NATO vs. Warsaw Pact

[Bill]

Honestly, I think it would be a pretty one sided affair until the mid-sixties. The Soviets couldn't really launch a concentrated strike on the US homeland until then. The reverse was not true.

Rumor has it that Kennedy considered a first strike against the Sovs during the Cuban missile crisis, but balked when told that the US could lose up to 20,000,000 people to Russian retaliatory strikes.

Of course the reverse of that is that 90% of the Russian population would've been wiped out.

If this story is true, obviously Kennedy didn't like those numbers.

Eisenhower could've wiped out the Sovs for the cost of "Just" a couple million Americans, mostly overseas in Europe.

In both cases however, Europe would've been a wasteland, cause the Soviets COULD hit that...

[gunnut]

Glad that cooler heads prevailed. Or we could end up in the old Star Trek episode named Omega Glory.

[Semper Fi]

Gen.Norman Schwarzkopfs autobiography "It Doesn't Take a Hero" includes interesting no-punches-pulled insights into the state of the US Army in Europe during the 1950's: he describes some of his superiors as "drunken bums", and says elsewhere regarding the general condition of the US Army "Thankfully the Soviets didn't invade or they'd have rolled right through us"

Gen.Norman must of been hammered when he wrote that.

The difficulty in understanding the Russian is that we do not take cognizance of the fact that he is not a European, but an Asiatic, and therefore thinks deviously. We can no more understand a Russian than a Chinese or a Japanese, and from what I have seen of them, I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them. In addition to his other amiable characteristics, the Russian has no regard for human life and they are all out sons-of-*****es, barbarians, and chronic drunks. — George S. Patton

I can just imagine a Russian General staying away from Vodka.

[Bill]

LOL, that's a GREAT EFFING QUOTE bro!

[zraver]

Okay, alternative history scenario, It's 1973 tensions between the United States and Soviet Union sour over Vietnam and other places such as Africa, The United States threatens all out war against North Vietnam if the Soviet Union does not pull conventional military forces out of the lets say now communist Angola that they are using to spread their control over the rest of African countries, particularly the diamond rich ones. A Soviet hard-liner Politburo refuses to back down. The United States intensifies air operations against North Vietnam. Angolan communist forces with Soviet support commit raids into Botswana and the Congo. The Warsaw Pact central command gets orders to mobilize and prepare for possible war with NATO in Central Europe. The Soviet Shock Armies in the DDR are put on full alert. NATO get's satellite imagery showing Soviet Armored reserve forces moving through Poland. NATO responds with an alert of it's own. Okay excluding the use of ANY NBC weapons by BOTH sides, give me some possible outcomes and situation developements.

In any cold war scenario the US Army isn't budging. It has the most heavy equipment and the best defensive terrain. Any Pact attack is simply to pin the 2 Americna corps in place. That is why most serious looks at this classic what if involve NATO fighting for it's life across the North German plains.

based on combat results form where the two compteting doctrines met head to head (Golan Heights and Suez 73) The BAOR, Dutch, and Germans will be fightign for their lives. The Chieftan will dominate Russian armor but the terrain favors the offensive there and the numbers are overwhelmingly infavor of the Russians. Nato's only hope is that airpower can slow the reds down long enough for a massive shift of US forces to Europe or for the French to decide they want to play ball.

Possiblr tactics for delaying are festungs armed with ealry ATGM's and Jagdpanzer Kanone manned by territorials with heavier tank forces running around blunting Soviet thrusts. But this is iffy with the various langauge barriers. Just a couple of crossed wires and the pact blows it wide open.

73 was the year for the Red Army to do it. A demoralized America, recession bound UK, and dente seeking West Germany might not have gone nuclear.

[troung]

The United States threatens all out war against North Vietnam if the Soviet Union does not pull conventional military forces out of the lets say now communist Angola that they are using to spread their control over the rest of African countries, particularly the diamond rich ones. A Soviet hard-liner Politburo refuses to back down. The United States intensifies air operations against North Vietnam. Angolan communist forces with Soviet support commit raids into Botswana and the Congo.

What is Portugal, who was still in charge of Angola in 1973, doing????

[Stan187]

based on combat results form where the two compteting doctrines met head to head (Golan Heights and Suez 73)

Sorry to spark up an old point, but I don't think that the Yom Kippur War was a meeting of doctrines, not NATO vs WP doctrines. The Egyptians didn't fight like the Soviets. The Syrians more or less. Israeli tactics were also not as similar NATO as some assume.

What it really was, was a meeting of equipment, which proved Soviet equipment (at the time) quite capable in comparison to its Western counterparts, albeit more so when concentrated in far greater numbers.

It was also a meeting of training regimens and leadership ability. Hard Israeli training compared to crappy Arab training. However, while Russian training wasn't as good in comparison to NATO, it was not as bad as the Arab compared to Israeli.

[omon]

If war broke out in 1973, there would almost be no civilan population in ussr. everyone would fight even 15years old ones, and those who can't, would be working at the factories to make weapons, just like they did in ww2.
now about navy. soviets would most likely stay away from nukes in ground war, but they would definatly nuke the hell out of any navy, without hesitation.

[Stan187]

soviets would most likely stay away from nukes in ground war, but they would definatly nuke the hell out of any navy, without hesitation.

Why? As was discussed earlier, their timetables depended on using a salvo of tacticals numbering in the hundreds in the opening surprise phase. Without breaking down those nodes of communcations and troop concentrations, they would take more than a month to conquer West Germany, if the could even secure it all. Point is, the had no contingecy plan. There was no plan detailing a completely nuke-free WWIII. That kind of scenario is only a WAB or Red Storm Rising scenario.

[omon]

Why? As was discussed earlier, their timetables depended on using a salvo of tacticals numbering in the hundreds in the opening surprise phase. Without breaking down those nodes of communcations and troop concentrations, they would take more than a month to conquer eastern Germany, if the could even secure it all. Point is, the had no contingecy plan. There was no plan detailing a completely nuke-free WWIII. That kind of scenario is only a WAB or Red Storm Rising scenario.

conquer eastern Germany?? i,m not sure i read you right. east germany was under ussr control from1945 to 1991 or something.
why they woudn't use nukes in the ground war? cuz that would make entire europe and may be even asia uninhabitable for at least 250000 years, sea on the other hand is not where people live ,and there were untill recantly many nuke tests done under water by both russia and usa, didn,t affect none of us to much.
if ww3 ever takes place, it'll be bye bye earth.

[sappersgt]

Fallout

soviets would most likely stay away from nukes in ground war, but they would definatly nuke the hell out of any navy, without hesitation.

Nukes don't leave holes in the water. Collateral damage both physical and political is minimised(!).

[Stan187]

conquer eastern Germany??

typo, I meant West

if ww3 ever takes place, it'll be bye bye earth.

Right. That's why it never happened.

[killabee]

Warsaw pact was a defensive organization, mutual defense was the only thing holding it together,and after 1958 invasion of HUNGARY and 1968 invasion of Cehoslovakia , cohesion in the aliance was poor....ROMANIA and BULGARIA had litle reason to fight TURKEY or GRECCE.
EST GERMANS did not realy wanna fight WEST GERMANS so basicly the URSS WOULD HAVE TO FIGHT This war alone whithout his allies.
I realy dont think West Germany would hold out against the soviets more then 2 weeks or France would prefer nuclear war to conventional one no mater what the outcome would be. But the advance would stop here because of the same reasons HITLER did. RUSSIAN navy and strategic bombers are no match NAto.

[deadkenny]

Warsaw pact was a defensive organization,...

Except with Soviet doctrine the best defense is a good offense, so the Warsaw pact 'plan' was, in time of war, to 'defend' eastern Europe on the Rhine.

mutual defense was the only thing holding it together,...

No, the only thing holding it together was domination by the USSR. Anyone who got 'out of line' got invaded (e.g. E. Germany, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia).

and after 1958 invasion of HUNGARY and 1968 invasion of Cehoslovakia , cohesion in the aliance was poor....ROMANIA and BULGARIA had litle reason to fight TURKEY or GRECCE.
EST GERMANS did not realy wanna fight WEST GERMANS so basicly the URSS WOULD HAVE TO FIGHT This war alone whithout his allies.

1956 invasion of Hungary actually. Admittedly Romania was given some 'freedom' in charting their own course. The rest would pretty much have done what they were told to do, or the Soviets would have replaced their government with someone who would. The Bulgarians would probably have fought the Greeks and / or Turks out of force of habit. The 'allied' Warsaw Pact forces would have been 3rd string anyway, based on their 'hand-me-down' equipment. The Soviet forces would have been both the 'spearheads' and the immediate follow up forces. However, 'sitting it out' would not have been an option for E. Germany, Poland or Czechoslovakia.

[killabee]

soviet leadership of WP

u are corect about soviet doctrine......
they also try that in Ucraine in 1941 against invading german panzers divizions
and we know the outcome...
i was wrong abut HUNGARY (dammit...) 50 yers last year since the hungarian revolution ( not a prety site....)
Indeed soviet leaders coud select any number of individuals(...) to lead the oposing goverments in WARSAW PACT, but the army of any est europeen country in 1973 was a Conscript army....
U can make people obey you, but would you trust them to guard your back or your flank...?
WARSAW PACT was intended as a Buffer zone from wich soviets would launch atacKs and be relativy safE.