NATO vs. Warsaw Pact

[Triple C]

A study published by the Strategic Studies Instituite on Soviet nuclear war doctrine, relying heavily on declassified documents and interviews with former Red officiers, concluded to the same effect. Soviet Union generals, after decades of fidgeting the idea of waging conventional a nuclear environment, realized that the concept was futile, and that Russia will not survive a nuclear exchange with America.

At least by the early 1970s, the interviews show that informed Soviet military leadershipconsidered victory in a nuclear war to be unattainable in any
meaningful sense. Akhromeev stated that in practical terms, neither
side would win a nuclear war. According to Tsygichko, the General
Staff understood the devastation that would result from a nuclear
war and therefore did not develop a working definition of victory.
Military planners instead focused on the destruction that they could
inflict on the enemy. They hoped that, in a nuclear exchange, some
pockets of civilization inside the Soviet Union would survive. . . .
The General Staff, beginning in the 1970s, developed
the idea that nuclear weapons were a political tool, with very limited
military utility. This applied to both the strategic and theater use of
nuclear weapons. By 1981, the General Staff concluded that nuclear
use would be catastrophic as well as counterproductive in combating
operations in the European theater.

The study went on to say that simulated wargames convinced the Soviet military leadership that dettereance was the only meaningful way to use nuclear weapons, and Soviet use of nukes would be strictly retaliatory (i.e. only used when the adversary had deployed nuclear weapons) or preemptive (i.e. the adversary showed an imminent and certain intent to deploy nuclear weapons). Effectively, they gave up on the nuclear first strike policy.

The rest of the study could be downloaded for free on Strategic Studies Instituite for free.

*Edit: I forgot to mention that the Soviets did not envision any future clash with NATO as nuclear-arms free; this falls together with OoE's analysis perfectly. BtW, the Soviets certain took the probability of nuclear armagandon pretty seriously...

[S2]

Triple C Reply

"Effectively, they gave up on the nuclear first strike policy."

They could afford to do so.:))

[Tom Guntrip]

The Third World War: August 1985 by General Sir John Hackett

I just finished version 2 of that, and need to buy version one to fully understand the second one.

[Triple C]

That book is out of print and I can't buy it second hand. I don't live in the States. Anyone have alternative sources for this book other than Amazon?

[Tom Guntrip]

That book is out of print and I can't buy it second hand. I don't live in the States. Anyone have alternative sources for this book other than Amazon?

From a second hand bookshop. If you live in the UK, the suth UK, there is an amazing bookshop in Penn, Bucks, called the Cottage Booshop.

[Triple C]

I live in Taiwan, but thanks.

[LiquidNazgul]

I apologize if I get in trouble for bumping an old thread, but this thread seems interesting and I don't think making a completely new thread will work.

Let's say China sided with the Warsaw Pact, albiet reluctantly. Would this make life harder for NATO?

[Tom Guntrip]

Triple C - I can give you the copy of it if you like - but it is in English.

Nazgul - I say yes. China have an awful lot of military power and being close to Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and Alaska, they could cause an awful lot of trouble.

[Officer of Engineers]

Let's say China sided with the Warsaw Pact, albiet reluctantly. Would this make life harder for NATO?

About 45 Divisions, 2000 aircrafts, and 200 nukes harder ... though the last one ain't that much of an extra threat considering the nukes already in theatre.

[Skywatcher]

Going in the opposite direction, how much of a benefit was China to NATO in the event of World War III (I remember the good Colonel saying that if the Soviets had marched west, the Chinese would have marched north. That was the one thing Red Dawn got right).

[zraver]

Going in the opposite direction, how much of a benefit was China to NATO in the event of World War III (I remember the good Colonel saying that if the Soviets had marched west, the Chinese would have marched north. That was the one thing Red Dawn got right).

I dunno, I think China would act as is best for China. Shoving a dagger into the back of a nucelar armed Giant is not the smartest way to insure your civilisations continued existance.
If China had moved North and not been stopped on the frontiers then every step past the Soviet border would have lowered the nuclear threshold. Plus China's value to the west might be more a threat in being than a threat in fact. As long as China stays out then the Soviets are not fighting a total war for national survival as long as the nukes are not used. In this context of a non-total war peace is a negotiated thing rather than requring total victory aka Finland/USSR vs Germany/USSR.

[Officer of Engineers]

I had to think this one through and it took almost 20 years to come to the conclusion that the Chinese had no choice but to march north had the Soviets marched west.

1) The Chinese knew that the Soviets were prepared to invade in 1973.

2) The Chinese knew well that the military equation did not favour the Warsaw Pact vis-a-vi NATO after an invasion of China. That was the primary reason why the Soviets backed off.

3) Had the Soviets gotten through with NATO, there would have been nothing to stop them from turning on the Chinese.

4) The Soviets had shown that they had no reluctance to use military force in Europe. However, when confronted with American power, they usually back down.

So, had the Soviets won against the Americans, there would be nothing stopping them from marching south.

As for what China did for NATO, they took the Soviet conventional option away.

[tankie]

[QUOTE=Anon;86040]In 1973 it's really tough for NATO. The A-10 is not yet in service, the best US tank is the M-60A1, TOW is a brand new untested weapon, all US troops have at best the mediocre M-16A1, and the Russians have the T-72 in mass production.
QUOTE]

Yes , and the Brits had the Centurion AND the Chieftain ? And the Germans were using the very good Leopard ? ;)

[zraver]

[QUOTE=tankie;532890]

In 1973 it's really tough for NATO. The A-10 is not yet in service, the best US tank is the M-60A1, TOW is a brand new untested weapon, all US troops have at best the mediocre M-16A1, and the Russians have the T-72 in mass production.
QUOTE]

Yes , and the Brits had the Centurion AND the Chieftain ? And the Germans were using the very good Leopard ? ;)

From the late 60's to the late 70's NATO was outgunned in tanks. The Leopard 1 was very thin skinned. German designers decided that you could not defeat HEAT rounds and also keep the tank mobile so they didn't even try. It had less armor than a WW2 era Sherman tank. Its only real advantage was its very high speed for the time. it was armed with the same 105mm gun as the M60A1 and Centurion. The only real tank in the allied arsenal that could with the ammuntion of the time take on the T-72 and T-64 would be the Chieftan with its L11A5 120mm gun. The leopard 2 with its 120mm smoothbore did not arrive until 1979. For 12 years the Chieftan was the only allied tank on an even footing with the T-72/T-64.

[S2]

Zraver Reply

You've probably got the ballistic data to back it up but I'd think the L7/M68 would fare nicely against the T-64/72s- at least out to expected engagement ranges of 1500-2000m. That's about max LOS around Fulda.