivalents? Our AWACS and EW aircraft have never gone up against their Soviet counterparts.

[Officer of Engineers]

Then why bother rebuilding the divisions of the shattered front?

Because of the need to sustain battle momentum.

But something they would need to do, if a merely conventional war came about. It would also tell more, as they have a lot more cat A divisions than NATO had in Europe.

We have a substantially larger reserves than they do. All our and theirs warplans are based upon the fact that we could not field those reserves in time. Canada alone can field a corps within 60 days.

Thus, EVERYTHING to NOT get our warning orders issued.

They don't need to take or hold ground. They simply need to disrupt the movement of the eqipment away from WP armored forces.

Speed bumps and very ineffective ones behind the Rhine.

Yes, but if they have reached the Rhine, then they have achieved their objectives, meaning that we are probably far more damaged than they (our reserves have been ravaged and our front line forces are ripe for destruction by their follow on formations).

No, it does not mean that at all. The best historic example of a Soviet Deep Battle was Manchuria, 1945 in which 80% of the IJA Kuangtum Army never saw combat.

Strategic reserves? Would these be the reforger divisions and perhaps the French Army? I can't think of many other formations that would be available at that point.

No, they do not mean that. If REFORGER got into place, then they're front line troops. The strategic reserves I've been stating are actually front line units. In the case of VII Corps, the 4th Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group stationed at Canadian Forces Base Lahrs, FRG.

Aren't those 45 divisions deployed against both?

In support of a nuclear armed strike. But again, we've taken nukes out of the equation. Much like the 10 day march to the Rhine, the strategic picture against the Chinese changed dramatically without nukes.

Yes, but we are envisioning a two month war against NATO aren't we? Wouldn't that be sufficient time to start getting those B and C formations up? Even partially reconstituted C divisions would be sufficient for guarding fixed points against Chinese infantry, and free up valuable cat A divisions for offensive operations.

Except the fact that ALL sides would be rushing to flush out the reserves. And on that, the Soviets are on the losing side. The Chinese alone had a militia numberring in the millions and with even a 30 days warning, more than able to flush the front lines.

[troung]

Yeah, but how effective would they have been against their American equivalents? Our AWACS and EW aircraft have never gone up against their Soviet counterparts.

A small detachment (2-4) of Tu-22Ps blinded the PAF GCI on the border and fighters in around 1987 as Tu-22Ms hit the border without anything (F-16As) coming up and no one knowing where they were untill the bombs hit and still no planes went up. Libyan Mi-8s with jammers blinded the Egyptian radar net in the 1970s during their short war. And the Iraqis were able to blind HAWK sites. The Russians and WP had a big jamming force as well.

As for how effective againist ours who knows, no doubt ours were better. But if they take over from the start we would be stuck playing catch up.

The 1000 plane raids that were planned would take full use of blinding and killing radars and SAMs as the VVS hit airbases and C-3 centers trying to behead NATO. 3 of those missions were to be launched a day along with smaller formations of strikers well escorted by fighters attacking other sites. Big formations like that (moving in waves) would be hard/nearly impossible to stop as a whole and the Soviets didn't care as much about losses as we do these days.