NATO vs. Warsaw Pact

[Officer of Engineers]

The Chinese side today. The Chinese economy is now substantially larger than that of Russia, and the Russian military has fallen quite a ways since 1973 as well. China was still a peasant society in 1973, incapable of matching Russia militarily or economically. Even without nukes, there was no way China could win back then, wheras now they have the industrial muscle to make their numbers felt in a protracted war.

Except the Chinese ain't trying to match the Soviets tank for tank, plane for plane. The US/NATO is doing that quite effectively on the Western front. Also, Chinese factories are quite capable of doing the numbers. In 1973, they had over 2000 fighter planes (mostly MiG-17 and MiG-19), 5000 tanks (T-55 clones), and with a militia adding into a manpower pool of serveral million.

Even the Soviets did not believe they had the conventional strength alone to just attack Lop Nor. That battle plan was nuke based. While there would also be a second thrust through the Beijing and Nanjing Military Regions, this would be exactly the war that Mao had envisioned for the People's War.

In fact, looking at this from Mao's perspective, he couldn't go wrong. The bulk of Soviet action and attention would in the West, not East. No nukes had ensured that the Soviets could not take Fortress Beijing and even if his attack would go wrong and invite a counter-Soviet invasion, it would be exactly the kind of war he would be looking for.

[troung]

"It was to show that ground base AD was not a show stopper."

Ok. But the show stopper could have been VVS/WP fighters. There would have been a lot flying in big numbers, bigger numbers then the VPAF were able to put up and keep up. One needs a lot of missions flown by the smaller transport planes (doubt the heavies would be on that mission) flying all the time to keep a surronded force that is under pressure able to keep in the fight.

But no point in arguing this seeing with you on this aspect as I am sure you know much more then me on the subject of NATO plans during WW-3 (not really my area and I never faced down the Soviets :) ).

"However, I had a reply all mapped out until I realized I was barking up the wrong tree. I was still thinking a nuke scenario where the war must be over within 30 days. So, my assumptions would not be valid."

Without nukes this topic is wierd.

The lack of SEAD for the USSR was partly on the assumption nuclear strikes (EMP) would cripple NATO radars. By 1973 they had been working on a SEAD force but no progress had been made other then getting a missile (Kh-28) but not having a shooter. It was not really until about the 1980s that they had a decent (and very large) SEAD force.

Plus of course the CF-104s and Mirage-IVs would have lost a big part of their role.

But if it not to much work could I hear your mapped out scenario with the nukes and a 30 day war? Even if you have to send it in a PM, as it would be very interseting to hear. :)

[Officer of Engineers]

Remember, you asked for it.

Ok. But the show stopper could have been VVS/WP fighters. There would have been a lot flying in big numbers, bigger numbers then the VPAF were able to put up and keep up. One needs a lot of missions flown by the smaller transport planes (doubt the heavies would be on that mission) flying all the time to keep a surronded force that is under pressure able to keep in the fight.

Never mind the transports. The presence of so many VVS-WP planes would be giving the NATO AF the exact fight they would be looking for. It would be a target rich zone. Kill them here and kill them for the entire theatre.

I will have to retype my scenario tomorrow. I need some sleep before work in the morning. Will reply when ready.

[lwarmonger]

Except the Chinese ain't trying to match the Soviets tank for tank, plane for plane. The US/NATO is doing that quite effectively on the Western front. Also, Chinese factories are quite capable of doing the numbers. In 1973, they had over 2000 fighter planes (mostly MiG-17 and MiG-19), 5000 tanks (T-55 clones), and with a militia adding into a manpower pool of serveral million.

The Chinese had no way of replacing lost equipment quickly. Their manufacturing capacity then was a fraction of what it is today, and the Russians now have a fraction of the manufacturing capability that they did in 1973 (relatively... although I believe they have lost absolute manufacturing ability as well). Chinese factories were not up to a great power contest in '73. Especially not that close to the "great leap forward." Their economy has only really started to take off since Mao died, and his successors began to focus on economic development. There was no way the Chinese could have outproduced the Soviet Union in the 70's. What they had at the start of the conflict would not be replaced at anywhere near the rate the Soviets could destroy it.

Even the Soviets did not believe they had the conventional strength alone to just attack Lop Nor. That battle plan was nuke based. While there would also be a second thrust through the Beijing and Nanjing Military Regions, this would be exactly the war that Mao had envisioned for the People's War.

If you are looking at the conquest of China, then you are correct. But if the Soviets were stabbed in the back, they wouldn't try and conquer China (especially without nukes), but instead simply secure Siberia by taking away the portions of Manchuria that could be used a springboards against the Transiberian supply lines. They were surely capable of that, and it wouldn't have left them as open to a people's war.

In fact, looking at this from Mao's perspective, he couldn't go wrong. The bulk of Soviet action and attention would in the West, not East. No nukes had ensured that the Soviets could not take Fortress Beijing and even if his attack would go wrong and invite a counter-Soviet invasion, it would be exactly the kind of war he would be looking for.

True, assuming the Soviets tried to invade. Their main focus would still be in the west though, would it not? All they need to do is secure their Siberian flank, and await the conquest of Europe. Then additional forces can be brought in theater, and they can go from there.

[Bill]

I don't think we're looking at a war that has any real chance of becoming protracted, especially if China were to invade the Soviets.

I think that this would be a quick and decisive war in the west- one way or another, and whatever happened on the Chinese side of things would be a sideshow to the real fight in the West.

If the Soviet Union wins in the West, China is of course ultimately doomed. But if NATO blunts the initial Soviet advance, and launches a counter-offensive, it would get very ugly, very quickly for the Soviets.

Without China in the fight, the Soviets have a huge strategic reserve force to counter any NATO counter-offensive with massive force(even if it's deep in WP territory). With China in the fight, that force is one hell of a lot smaller, and it has too be divided into two fronts.

We've seen how poorly that works for the Germans, i don't expect it would be any better for the Soviets.

Now, after a joint NATO-Chinese victory, what do the Chinese get out of it?

LOTS.

Huge risk, huge reward.

[troung]

"I will have to retype my scenario tomorrow. I need some sleep before work in the morning. Will reply when ready."

No problem, take your time :)

[Officer of Engineers]

No problem, take your time :)

#$$#$%#%$$%$#%$#%$#%$#%$$#%#%$ I was half way through when my computer froze $%^$^%$%^$%^$^%$%^@#@##$#@$#@$#@$

[Officer of Engineers]

The Chinese had no way of replacing lost equipment quickly.

No need. There was sufficent stocks to at least open the front and sufficent stocks to man the defences.

If you are looking at the conquest of China, then you are correct. But if the Soviets were stabbed in the back, they wouldn't try and conquer China (especially without nukes), but instead simply secure Siberia by taking away the portions of Manchuria that could be used a springboards against the Transiberian supply lines. They were surely capable of that, and it wouldn't have left them as open to a people's war.

Several things.

1) The Soviets were going to rely on nukes to take Manchuria.
2) The Chinese had set up several Stalingrad type fortresses.
3) Only the strategic reserves would be annihalated, the main forces would still be viable and still had to be overcome.
4) Without nukes, Soviet manpower and firepower requirements just jumped through the roof - 45 divisions just ain't going to cut it.
5) It is still 100 miles from the Sino-Soviet border to a main force engagement.

True, assuming the Soviets tried to invade. Their main focus would still be in the west though, would it not? All they need to do is secure their Siberian flank, and await the conquest of Europe. Then additional forces can be brought in theater, and they can go from there.

You're assuming that the Soviets still had the initative. Mao had the iniative against a superior 8th Army in Korea.

[MIKEMUN]

What about replacing lost equipment..Planes tanks and the rest...I think it would depend on how much Russia can destroy US factories on the mainland,and how much effect NATO raids would have on Russian wartime production...

[Tinkertoys]

The B-52s of that era had no non-nuclear standoff weapons. In order for them to be used in a direct overflight role the US would need complete air supremacy.

That would've been a very difficult undertaking considering that the US top of the line fighter at the time was The F-4E Phantom armed with the substandard AIM-7C Sparrow missile.

The USN in 1973 held complete and total dominance at sea though, and even the RN was a very powerful force at that time. In 1973, the Soviet navy was not a very capable force at all.

Modify them for Sidewinders?

-Tink

[Tinkertoys]

"The M-72 was decent but had problems with guys not trained to use them, one needed a good deal of training on them to get them to work right."

The problem with the early M-72 models was that when you pulled the launch tube open it would separate if you pulled too hard.

That problem was not solved until the early 80s when the M-72A3 W/Coupler was introduced. That weapon was so simple an untrained monkey could use it effectively.

But it wouldn't penetrate the frontal or side armor on an T-72 or T-64 unless you got lucky and hit a weakspot.

Everything would basically have come down to training.


-Tink

[Tinkertoys]

True, sorry, its just hard to separate from reality like that. Allright, with no nukes I still think conquering the whole Soviet Union would be reallllly hard. The USSR's SAM network was second to none, they already had a rationing system so moving to emergency war measures would probably not much of a stretch for them. They have experience with war time hardships and the people were heavily indoctrinated. Plus they would likely still have a lot of equipment left, although from my understanding Soviet doctrine is weak on defense...so maybe we'd have a chance. I don't know.

No one has ever fully conquered Russia.

-Tink

[Praxus]

No one has ever fully conquered Russia.

-Tink

Russia is not unconquerable, not even close exspecially considering when you are facing an enemy with Superior training equivilent machinery and over twice as large population.

[Officer of Engineers]

No one has ever fully conquered Russia.

-Tink

The Mongols did a mighty good job.

[Tinkertoys]

The Mongols did a mighty good job.

They did not capture all of it thogh, that is the important part.

-Tink