NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think a conventional war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO would have looked like in, say, 1987? Who would have won?

I think the Soviet forces in DDR and the NVA would have been able to smash through BRD in days. Of course it would depend a lot on how long both sides had been prepared, wheather NATO could muster its forces. With the superiority of the Soviet army and supported by its Warsaw Pact allies I think the Warsaw Pact would be able to overrun all of NATO Europe, except maybe the British Isles.

This is of course just speculation, but I think for example Red Storm Rising underestimates the Soviet forces(not mentioning its allies war effort). NATO did have air superiority, but with the massive ground forces the Warsaw Pact had it is questionable if that would have been enough.

It would be interesting to find out what would happen if the Warsaw Pact would have occupied all of Western Europe, except the non-NATO nations. Would the US launch a nuclear strike on the Soviet Union, thus triggering a nuclear war? Would they just try to negotiate a peace? Would it become the modern version of ww2 britain, too strong to be conquered but too weak to strike a decisive blow on its enemy?

On the other hand if NATO succesfully defeated the Warsaw Pact I would assume DDR would be reunited with BRD(the opposite would likely be done if the Warsaw Pact won). Would the Soviet Union republics be split up, the Warsaw Pact dissolved, and new western friendly governments be installed?

Do you think that if the Warsaw Pact would have declared war on NATO China would join in? I doubt the 1987 China would be too strong, but it would clearly mean some trouble for Hong Kong.

This is just speculations, but I'd like to hear what others think. Please, relevant posts dealing with the subject.

The WP has the edge.

From the things my brother was telling me from his Soviet Union class, The USSR didn't have the full strength to fight the allied powers of West Germany, France, Britain, USA, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Canada, ect. They wore themselves out during the, what the Soviets refer to as the Great Patriotic War. They exhausted themselves and they probably didn't have the strength to tackle the rest of the world.

So I would say that NATO would've won the war.

From the things my brother was telling me from his Soviet Union class, The USSR didn't have the full strength to fight the allied powers of West Germany, France, Britain, USA, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Canada, ect. They wore themselves out during the, what the Soviets refer to as the Great Patriotic War. They exhausted themselves and they probably didn't have the strength to tackle the rest of the world.

So I would say that NATO would've won the war.

This is over 40 years later.

Germany bounced back to fight another world-war in half that time.

Read red storm rising by tom clancy, that gives a pretty good impression of what would have happened, the soviets had numbers, the nato forces had training and sheer unadultered unwillingness to quit, fight until you die and drop and all that good stuff.

One thing I can't stand about Red Storm Rising is how the Soviets execute droves of generals. We are not talking Stalin here. They might fire a bunch of generals who are inept, but they wouldn't have everyone failing to win the war in one battle shot.

Plus Clancy leaves very bad details over the ground war, he focuses on the naval stuff and Iceland. He also seem to think the Soviets couldn't even break through BRD. Of course Calncy involves too much politics in general in all his work, making his conservative ideals shine through. Clancy does know a lot about naval warfare and ships, but that's what most of his book treats. He ignores the fact that it would be highly unlikely that hoardes of tanks would be thrown with seemingly no artillery support against entrenched armour.

Needless to say it is impossible to come up with the answer to how a war would have ended, since it never took place. We can only guess after reviewing the facts.

On problem both sides would face is the reliability of their allies. Would Romania, Bulgaria, or Hungary refuse to aid the Warsaw Pact, it wouldn't be disaster but very bad PR. Some NATO allies might also stay out, Greece, Turkey, or similar exposed weak nations.

Well, if Civilization II is any indication, the Chinese would use the beginning of a NATO-WP war to launch full scale invasions of South Korea and the eastern Soviet Union.

On problem both sides would face is the reliability of their allies. Would Romania, Bulgaria, or Hungary refuse to aid the Warsaw Pact, it wouldn't be disaster but very bad PR. Some NATO allies might also stay out, Greece, Turkey, or similar exposed weak nations.

I doubt it. Even if they did, it wouldn't matter, as the Soviets alone outnumbered the entire of NATO in military manpower.

But turkeys involvement would not have tipped the scalwe either way, nor would any of the other mentioned nations, American airforce (specifically the mighty warthog) trumps soviet armor, soviet armor trumps european infantry, german armor trumps everybody elses (and I'm american), soviet infantry falls to nato artillery, nato artillery loses to more soviet armor, in the end it would be a stalemate, for as Zhukov said "Quantity has a quality all its own", as opposed to the quality over quantity philosophy venerated by the nato powers.

But turkeys involvement would not have tipped the scalwe either way, nor would any of the other mentioned nations, American airforce (specifically the mighty warthog) trumps soviet armor, soviet armor trumps european infantry, german armor trumps everybody elses (and I'm american), soviet infantry falls to nato artillery, nato artillery loses to more soviet armor, in the end it would be a stalemate, for as Zhukov said "Quantity has a quality all its own", as opposed to the quality over quantity philosophy venerated by the nato powers.

I don't think the USAF would be able to deploy in significant numbers until after the Soviets are well on their way through the Blitzkreig.

The USAF already in Germany wouldn't make much of an impact at first, either...they'd be dealing with at least 3-1 odds against the most sophisticated enemy they've faced since WW2. Don't forget, the Soviets had a *lot* of aircraft that could nearly match what NATO could throw back.

I think the Soviets would smash through Germany, perhaps France and the Low Countries, and it becomes a war of attrition from there, with neither superpower able to invade the other directly.

I doubt it. Even if they did, it wouldn't matter, as the Soviets alone outnumbered the entire of NATO in military manpower.

Yes, but their economy was in shambles, the army was demoralized and damaged by the Afghanistan War, and they could not match the US in any military field save umbers. Combine this with the weak economies of the WP with their ethnic tensions and outdated communications, and it would be a resounding defeat for the WP. They might gain some ground in a blitzkrieg, but England and West Germany would be able to hold off long enough or even reach a stalemate/air victory but as soon as the US moblized and brought its navy, airforce, and troops in to place the battle would be over. The WP could not keep up a long war due to their terrible economy.

Yes, but their economy was in shambles, the army was demoralized and damaged by the Afghanistan War, and they could not match the US in any military field save umbers. Combine this with the weak economies of the WP with their ethnic tensions and outdated communications, and it would be a resounding defeat for the WP. They might gain some ground in a blitzkrieg, but England and West Germany would be able to hold off long enough or even reach a stalemate/air victory but as soon as the US moblized and brought its navy, airforce, and troops in to place the battle would be over. The WP could not keep up a long war due to their terrible economy.

You might have a point there. Wars have historically proven to be good for economies, though :p

1983 would probably be the most interesting year for a match-up, though, I reckon.

Wp had huge numbers of men nato had some nations like Canada (argh scary)

although the battleground of central europe would soon become another Somme a stalemate of tank battlegrounds and vast numbers of russian troops attacking en masse.

Doesn't anyone think it would end with Moscow occupied by NATO?

I wonder wheater China would invade the Soviet Union, granted it would have much to gain. But if the war in Europe would be a success China would be in for some trouble. I believe China would declare neutrality, maybe preparing for the possibility of war. Maybe it could start a war of its own against India while the world is busy with a world war?

I think the defence of West Germany is dependant on what scenario triggers the war. If it is feared for months in advance, NATO could prepare fortifications, or even prepare an attack on East Germany. What country do you think would be most open to nuclear warfare? I doubt anyone would want to launch the first strike, unless it appears they are being conquered.

Maybe the war would end with the French Socialist Republic, The People's Republic of the Netherlands, etc. being formed without an official treaty ending the war or maybe a new Versailles treaty facing the loser.

I don't think the USAF would be able to deploy in significant numbers until after the Soviets are well on their way through the Blitzkreig.

The USAF already in Germany wouldn't make much of an impact at first, either...they'd be dealing with at least 3-1 odds against the most sophisticated enemy they've faced since WW2. Don't forget, the Soviets had a *lot* of aircraft that could nearly match what NATO could throw back.

I think the Soviets would smash through Germany, perhaps France and the Low Countries, and it becomes a war of attrition from there, with neither superpower able to invade the other directly.


The 3-1 would be a bity of a problem but the training for soviet pilots wasn't anywhere near the level of american pilots, that would have cut down the odds to about two to one, the F-16 could easily handle 2-1 odds with limited casualties, also the enemies had less WORKING planes, their maintenance was abysmal in comparison to their capabilities.

Doesn't anyone think it would end with Moscow occupied by NATO?

I wonder wheater China would invade the Soviet Union, granted it would have much to gain. But if the war in Europe would be a success China would be in for some trouble. I believe China would declare neutrality, maybe preparing for the possibility of war. Maybe it could start a war of its own against India while the world is busy with a world war?

I think the defence of West Germany is dependant on what scenario triggers the war. If it is feared for months in advance, NATO could prepare fortifications, or even prepare an attack on East Germany. What country do you think would be most open to nuclear warfare? I doubt anyone would want to launch the first strike, unless it appears they are being conquered.

Maybe the war would end with the French Socialist Republic, The People's Republic of the Netherlands, etc. being formed without an official treaty ending the war or maybe a new Versailles treaty facing the loser.

By 1987 the USSR and China were not on good terms. I fully expect China would take the any opportunity to expand, and a war between NATO and the WP would severly distract the USSR from Chinese aggression until it was far too late.

You might have a point there. Wars have historically proven to be good for economies, though :p
1983 would probably be the most interesting year for a match-up, though, I reckon.

Not in the central planning system of the time. The bureaucracy could not respond to the demands of war production like a free market can.

The best years for a war would have been the late 60's to mid 70's.
The Soviet economy was booming, population was climbing, Communism was spreading, and hundreds of thosands of American troops were stuck in Vietnam, combined with stagflation, an oil shock, and presidential scandals, and the US would be in a weak position to strike back effectively.

NS wouldnt be invented
i beleive the best year would have been 1984/5 they had nearly all of the tech they still have now, back then and would have been able to combat the west, we have to remember the soviet army WAS a big threat, it had perfectly fine MBTs and a lot of weapons at its disposal. the Scuds, T-80/ 72, BM-32s. Shilka , the best Nato had was the first edition M1A1 and British Centurions.

NS wouldnt be invented
i beleive the best year would have been 1984/5 they had nearly all of the tech they still have now, back then and would have been able to combat the west, we have to remember the soviet army WAS a big threat, it had perfectly fine MBTs and a lot of weapons at its disposal. the Scuds, T-80/ 72, BM-32s. Shilka , the best Nato had was the first edition M1A1 and British Centurions.


The Centurion and The M1-A1 are two of the best basic tank platforms ever, along with the German Leopard and Panzer platforms, they were pretty much unstoppable, there is plenty of evidence supporting the A1's superiority over Soviet bloc tech in most of the recent combat engaged in by the US army, the Centurion doesn't have as much support fo its superiority, but it's an all around solid platform, the Leopard and Panzers were among the best tanks ever, whatever else Hitler did for Germany he surely gave them an extremely good group of tank platforms, the best of the time period they were developed in, and the Germans just kept upgrading their already impressive platforms, now their tanks are extremely good theoretical combat platforms (theoretical because off the top of my head I can't come up with a recent action involving German troops, I'm sure there is one, I just don't know about it.).

what im saying is they hadnt got that much variety of tech and MBT , the Panzer, leopard were immensly good, but the sheer number and ability to make thousands upon thousands of tanks gave the WP an advantage. notably they wernt to the same quality but on a 5:1 ratio it would still win.

EDIT: the abrams was basicly an MBT with the chobham armour that gave it the edge, what i said before was it was relativly untested the 80s and still a new vehicle. the centurian was the best AVRE ever made and Israel, i belive, still use it in small numbers, but it was a temperate and desert vehicle, the only winter enviroment it was tested in was in scotland.
also the soviet military still perfered static or towed artillery up untill quite late in the Cold war. they produced these wepaons in large numbers yet again, and a howitzer can be hidden much better than a MBT in ditches.

I'd say that NATO wins after losing most of Germany and possibly mainland Europe. either that or at that point they give it up.

It's like Risk, whenever you invade Europe your armies get spread thin inviting a strategic counterattack by your friends.

what im saying is they hadnt got that much variety of tech and MBT , the Panzer, leopard were immensly good, but the sheer number and ability to make thousands upon thousands of tanks gave the WP an advantage. notably they wernt to the same quality but on a 5:1 ratio it would still win


Quantity has a quality all its own? The main issue with Soviet armies is always training and maintenance, the NATO powers were always better trained and almost always had better maintained equipment, that removes the soviet numbers advantage back down to about 3-1 the Abrams was designed for those kind of odds, in the end NATO would have won, but they would have been hurt in the process, badly hurt, possibly to the point of combat ineffectiveness in ideal circumstances.

Quantity has a quality all its own? The main issue with Soviet armies is always training and maintenance, the NATO powers were always better trained and almost always had better maintained equipment, that removes the soviet numbers advantage back down to about 3-1 the Abrams was designed for those kind of odds, in the end NATO would have won, but they would have been hurt in the process, badly hurt, possibly to the point of combat ineffectiveness in ideal circumstances.

Considering the fire system of a Challenger 2 is revolutionary, it alows the commander to select targets ahead of the gunner and then to automaticly turn the turret to face the target and fire, the commander can select up to 2 targets before the gunner. the most advanced piece of equipment in a M1a1 first edition was the NV and semi auto reloading

Goes to consult book of armanents

EDIT: the abrams was basicly an MBT with the chobham armour that gave it the edge,

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the Abrams doesn't actually have chobham armour, but rather a US version based off what they have been able to glean of the British armour, no?

True or false: the Soviet Union employed pretty much the smallest soldiers it could find to crew their tanks, thus allowing them to have a lower profile and so make smaller targets?

Considering the fire system of a Challenger 2 is revolutionary, it alows the commander to select targets ahead of the gunner and then to automaticly turn the turret to face the target and fire, the commander can select up to 2 targets before the gunner. the most advanced piece of equipment in a M1a1 first edition was the NV and semi auto reloading

Goes to consult book of armanents


The Abrams was not designed around the challenger two, but it was designed to survive against overwhelming soviet armor numbers, they went for quality versus the soviet quantity.

True or false: the Soviet Union employed pretty much the smallest soldiers it could find to crew their tanks, thus allowing them to have a lower profile and so make smaller targets?


I don't believe so.

The thing is, in this scenario, the warsaw pact forces are on the defensive. Soviet forces probably would be able to get through germany, though with very heavy casualties from Franco-american airforces(Britain too, but they are fairly far to send tactical support immediatly, and germany isnt known for its great post-ww2 airforce) and German-american entrenched armour. It would probably run through to BeNeLux, where the british would finally get their airforce in the fight, and start landing forces, while german armour and artillery re-grouped with Anglo-french forces backing them. The allies would win the naval battle, and soon american, british, and french carrier fleets would bring more support to the fight. While having massive numbers, the majority of soviet armour would be the T-72, with a small number of T-80's, but many more T-62's being brought out of reserve units for the invasion. Being on the defensive, the NATO forces would be able to use ATGM's to great success. The major fighting would be in the lower countries and alcase-lorraine, where NATO forces on the defensive would have mostly success against invading soviet forces, while NATO airforce would have field-days against any massive strikes in concentrated places. It would be over fairly quick, because the USSR would realize the only chance to win is to blitzkrieg with massive forces, which would lead to choke-points.

The Abrams was not designed around the challenger two, but it was designed to survive against overwhelming soviet armor numbers, they went for quality versus the soviet quantity.

The Abrams was designed to counter the T-80, but with only a 105mm for the M1(M1a1 deployments are unlikely, most of them would probably be at home by time of warfare, and the fighting over before they could be shipped over).

Ok the M1a1

prototypes in :1978
first off the line :1980 - 30 tanks a month

thermal sights
laser rangefinder
NBC
gun stabilisation
My point here - Unrifled barrel - less accurate and lower velocity. a mistake in my view

Leopard 2

designed -1960
first off line - 1977

german army , dutch army
thermal sights
NBC
laser range finder
amphibious
unsual fire system in which the entire cartridge is combustable allowing for more space after firing.

T-72

into prduction - 1971
deep fording
NBC

lots of variants, command missile launcher, armoured recovery vehicle.

T-80

entered service mid 1980s
fully auto loader
stabalised gun
bigger range of ammo
laser rangefinder
depleted urainium shells
smoke screen/chaff

excellent off road mobilities.

Chieftain Mk5

designed late - 1950s
production -1963
900 produced
best tank in world untill leopard 1 ?
laser range
thermal
variants

overall view
supposing are taking battle in 198

Abrams
the newest best tank here.
only 5 years old, lots of them but untested yet in the field

Leopard 2
reliable tank used in service for many years.
Equal if not better than the Abrams ( at the time)
exported to many "frontline, central europe" nations.

T-80

5 years old , same as the abrams apart from the armour, a fair fight against a conscript army.

Chieftain Mk5

very old, almost obselete?
not many new techs
produced in a low number, although considered for defence rather than attack.


men i call ye to choose your weapon.

oh we seem to be counting on MBTs rather than air and naval aswell , just a note there

Chieftain Mk5

designed late - 1950s
production -1963


Eh? Why not the Challenger Mark I coming into service in '83?

The Abrams was not designed around the challenger two, but it was designed to survive against overwhelming soviet armor numbers, they went for quality versus the soviet quantity.
i wasnt saying it was designed around it, first it couldn't have been as the challenger 2 was later,
i was suggesting the firing speed of an abrams would be as high as that and therefore could take on as many enemy tanks as you sugested.

Eh? Why not the Challenger Mark I coming into service in '83?
oh sorry

chobham armour , defensive tank, suvivability rather than speed.
it doest say much on it
i also suspect the challenger would be the newest tank on the scene and maybe not used as widely as the others.

you also hjave to take into account the fact they will have known that war was imminent and may not have invented the challenger, trying to produce more chieftains.

Fear the Leopard, for it is big and bad. A well designed all around platform capable of taking on just about anything and winning, it is certainly superior to the A1, no longer superior to the most recent model (E1 I think but I may be mistaken) of Abrams versus most recent model of Leopard, but still a formidable weapon.

This is over 40 years later.

Germany bounced back to fight another world-war in half that time.

Big difference between Germany and the USSR!

The USSR is made up of many nations, not one. If push came to shove, The people of these nations wouldn't fight for the communists. They might for abit but they'll turn on their own governments to kick the communists out.

The only nation that would really be fighting, would be the Russians themselves. They won't be able to withstand the combined might of the NATO nations.

i wasnt saying it was designed around it, first it couldn't have been as the challenger 2 was later,
i was suggesting the firing speed of an abrams would be as high as that and therefore could take on as many enemy tanks as you sugested.


I wondered why you mentioned the Challenger 2, now I see what you meant in your reference to the mark 2, but you are right about it taking on overwhelming numbers, it kicked ass and didn't even bother taking names.

The USSR is made up of many nations, not one. If push came to shove, The people of these nations wouldn't fight for the communists. They might for abit but they'll turn on their own governments to kick the communists out.

Ah, just like they did in WWII?

, it kicked ass and didn't even bother taking names.
are you a german army tank commander? you seem to be very convinced on it.

I don't think the USAF would be able to deploy in significant numbers until after the Soviets are well on their way through the Blitzkreig.

You forgot about the British, French, German, Italian airforces. They would've assisted in stopping the Red Air Force. Besides, we had numerous fighters over there to begin with.

The USAF already in Germany wouldn't make much of an impact at first, either...they'd be dealing with at least 3-1 odds against the most sophisticated enemy they've faced since WW2. Don't forget, the Soviets had a *lot* of aircraft that could nearly match what NATO could throw back.

They weren't sophisticated at all. The US was more sophisticated than the Red Army was. The Red Army won on one thing, manpower, over the technology of Germany. Now couple technology with numbers on NATO and the Red Army is finished. The Red navy is non-existent so NATO would have full control of the seas.

I think the Soviets would smash through Germany, perhaps France and the Low Countries, and it becomes a war of attrition from there, with neither superpower able to invade the other directly.

I highly doubt this considering Germany was heavily armed by both sides so neither side had a distinct advantage. Any Red Army attack would stall allowing time for full mobilization of the NATO military forces.

You might have a point there. Wars have historically proven to be good for economies, though :p

1983 would probably be the most interesting year for a match-up, though, I reckon.

Then the soviets would be fighting on 2 fronts.

Doesn't anyone think it would end with Moscow occupied by NATO?

I do!

Moscow would've fallen to Germany in WWII save one thing, the weather. Germany launched their invasion to late.

NS wouldnt be invented
i beleive the best year would have been 1984/5 they had nearly all of the tech they still have now, back then and would have been able to combat the west, we have to remember the soviet army WAS a big threat, it had perfectly fine MBTs and a lot of weapons at its disposal. the Scuds, T-80/ 72, BM-32s. Shilka , the best Nato had was the first edition M1A1 and British Centurions.

If it broke out in 84-85, the Soviets were still fighting in Afghanistan. Not good to fight on 2 fronts.

The USSR didnt have good technology in ww2? I hope you didn't mean to imply that. The T-34, IS-2 were fine tanks. PPSh-41, maybe a copy from a finnish design, but still great. The Mig's, La's, and Yakk's(the later productions of these anyways) were great fighters, while the Ilyushin series were excellent bombers and fighter-bombers, the Il-2 much better at being a fighter-bomber than any other aircraft at the time(and I am a big P-38 fan). The Soviet union in ww2 had fine technology, they just didnt have experienced troops and officers. But through the course of the war, they learned, and began obliterating germany in late 1942 and beyond.

I do!

Moscow would've fallen to Germany in WWII save one thing, the weather.
and their boots and helmets.

are you a german army tank commander? you seem to be very convinced on it.


Nope American, but it is a fine piece of work, I'll say this for Germany they sure are wizards at anything involving engineering, they're the reason I'm joining the army, just on the off chance that I might get to use one of those truly great machines of theirs.

Nope American, but it is a fine piece of work, I'll say this for Germany they sure are wizards at anything involving engineering, they're the reason I'm joining the army, just on the off chance that I might get to use one of those truly great machines of theirs.
builders engineers, mechanics, anything industrial.

I do!

Moscow would've fallen to Germany in WWII save one thing, the weather. Germany launched their invasion to late.

Gonna have to say: NO!!!!

The Russian people have always had a surprising amount of fervent patriotism that has kept them fighting long after most nations would have given up. They did it to Hitler, they did it to Napoleon, they did it to the Kaiser and they would have done it to the West too.

And for all you "our quality can take their quantity": so why did the US make it their standard policy to use nuclear weapons first?

My take on this is that the WP nations would smash through West Germany and the Low Countries before any troops from the American mainland could be mobilised. There would be Socialist revolutions in France and possibly Spain. If either of those had succeeded entirely before the other was defeated, the socialists in the mid-revolution country would be successful. The Med would become a deathground, probably being won by the West due to the superiority of British and American air and naval power, but this probably couldn't stop the Soviets overrunning Italy, Austria, etc. The only chance the West would then have in coinventional war would be a combimed action between NATO and China, or a massive uprising in the Eastern Bloc sparked by the decreasing in Soviet retaliatory ability.

I suggest you read up on Soviet Union History. The Soviet Union should've lost but the German Army started Operation Barbarossa to late. They got caught unprepared for the Soviet Winter which came early and thus didn't have the proper clothing for a winter campaign. The front stalled JUST OUTSIDE OF MOSCOW!!! This gave time for the Soviet military to come up as re-enforcements and thus were able to toss them back.

The only thing that saved the soviet union was the sheer force of numbers and weather. That's it.

I suggest you read up on Soviet Union History. The Soviet Union should've lost but the German Army started Operation Barbarossa to late. They got caught unprepared for the Soviet Winter which came early and thus didn't have the proper clothing for a winter campaign. The front stalled JUST OUTSIDE OF MOSCOW!!! This gave time for the Soviet military to come up as re-enforcements and thus were able to toss them back.

The only thing that saved the soviet union was the sheer force of numbers and weather. That's it.
the germans would never have run the entire nation, communists from siberia and far reaches of the Union would have rebelled against the occupiers, the army would have been sucked into asia to defend it, and the german heartland would have been left open to attack. from the West.

And for all you "our quality can take their quantity": so why did the US make it their standard policy to use nuclear weapons first?

Because they bought the propaganda that the Soviet Union put out that they were actually bigger than they actually were.

My take on this is that the WP nations would smash through West Germany and the Low Countries before any troops from the American mainland could be mobilised. There would be Socialist revolutions in France and possibly Spain. If either of those had succeeded entirely before the other was defeated, the socialists in the mid-revolution country would be successful. The Med would become a deathground, probably being won by the West due to the superiority of British and American air and naval power, but this probably couldn't stop the Soviets overrunning Italy, Austria, etc. The only chance the West would then have in coinventional war would be a combimed action between NATO and China, or a massive uprising in the Eastern Bloc sparked by the decreasing in Soviet retaliatory ability.

It wouldn't have happened. You are forgetting the fact that the US had roughly a couple of hundred thousand troops in Germany. Britain and France also had a large number of troops in Germany. Germany would be a massive battleground but the Soviets wouldn't have just been able to smash through them like straw through a telephone pole in a tornado.

2. Allied tech and training was better than their Soviet Compatriots.

3. Uprisings against the communists would've also taken place and that would've severely disrupt the Soviet line of supplies as well as sapp military strength to put those down.

4. If it took place in the 80s, they were still in Afghanistan. They had alot of forces in there to take it but they failed and it cost them miserably.

the germans would never have run the entire nation, communists from siberia and far reaches of the Union would have rebelled against the occupiers, the army would have been sucked into asia to defend it, and the german heartland would have been left open to attack. from the West.

They almost had Moscow completely surrounded. This would've prevented Stalin from getting out.

As for the west, there weren't any troops from Britain on Mainland Europe for sometime. Unless they take the African troops and came up through Italy. That would've been the only way because it would've taken time to train military forces for the landings at Normandy as well as getting the transports for such an invasion.

I suggest you read up on Soviet Union History. The Soviet Union should've lost but the German Army started Operation Barbarossa to late. They got caught unprepared for the Soviet Winter which came early and thus didn't have the proper clothing for a winter campaign. The front stalled JUST OUTSIDE OF MOSCOW!!! This gave time for the Soviet military to come up as re-enforcements and thus were able to toss them back.

The only thing that saved the soviet union was the sheer force of numbers and weather. That's it.

And how long was the siege of Stalingrad? 6 months or more? Hmm, OK, now I get your point....

The rest of what you say is valid, but the fact is that Russian people generally have demonstrated a lot more tenacity than their Western counterparts.

It wouldn't have happened. You are forgetting the fact that the US had roughly a couple of hundred thousand troops in Germany.

Sure, because those could've stood up to the Red Army.

4. If it took place in the 80s, they were still in Afghanistan. They had alot of forces in there to take it but they failed and it cost them miserably.

That failed for various reasons, including the spirit of the Afghan people and Amewrican assistance. Once the USA is totally committed to the hypothetical war in Europe, the Afghan campaign would have picked up again.

Gonna have to say: NO!!!!

The Russian people have always had a surprising amount of fervent patriotism that has kept them fighting long after most nations would have given up. They did it to Hitler, they did it to Napoleon, they did it to the Kaiser and they would have done it to the West too.

And for all you "our quality can take their quantity": so why did the US make it their standard policy to use nuclear weapons first?

My take on this is that the WP nations would smash through West Germany and the Low Countries before any troops from the American mainland could be mobilised. There would be Socialist revolutions in France and possibly Spain. If either of those had succeeded entirely before the other was defeated, the socialists in the mid-revolution country would be successful. The Med would become a deathground, probably being won by the West due to the superiority of British and American air and naval power, but this probably couldn't stop the Soviets overrunning Italy, Austria, etc. The only chance the West would then have in coinventional war would be a combimed action between NATO and China, or a massive uprising in the Eastern Bloc sparked by the decreasing in Soviet retaliatory ability.


The reason for america planning to use nukes early in the war was predicated on the precept that the ussr would be the agressors and have already threatened or actually used nukes, as for the soviets overrunning Germany like that, I once again reference the leopard and other troops and tanks fielded by west germany and her allies, also the east germans would have revolted at the first chance they got, the act of removing soviet forces from germany for a general assault would be a very good chance for a revolution to succeed.

The reason for america planning to use nukes early in the war was predicated on the precept that the ussr would be the agressors and have already threatened or actually used nukes, as for the soviets overrunning Germany like that, I once again reference the leopard and other troops and tanks fielded by west germany and her allies, also the east germans would have revolted at the first chance they got, the act of removing soviet forces from germany for a general assault would be a very good chance for a revolution to succeed.

The reason the USA planned to nuke first was to deter the Soviets from launching any kind of conventional attack. The Soviet leaders always made it known that they would not be the first to launch nuclear weapons.

As for the East Germans revolting...you're so wrong it makes me want to cry a little.

And how long was the siege of Stalingrad? 6 months or more? Hmm, OK, now I get your point....

And Leningrad was over a year. I said sheer number of people is what saved the Soviets as well as the poxy weather.

The rest of what you say is valid, but the fact is that Russian people generally have demonstrated a lot more tenacity than their Western counterparts.

You never seen an American in a fight have you?

[qute]Sure, because those could've stood up to the Red Army.[/quote]

Duh!

That failed for various reasons, including the spirit of the Afghan people and Amewrican assistance. Once the USA is totally committed to the hypothetical war in Europe, the Afghan campaign would have picked up again.

Nope, they failed because of Guirella warfare! They never counted on them to be as big a threat as they were. And yes, the US, Britain, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and others helped them defeat the Soviet Union.

The reason the USA planned to nuke first was to deter the Soviets from launching any kind of conventional attack. The Soviet leaders always made it known that they would not be the first to launch nuclear weapons.

As for the East Germans revolting...you're so wrong it makes me want to cry a little.


and when the wall came down I'm sure that was mourning you saw, not people rejoicing over their freedom.

The reason the USA planned to nuke first was to deter the Soviets from launching any kind of conventional attack. The Soviet leaders always made it known that they would not be the first to launch nuclear weapons.

And the US said we wouldn't be the first to use them against the Soviets either.

As for the East Germans revolting...you're so wrong it makes me want to cry a little.

Proof Please?

if east germany was nuked the reaction would have been different , people would feel betrayed by the west who had helped them , and would turn on them and join the fight against america

Realize that by 1987 Gorbachev had already cut alot of the military's funding. The soviet military wasn't up to par.

and when the wall came down I'm sure that was mourning you saw, not people rejoicing over their freedom.

Whoops, was I forgetting that the Berlin Wall went all the way across Germany? Yes, I was forgetting that :rolleyes:

In case you need me to clarify, the East Berliners were totally different from the remaining East Germans in their political outlook

You never seen an American in a fight have you?

Team America: Fuck Yeah!!111!!!!1!"! :rolleyes:

And have you ever seen a rifle-Russian wasted on cheap Vodka and stuffed full of so much propaganda that he can't open his mouth without saying "I love the motherland" while the evil invaders pour in to his nation to steal his food and take his drink? Have you? HAVE YOU!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Oh man, the blind patriots are out in force tonight.

Team America: Fuck Yeah!!111!!!!1!"! :rolleyes:

And have you ever seen a rifle-Russian wasted on cheap Vodka and stuffed full of so much propaganda that he can't open his mouth without saying "I love the motherland" while the evil invaders pour in to his nation to steal his food and take his drink? Have you? HAVE YOU!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Oh man, the blind patriots are out in force tonight.

Nah, I just know more about the Soviet Union it seems, than you.

Whoops, was I forgetting that the Berlin Wall went all the way across Germany? Yes, I was forgetting that :rolleyes:
.
im sorry to say but it did actually, if not concrete but outposts and military bases covered the border

And the US said we wouldn't be the first to use them against the Soviets either.

Uhhh................................................................................................ . .................................................................................................... ....
.................................................................................................... ..
.................................................................................................... ..
.................................................................................................... ..
.................................................................................................... ..
.................................................................................................... ..
.................................................................................................... ..
.................................................................................................... ..
.................................................................................................... ..
.................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... ....
.................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... ....
.................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... ......
.................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... ................................................
no.

Uhhh no.

Then why do I know that the Soviet Military was incapable of fighting a full scale war against NATO and you don't? WHy do I know the military situation better than you?

How much of the Soviet Union do you actually know.

Then why do I know that the Soviet Military was incapable of fighting a full scale war against NATO and you don't? WHy do I know the military situation better than you?

How much of the Soviet Union do you actually know.

I know I can read. Sure are adding a lot of weight to your argument there, genius.

I know I can read. Sure are adding a lot of weight to your argument there, genius.

I can read too. I can also do research. Also, my Soviet Union professor is from Lithuania so he has more experience than any one of us.

I can read too. I can also do research. Also, my Soviet Union professor is from Lithuania so he has more experience than any one of us.

Not more than me, because I am a former General in the Red Army. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it, capitalist dog.

can we just stop the flamebaiting here, i can sense it., and see it

Warsaw Pact!
Because they had the ability to use western supplies through adaptors.
They had River crossing equipment
Only America could do anything and they are/were to far away
Numbers

The Pact would have won a conventional war easily. That's why we had so many cocking nukes. Duh.

The Russian's just had a completely different military philosophy. We insist that every trooper should be top-quality, over $100,000 spent on each trooper before he even sees combat. Each tank should be beautifully constructed, with full radio and cassette systems, and possibly a late Micheangelo mureal on the inside of the turret. All the planes should have the finest and latest in electronic equipment.

The Russian's look at this and laughed themselves sick. They spent $1000 on training and equipment per trooper, and the most expensive item they had was their coat. this means they could afford to set up 100 men for every one that NATO had. Their tanks were designed to run exactly like the tractors conscripts used at home, so they didn't need any training. The planes were the same again; sure, they couldn't stand up to a 1 on 1 fight, but that's why they deploy 10 MIGs to each US fighter. They made one model with analogue computers, so that they could fly threw an EMP following nuclear detonation completely uneffected, while US planes would crash when their computers gave out.

Oh, the US would definately have been the first to use nukes. They were the ones who threatened to, all the time; and let's not forget that the US WAS the first (and indeed only) country stupid enough to use nuclear weaponry when we barely understood the longterm effects.

The Russians were also considerably more tenacious, had a larger population to draw conscripts from, and had absolutely no objections to forcing ANYONE to fight. Russian troops stood and fought in 1914 when they had 1 gun between 3. And that was before the soviet union, the enormous technological and industrial advances, and the fact that if you run away then you've nowhere to go and your commanders will shoot you. Just living in Russia in the first place tends to make you a stubborn bastard, really.

The Berlin Wall didn't go all the way across Germany. Berlin was well within the Soviet half. The Berlin wall went all the way round the NATO half of Berlin. The border was gaurded as well, but was completely unconected to the Berlin wall. Perhaps a little knowledge of Geography would come in handy if you want to argue about it.

Oh, and Corneliu hasn't got the slightest clue what he's talking about. He's just spouting his typical "The US can't never lose no damned war" cack. It's people like him that make me worry what kind of rubbish they teach in US schools nowadays.

It would have been a vicious, bloody fight. It would have ended with tactical nuclear exchanges and a negotiated peace.

NATO could not have initiated the fighting as too many fractured opinions from its members nations would have eventually leaked news of any such plans to the press who would have gladly trumpeted them for the world to see. Without complete surprise NATO would never have attacked the Warsaw Pact.
There was a slim chance that the Warsaw Pact would have attacked, slim. MAD was just and is just too powerful of a deterrent (spl?). If they had attacked their initial attacks would have been successful simply through sheer numbers, however they would have taken terribl casualties due to the quick air superiority that NATO would have acheived over W. Germany.
NATO forces would have lost large amounts of men and equipment primarily from massive artillery barrages. W. Germany would have been lost but the line would have stabilized somewhere in the low countries and N.E. France. Had they not NATO would have engaged in tactical nuke strikes against Warsaw Pact formations. Warsaw Pact would retaliate, things would escalate until near a full scale nuclear war at which point both sides would have backed off and talked.
Had lines stabilized in N.E. France then NATO would seek to go on the offensive, it would take a hell of a lot of time to build up forces to do so. They probably would have used tac nukes to blow holes in Soviet lines, leading to the same conlusion as above.

All of this assumes that the Chicoms didn't become involved, trying for a land grab in the eastern USSR or that the Soviets did not invade the middle east which would change the senario considerably.

I would say, in the end, NATO would win. Initially, the Soviets would have the advantage, due to sheer size. Germany would probably fall. France is a big question mark, however. Assuming no nukes were used, most likely the Soviet advance could initially conquer all of continental Europe. However, that is where things would start to fall apart.

1. Technology. While it does limit numbers, the massive spending on the NATO side produces key advantages. A fine example is the First Gulf War. American M1 Abrams were heavily outnumbered by Iraqis using Russian technology, but they still came out almost unharmed and completely victorious. Technology's main advantage is range, as the NATO side can strike from a larger distance.

2. Bureacracy. The Soviet Union was mired almost completely in bureacracy. It caused a huge amount of confusion on the battlefield, and lead often to the appointment of party officials to leadership positions. This causes disasters on the battlefield, as the generals were basically Party loyalists, not capable leaders. Also, the heavy centralized control lead to constant meddling by the upper Party officials, much to the disgruntlement of local commanders.

3. Loyalty. Does anyone here think that the fall of the Iron Curtain was a sporadic, random awakening, and the members of the Warsaw Pact were in total devotion to Communism before that? If the Warsaw Pact succeeded in taking Europe, it's resources would be spread thin. Then, members would simply begin to revolt. Poland is a fine example. The Polish never truly accepted Communism, and were the first to overthrow it in the Soviet bloc. Who is to say they wouldn't be the first to break free of the Warsaw Pact? Who is to say the Poles would simply march and die under the meatgrinder tactics of the Russians? And what about all the nations that are today independent republics?

4. Britain-The Soviets would have a nightmare capturing Britain. It could be fortified heavily, defended by a powerful American-British navy, and would be isolated from the rest of Europe. A land invasion of Britain would be a sheer nightmare, especially with Soviet forces attempting to keep uprisings on the continent down.

Just though id point out that in the early 1980's the U.S military conducted a computer simulated war between Nato and the Warsaw pact.

Nato lost

Just though id point out that in the early 1980's the U.S military conducted a computer simulated war between Nato and the Warsaw pact.

Nato lost

Well sure but the NATO conducted such computer simulations all the time including different factors and senarios in each model. Sometimes NATO lost and sometimes it won. There was not just one single simulation to end all simulations. NATO still does the same thing to this day.

Obviously

Although the results were based on a lot of simulations and it was determined that America would not be able to supply Europe fast enough to stop the WP from defeating Nato forces

Obviously

Although the results were based on a lot of simulations and it was determined that America would not be able to supply Europe fast enough to stop the WP from defeating Nato forces

thus the use of tactical nukes.

Not more than me, because I am a former General in the Red Army. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it, capitalist dog.

Oh....

very nice. BTW: your vaunted Red Army was in shambles after World War 2. Your military wasn't up to standards. The only reason why you managed to defeat the Germans wasn't through tactics or technology! It was because of weather and numbers. Moscow should've fallen. To bad it didn't.

I wished that Patton had his way and rearmed the Germans to toss at you Bolsheviks. You would've had your heads handed to you on a plate.

Your vaunted Red Army was also to tired to fight. They didn't want to fight. I suggest you read the reports coming out of your headquarters that have been declassified and open up your perjudice eyes.

BTW: NATO would've won.

I have a Ukrainian guy in my history class. He was in the Soviet army in the '80's. He said that the army was mostly a joke. Morale was low, the guys were always getting drunk, their training was bad, and their maintenance was horrible. I say that the Soviets would make some short gains, but NATO would win as soon as the US could start getting supplies over.

I have a Ukrainian guy in my history class. He was in the Soviet army in the '80's. He said that the army was mostly a joke. Morale was low, the guys were always getting drunk, their training was bad, and their maintenance was horrible. I say that the Soviets would make some short gains, but NATO would win as soon as the US could start getting supplies over.

Yep! This about sums it up!

Couple it with the fact that most nations under Soviet control would've revolted if a war erupted and you have the makings of disaster for the Red Army and the USSR as a whole.

The Soviets would obviously make immediate, massive gains, maybe even the whole of Continental Europe. But it would be unsustainable, due to technology, morale, revolts, tactics, bureacracy, etc. It would be WW2 all over again, with the Russians playing the role of the Germans.

This is over 40 years later.

Germany bounced back to fight another world-war in half that time.

Yeah, but the germans got their a**es kicked in both wars.

Please, keep this serious.

I want to point out that by the mid 1980s the USSR had 5 million men in their army. 5 million. When Andropov took command of the Soviet Union the civilian economy was in shambles, but the military was flourish. All the industrial wizards worked for the military industry and space program. The successors of Brezhnev started to deal with the problem. Andropov at first but soon he and Chernenko were dead and Gorbachev was the big dog. He did weaken the military sector, when the Union broke I believe that the manpower of the army was at slightly less than 3 million. These were the number of men armed at all times.

In Afghanistan the Soviet Union deployed an army numbering slightly more than 100,000 men. In the case of a war in the west it is likely that the Socialist Afghani government would have had to stand on its own during the European war.

Anyway... Saddam had old soviet equipment, B and C class material. As for the Soviet allies, DDR would have stayed loyal at the nice prospect of unifying Germany. The other WP countries are doubtfull, however DDR had the finest army of the same quality of the Soviet. Romania, Bulgaria, and maybe Hungary might declare neutrality. It is questionable but it would most likely depend on the reason the war started, NATO might be aggressors.

I am a follower of the logic that the USSR would overrun West Germany, Benelux might be neutral(again depends how the war started) but the Soviets did have such huge amounts of tanks. I have the numbers somewhere, but think of Russia's current severely cut down military(I am fairly sure they still have the largest tank army) times a bunch.

Russians had their patriotism. The Soviet Union was by many Soviets just Russia, counting mainly west of the Urals and outside of the Caucasus. The Navy of the Soviet Union was big, although NATO had a bigger one. Soviet subs would harass NATO ships supported by aircraft while the ground forces pound NATO in Germany. Germans would most likely not make much resistance once the military was defeated, Germans have never shown much partisan activity against foreign invaders.

I think marxist terrorists in BRD would try to undermine the war effort and maybe even be able to take over some town governments, I doubt they would do any real difference.

The Soviet tanks were excellent. Granted not any Leopards, but still good quality. You seem to think that the Soviets and their allies would send hoardes of infantrymen running with bolt action rifles against machine gun nests. The Soviet army was fully motorised. I firmly think that a conventional war would be won by the Warsaw Pact, but NATO may choose to launch a first strike(maybe ending civilisation as we know it).

For security border guard units and reservists would probably watch the Chinese border, the Sino-Soviet border clashes in the 1960s probably was enough to convince China not to interfer(in a retaliation for a Chinese ambush the Soviets attacked Chinese forces killing 800 and loosing a handfull of men) Even though relations were cold the more liberal leaders of China would most likely claim it to be a war of imperialism/capitalism or just sigh.

Even if China would break the border guards, they might be delayed long enough for western units to redeploy and after a quick victory sign a status quo peace.

Of course no simulation can 100% accurately tell us what a war would have looked like and no one can with certainty say what it would have looked like. It's kinda like predicting the weather for the next week, and then never finding out how it acctually turned out. Kinda.

I have a Ukrainian guy in my history class. He was in the Soviet army in the '80's. He said that the army was mostly a joke. Morale was low, the guys were always getting drunk, their training was bad, and their maintenance was horrible. I say that the Soviets would make some short gains, but NATO would win as soon as the US could start getting supplies over.


The US forces in Germany during the 80s were a joke as well. Heroin abuse was rife, internal violence was everywhere, and theft was rampant. The US army was causing itself 4 fatalities a day on average in West Germany, half of them drug-related. In one month, over $50,000 worth of equipment was stolen from the stores of various bases.

My one teacher once told me that she was pen pals with an ex-Soviet soldier in charge of missile repairs. He said that he filed false reports on them, as he was too afraid to examine them, for fear that they may blow up.
The Soviet Union had some weapons that they clearly didn't know how to use. However, who would win depends on the time period. The US would win in Europe only if war broke out in the 1980s. However, it would easily win a war in the Atlantic and the Pacific against the Soviets, and asside maybe a few incursions into Alaska, the US would be unharmed.
In a nuclear war, however, the USSR would be annihilated. There were too many intermediate range missiles near the USSR, and while the USSR could clobber a few American cities, they'd fail to get them all in time.

My one teacher once told me that she was pen pals with an ex-Soviet soldier in charge of missile repairs. He said that he filed false reports on them, as he was too afraid to examine them, for fear that they may blow up.
The Soviet Union had some weapons that they clearly didn't know how to use. However, who would win depends on the time period. The US would win in Europe only if war broke out in the 1980s. However, it would easily win a war in the Atlantic and the Pacific against the Soviets, and asside maybe a few incursions into Alaska, the US would be unharmed.
In a nuclear war, however, the USSR would be annihilated. There were too many intermediate range missiles near the USSR, and while the USSR could clobber a few American cities, they'd fail to get them all in time.

Don't forget the USSR had far more long-range nuclear bombers than NATO. It was their sole advantage in the nuclear field. But the entire reason that NATO concentrated so hard on nuclear weaponry was because the USSR would have clobbered them, very thoroughly, in conventional warfare. NATO was split across three continents, where as the USSR was a vast solid block with all it's troops available at once.

Don't forget the USSR had far more long-range nuclear bombers than NATO. It was their sole advantage in the nuclear field. But the entire reason that NATO concentrated so hard on nuclear weaponry was because the USSR would have clobbered them, very thoroughly, in conventional warfare. NATO was split across three continents, where as the USSR was a vast solid block with all it's troops available at once.

How many USSR nations would have uprisings if the Soviet Union attacked? I could name a few. This would've complicated everything because not only would they have NATO to deal with but also an uprising/insurgency in the territory they had.

WP forces would have penetrated maybe halfway into Germany until both sides ammo ran out then it would basically drone on like that.

The Soviet Union had(Russia still has) the most impressive ICBMs in the world. The Soviet Union(now Russia) can destroy the world without actually using bombers. A nuclear war would result in MAD(Mutual Assured Destruction). Who on Earth thought the US was better at rocketry? Look at the international cooperation in space(russian scientists and US money). The few anti-ballistic missile defences were(and still might be) all but useless against a nuclear barrage. The number of warheads per missile were more than the anti-ballistic missiles. The new Topol M system is again proving that Russians are kings of rocketry. Shortly: The Soviet Union had the capacity to destroy Earth several times over, just like NATO.

I don't see how some can claim that a reaction to a war would be an international revolution against the Soviet Union and its allies(Most Soviet citizens opposed the collapse of the Soviet Union). DDR was faithfully Russian friendly(it still wanted to unify Germany).

I believe you underestimate patriotism. The Soviet Union might become united in a second great patriotic war, mobilising the population against NATO.

The NATO forces in continental Europe were not strong enough to halt a full Soviet led invasion by the Warsaw Pact, many NATO countries would be weak or slow to react.

The Soviet Union might launch submarine attacks against NATO in the pacific to force NATO to divert resources to the pacific. A popular uprising in the USSR might be as likely as uprisings accross western Europe. The collapse of the communist bloc would most likely not have occured if Andropov would have lived longer. Or Gorbachev should have been more gradual with his reforms(the collapse of the USSR has increased international stability rather than decrease it).

You forgot about the British, French, German, Italian airforces. They would've assisted in stopping the Red Air Force. Besides, we had numerous fighters over there to begin with.

Even so, they're still vastly outnumbered. And a lot of the European equipment is no real match for the front-line Soviet equipment- eg., F-104's, F-5's.

They weren't sophisticated at all. The US was more sophisticated than the Red Army was. The Red Army won on one thing, manpower, over the technology of Germany. Now couple technology with numbers on NATO and the Red Army is finished. The Red navy is non-existent so NATO would have full control of the seas.

The Red Airforce uses equipment that the US have never fought. Russian MiGs are tougher than Iraqi or Libyan MiGs. Russian tanks are tougher than their corresponding export versions. Their equipment is greater than anything the US has ever faced.

The Red Navy was non-existent, eh? They had some 400+ submarines in service, and a large surface fleet. While the US does have the edge, the threat the Red Navy posed was hardly 'non-existent'.

I highly doubt this considering Germany was heavily armed by both sides so neither side had a distinct advantage. Any Red Army attack would stall allowing time for full mobilization of the NATO military forces.
I don't know...the Russians had a *lot* of troops on the East/West German border, and a lot more that could be diverted from other areas for a blitzkreig. I don't think the German army could stand up to it.

Not in the central planning system of the time. The bureaucracy could not respond to the demands of war production like a free market can.

I really disagree there. If production is centralised, in war-time, the Government has a *much* greater say in what resources go to war-production than in a free-market economy. Planned economies can devote massive amounts of resources to military needs which a free-market economy would collapse under. The USA has to say, "we need you to produce this, and we'll pay you this. Acceptable?" to its contractors and yet still find a source of funding (taxes)...the USSR could say "We need this many of this tank. We need them by this date. We supply the resources. Now make them."

The 3-1 would be a bity of a problem but the training for soviet pilots wasn't anywhere near the level of american pilots, that would have cut down the odds to about two to one, the F-16 could easily handle 2-1 odds with limited casualties, also the enemies had less WORKING planes, their maintenance was abysmal in comparison to their capabilities.

The maintenance is abysmal now...back then it was quite reasonable. The training they had is also nevertheless better than anything else the US had come up against.

Even so, they're still vastly outnumbered. And a lot of the European equipment is no real match for the front-line Soviet equipment- eg., F-104's, F-5's.

Would you care to prove this particular statement? We are talking about the '80s aren't we? In the 80s, we had the F-14, F-15, and the F-16s in production. Not to mention the F-18s I believe. They were much better fighters than the F-104s and F-5s. Not to mention we were giving these fighters to our European Allies and they were also coming up with their own planes to fight the Soviets too. The European Equipment was better than the F-104s and F-5s.

The Red Airforce uses equipment that the US have never fought. Russian MiGs are tougher than Iraqi or Libyan MiGs. Russian tanks are tougher than their corresponding export versions. Their equipment is greater than anything the US has ever faced.

Wrong again! The US did fight Russian Migs in North Korea and utterly destroyed them. The kill ration per plane was astronomical. The Russian Tanks didn't match up well with the US Tanks. The Soviet Equipment might have been good, but the US's equipment was better.

The Red Navy was non-existent, eh? They had some 400+ submarines in service, and a large surface fleet. While the US does have the edge, the threat the Red Navy posed was hardly 'non-existent'.

Yes it was non-existent. I suggest you take alook at Soviet Geography! Look where most of their fleet was stationed at? Vladivastock for one. Yes, they had a navy but it wasn't as good as the US's Navy. As for the threat of the Red Navy, it really didn't pose a threat because they still would've had to get past the British Fleet as well as other NATO fleets. Their submarines were good but they too were no match for the United States. The US did have better sub and surface ship technology. Remember that the Soviet Union never had a carrier perse.

I don't know...the Russians had a *lot* of troops on the East/West German border, and a lot more that could be diverted from other areas for a blitzkreig. I don't think the German army could stand up to it.

The US and Allies had a *lot* of troops on the East/West German Border, and a lot more that could be diverted from other areas for a defense. It wasn't just the German Army that was in Germany but hundreds of thousands of US soldiers and tens of thousands of British and French too.

I really disagree there. If production is centralised, in war-time, the Government has a *much* greater say in what resources go to war-production than in a free-market economy. Planned economies can devote massive amounts of resources to military needs which a free-market economy would collapse under. The USA has to say, "we need you to produce this, and we'll pay you this. Acceptable?" to its contractors and yet still find a source of funding (taxes)...the USSR could say "We need this many of this tank. We need them by this date. We supply the resources. Now make them."

Then the USSR economy would've collapsed that much sooner.


The maintenance is abysmal now...back then it was quite reasonable. The training they had is also nevertheless better than anything else the US had come up against.

In an actual war or are we talking about war games as well. The Brits were pretty tenacious in fighters as well as the Germans and the French.

Would you care to prove this particular statement? We are talking about the '80s aren't we? In the 80s, we had the F-14, F-15, and the F-16s in production. Not to mention the F-18s I believe. They were much better fighters than the F-104s and F-5s. Not to mention we were giving these fighters to our European Allies and they were also coming up with their own planes to fight the Soviets too. The European Equipment was better than the F-104s and F-5s.

The only one of those aircraft you listed that was used by European air-forces at that time was the F-16A. Actually, i'm not even sure if they did have them at that time...the first might have been delivered around '88 or '89. Norway or the Netherlands were the first to acquire them, I believe. Regardless. The F-16A doesn't have air-to-air radar (it doesn't become a useful multi-role fighter until the F-16C comes along) and thus isn't up to competing with the latest MiG's. The USSR has the MiG-29, MiG-31 and Su-27 by this stage, don't forget. They even have the upgraded and far superior MiG-29M.

The F-15 is present with the USAF in Germany (and a few nations like Israel and Japan), but with no European airforces. The F-14 and F-18 aren't used by any European NATO nations either.

The best things European air-forces can field are F-4's, Tornadoes, and the Mirage 2000. Decent enough aircraft, but nothing with a vast edge over the Russian equipment.

Wrong again! The US did fight Russian Migs in North Korea and utterly destroyed them. The kill ration per plane was astronomical. The Russian Tanks didn't match up well with the US Tanks. The Soviet Equipment might have been good, but the US's equipment was better.

Having looked up the involvement of the 64th Fighter Aviation Group (the main Soviet squadron of the Korean war) I found wildly varying results. The Soviets claimed kills of 1300 aircraft, with losses of some 200 of their own, while the UN forces claim kills of 800 with losses of around 200 of their own (They admit losing over 1000 aircraft but claim that AA is the main cause of loss. Impossible to determine if this is true. The UN forces also don't list aircraft damaged beyond use as "destroyed", whereas the Russians listed their aircraft that were written off as destroyed.) . It doesn't add up and we can't rely on those to prove which side is superior. The "astronomical" kill rate that the US got was against North Korean and Chinese pilots that had exceptionally poor training.

Anyhow, I will say that the MiG-15 was superior to the F-86. It was faster, could outclimb the F-86, and carried cannon in comparison to the machineguns carried by it's American counterpart (at least until the "F" series upgrade).

Yes it was non-existent. I suggest you take alook at Soviet Geography! Look where most of their fleet was stationed at? Vladivastock for one. Yes, they had a navy but it wasn't as good as the US's Navy. As for the threat of the Red Navy, it really didn't pose a threat because they still would've had to get past the British Fleet as well as other NATO fleets. Their submarines were good but they too were no match for the United States. The US did have better sub and surface ship technology. Remember that the Soviet Union never had a carrier perse.

The Atlantic fleet was (and still is) stationed at Murmansk - it's really not that far from the area it would be operating in.

I've already conceded that the NATO navy is superior, but I still dispute that the Red Navy is "non-existent". Certain items in the Soviet arsenal have no western equivalent. Kirovs, anyone?

The US and Allies had a *lot* of troops on the East/West German Border, and a lot more that could be diverted from other areas for a defense. It wasn't just the German Army that was in Germany but hundreds of thousands of US soldiers and tens of thousands of British and French too.

Yes, but can they match the 62 Soviet and 31 Warsaw Pact divisions in the Western TVD (area of operations)?

(I'd source that, but it's in a book, and they haven't referenced the picture.)

Then the USSR economy would've collapsed that much sooner.

Why?

In an actual war or are we talking about war games as well. The Brits were pretty tenacious in fighters as well as the Germans and the French.

I was meaning in actual war.

Then why were more migs shot down by the F-86 then the other way around?

Yes, the Soviet union had Mig-29's, Mig-31's, etc. And they had many more Mig-21's, Su-25's, etc. The soviet airforce would have trouble using mass aircraft, because of both AA and availability of airfields(once you start closing in on benelux and france). Even with superior numbers, the NATO forces in general were better trained with better equipment. Harriers and Mirage's would do fine against floggers's and frogfoot's. You have your assorted 29's and foxhoundss, and america has scattered eagle's.

Here is a nice over-view of the Soviet airforce in the 80's. Compare Mig-23 numbers to Mig-29 or Mig-31 numbers.


The total number of tactical combat aircraft in the various Theaters of Military Operations in the late 1980s was about 8,000, the total air assets of the various military organizations being deployed as follows:27

Air Defence

* 1,210 interceptors: MiG-23 Flogger 420, MiG-25 Foxbat 305,
* Su-15 Flagon 240, Su-27 Flanker 5, Tu-28/-128 Fiddler 80,
* Yak-28 Firebar 65, MiG-31 Foxhound 95
* 8 airborne warning and control aircraft: Tu-126 Moss 7, Il-76 Mainstay 1

Air Forces

* 165 long-range strategic bombers: Tu-95 Bear 150, Mya-4 Bison 15, Tu-160 Blackjack in development
* 550 medium-range bombers: Tu-22M Backfire 155, Tu-16 Badger 260, Tu-22 Blinder 135
* 2,780 tactical counter-air interceptors: MiG-21 Fishbed 490, MiG-23 Flogger 1,570, MiG-25 Foxbat 105, Su-15 Flagon 260, Tu-128 Fiddler 20, Yak-28 Firebar 20, MiG-29 Fulcrum 275, MiG-31 Foxhound 30, Su-37 Flanker 10
* 2,835 ground attack aircraft: MiG-21 Fishbed 130, MiG-27 Flogger 830, Su-7/-17 Fitter 895, Su-24 Fencer 770, Su-25 Frogfoot 210
* 50 tanker aircraft: Mya-4 Bison 30, Tu-16 Badger
* 20 685 tactical reconnaissance and electronic countermeasures aircraft: MiG-21 Fishbed 65, MiG-25 Foxbat 195, Su17 Fitter 165, Su-24 Fencer 65, Yak-28 Brewer 195
* 260 strategic reconnaissance and ECM aircraft: Tu-16 Badger 115, Tu-22 Blinder 15, Tu-95 Bear 4, Yak-28 Brewer 102, MiG-25 Foxbat 24
* 3,050 attack assault helicopters, including Mi-8 Hip and Mi-24 Hind
* 1,500 training aircraft, including 800 fixed-wing and 700 rotary-wing aircraft
* 575 military air transports assigned to Transport Aviation (VTA): An-22 Cock 55, An-12 Cup 210, Il-76 Candid 310
* 1,300 transports in other elements of the armed forces, 1,635 civil aviation transports assigned to Aeroflot

As with all military exercises, the exact conditions in political, economical terms must be clearly stated before any worthy estimations can be made.

In the late 1980s, if there had been full alerted NATO mobilization before hostilities began, it'd be a high-tech stalemate. Warsaw Pact superior numbers are effectively canceled out by good defensive terrain and slightly superior anti-armor weapons (eg. TOW missiles). Heavy Western reinforcements will arrive, by then a peace would probably be brokered.

If it was a bolt from the blue attack from the Warsaw Pact, I'd say Austria ,1/2 of West Germany, northern Italy would be conquered by the WP forces before NATO can even mount a proper defense.

Heck, the weather could be a factor. If the weather grounds combat aircraft, NATO forces would be esspecially in trouble. WP doctrine prefers the use of artillery over direct fire air support.

Remember one old saying though: "Amateurs think tactics, professionals think logistics."

As with all military exercises, the exact conditions in political, economical terms must be clearly stated before any worthy estimations can be made.

In the late 1980s, if there had been full alerted NATO mobilization before hostilities began, it'd be a high-tech stalemate. Warsaw Pact superior numbers are effectively canceled out by good defensive terrain and slightly superior anti-armor weapons (eg. TOW missiles). Heavy Western reinforcements will arrive, by then a peace would probably be brokered.

If it was a bolt from the blue attack from the Warsaw Pact, I'd say Austria ,1/2 of West Germany, northern Italy would be conquered by the WP forces before NATO can even mount a proper defense.

Heck, the weather could be a factor. If the weather grounds combat aircraft, NATO forces would be esspecially in trouble. WP doctrine prefers the use of artillery over direct fire air support.

Remember one old saying though: "Amateurs think tactics, professionals think logistics."

I love Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising because he focuses so much on the logistics of resupplying NATO over the Atlantic. Could the Soviet Union have closed the Atlantic? I doubt it.

Other than that, I severely question the Soviet equipment. Whether or not it was superior is not the issue. On paper it looked great. The real question is if they mantained it properly. Reports that I have heard (both on paper and personal stories) indicate that Soviet maintenance was seriously shoddy. If we don't even have to shoot the Soviet tanks to stop them, then who will win the war?

Yes, but their economy was in shambles, the army was demoralized and damaged by the Afghanistan War, and they could not match the US in any military field save umbers. Combine this with the weak economies of the WP with their ethnic tensions and outdated communications, and it would be a resounding defeat for the WP. They might gain some ground in a blitzkrieg, but England and West Germany would be able to hold off long enough or even reach a stalemate/air victory but as soon as the US moblized and brought its navy, airforce, and troops in to place the battle would be over. The WP could not keep up a long war due to their terrible economy.


one does not need an economy to fight a war, all methods of heavy production were in government hand thus no there is no need for an economy as such, just raw materials and man power

one does not need an economy to fight a war, all methods of heavy production were in government hand thus no there is no need for an economy as such, just raw materials and man power

Actually, you do need to have an economy to fight a war. If you don't have the capital to fight it or you spend it all on war manufactering, your people will go hungry and become very upset with you. I suggest you look at the late Czar Nicholas II's reign if you want an example.

The thing is, the Soviets didn't have nearly the army we thought they had. All of those tanks were death-traps, and they didn't have the resorces to hold-off a sustained invasion. Esspecially after the eighties arms-build-up, the Soviets wouldn't have stood a chance.

NATO didn't have too many troops in the Fed. German Rep. Unless they would be warned well ahead of a WP invasion they would be overrun by the superior numbers. NATO did have tactical nuclear weapons, but killing civilian Germans together with Soviet troops wouldn't be popular. Plus the USSR would retaliate.

Indeed, the 1980s was the time when the WP was at its weakest. In the 1960s there is no doubt NATO would need to use nukes to stand a small chance. But WP still had a substantial force. The mechanised/motorised infantry together with huge armoured columns against smaller NATO forces. I believe that if there would be a stalemate it would be at the Rhine or even further west. This might happen if the Soviets advance too slow and supplies from America comes through.

The Germans trying to hold cities would be the greatest madness. NATO would have to fight in good terrain and delay the WP forces until reinforcements can arrive.

I still believe WP would achive a military victory. Again, the civilian economy of the USSR was weak. The military industry was excelllent(Andropov began shifting to the civilian sector but his brief time as leader didn't give him time, Gorbachev kept on reforming after Chernenko's death).

I think someone needs to read up on numbers in Germany! NATO had hundreds of thousands of soldiers in Germany as did the USSR. Any attack would've met resistence regardless of where the attack took place.

The Soviets would have whooped NATO's ass, no question. The Communists had 167 divisions in Eastern Europe. NATO had 6 divisions. Warsaw had 80,000 tanks to NATO's 5,000. It would have been over the day it started.

The reason the Soviets never invaded was because 3,000 nukes would have landed in Russia. The US made it very clear from the beginning of the Cold War that a Soviet invasion of Western Europe would be answered by a nuclear strike against Russia, and you know how the Russians are about their Motherland. We always had at least twice as many nukes as the Soviets did, so they never tried it.


Had a conventional war happened though and stayed conventional for some reason, the Soviets would have taken all of Continental Europe in a day, and then tried unsuccessfully for the next ten years to take England. They'd be fighting the combined naval power of the US and the UK, and would have tried to sink carrier task forces with their attack subs. Given the state of NATO Anti-Submarine Warfare capabilities after WWII, the subs would probably have been detected by SOSUS and wiped out in short order. The US would then have tried to pound the Soviets with B52 bombers staged in Turkey and England. The Soviets had the best Air Defense Net in the world during the Cold War, and would have countered with SAMs and interceptors, knocking out all of America's bombers. Stalemate.


But it never would have happened. I mean come on, are the French really worth starting WWIII over??

The thing is, the Soviets didn't have nearly the army we thought they had. All of those tanks were death-traps, and they didn't have the resorces to hold-off a sustained invasion. Esspecially after the eighties arms-build-up, the Soviets wouldn't have stood a chance.

One must remember that the Soviet ability for intelligence, counter-intelligence, deception, and secrecy was second to none both before and during the Cold War. They were the best nation in history at using military intelligence to win ground wars. During WWII they routinely confused the hell out of the nazis by building fake bunkers and barracks to imitate troop deployments, building hundreds of fake bridges accross rivers to make the enemy think they'd be crossing at one place when they ended up crossing elsewhere, imitating German troops so as to steal German airdrops, feigning weakness at a particular point in their lines to trick the enemy into attacking them there (Kursk), lying to officers and then letting them be captured so as to spread disinformation, etc, etc.

Towards the end of the war they would tell soon-to-be-liberated cities to rise up against the nazis, then let ensuing uprisings be crushed by the nazis before taking the city, effectively weeding out the feistier citizens. Deception was how the Soviets won battles and won wars.

If it had been WP versus NATO in Western Europe, I'm sure they would have pulled similar stunts with equal success. They would have tricked our bombers into bombing our own units, confused support planes into giving them our supply drops, faked troop buildups and offensives, feigned weak spots so as to chop our offensives to bits, and done all sorts of other mischief. We are, after all, talking about the same nation that blew up Tiger Tanks by training dogs to run under them with explosives.

The Soviets would have whooped NATO's ass, no question. The Communists had 167 divisions in Eastern Europe. NATO had 6 divisions. Warsaw had 80,000 tanks to NATO's 5,000. It would have been over the day it started.

The reason the Soviets never invaded was because 3,000 nukes would have landed in Russia. The US made it very clear from the beginning of the Cold War that a Soviet invasion of Western Europe would be answered by a nuclear strike against Russia, and you know how the Russians are about their Motherland. We always had at least twice as many nukes as the Soviets did, so they never tried it.


Had a conventional war happened though and stayed conventional for some reason, the Soviets would have taken all of Continental Europe in a day, and then tried unsuccessfully for the next ten years to take England. They'd be fighting the combined naval power of the US and the UK, and would have tried to sink carrier task forces with their attack subs. Given the state of NATO Anti-Submarine Warfare capabilities after WWII, the subs would probably have been detected by SOSUS and wiped out in short order. The US would then have tried to pound the Soviets with B52 bombers staged in Turkey and England. The Soviets had the best Air Defense Net in the world during the Cold War, and would have countered with SAMs and interceptors, knocking out all of America's bombers. Stalemate.


But it never would have happened. I mean come on, are the French really worth starting WWIII over??

Im sure the French thought "are the americans really worth starting world war five over?"(Going from the 7 world war idea, and the american revolution).

Most of your numbers are quite off. The Soviets did not have nearly that many tanks in 1980, those are 1945 numbers. Global security counts about 50,000 russian tanks in 1985. Still a large number, but consider this: That was only 1,800 T-80's, with 7,900 T-72's. Large numbers for the T-72's, but still, 4/5ths of the soviet tank force were T-55's and T-62/4's, obsolete tanks compared to US and European tanks that were mainly fielded(Anything from Leopard 1's and AMX-30's, and up). The T-80's would be air-bait most likely, while the allies used their tanks to fight the weaker enemy tanks.

Your numbers on divisions are completely off. 6 NATO versus 160 or so warsaw pact? So, the entire NATO only had about 120,000 men in western europe? Sorry, but quite off.

For the last time: No one had nuclear superiority. The moment the BOMBERS started bombarding the USSR missiles would be launched, destroying American cities. The biggest nuke in history was built by the USSR, it had 100 Mt. That's 100,000,000 tonnes of TNT. That hurts. So no, no one would win a nuclear war. Like Khrushchev said: "The surviviors [of nuclear winter] will envy the dead."

I have read the numbers for the different countries(good luck remembering them!). I do know that DDR(East Ger.) had more troops than BRD(West Ger.), BRD relied mainly on US protection. The Soviet group in DDR had 20 divisions, most likely supposed to form two fronts in case of war. They would together with the DDR troops be able to deal swift blows before the entire Soviet war machine came on its feet.

Again, the 1980s was the decade when the WP began faltering. The economies of USSR and its allies had to cut defence spending, the USSR almost cut its manpower by half from 1985 to 1989. The Soviet Bloc was a lot more reluctant to threaten with nuclear weapons. During the Cuba crisis Khrushchev only allowed tactical nuclear weapons to be used if Cuba was invaded. Castro and many Soviet generals wanted a threat of a big strike.

Have you read Red Army? It's an interesting book which portrays what I think is a possible scenario for the late 1980s. Of course, the book is mainly supposed to show that the Soviet soldiers weren't evil devils, but actually human beings(yes, they had feelings too :p ). It does show the difficulties the Soviet army would have, but also its advantages. Read it. Love it.

If you look at the track record of Soviet military doctrine and equipment against western/ US doctrine and equipment . it would not be hard to see the Soviets with some initial success at very heavy cost to themselves , with an eventual soviet bloodbath and almost total destruction of thier armed forces in Europe. The fact that they had more tanks only means that there would be more targets . Quantity is no substitute in this (or that ) day and age . you also have very neatly discounted the almost total air superiority of the west and the fact that they would be attacking a well prepared force on thier home soil.

For the last time: No one had nuclear superiority. The moment the BOMBERS started bombarding the USSR missiles would be launched, destroying American cities. The biggest nuke in history was built by the USSR, it had 100 Mt. That's 100,000,000 tonnes of TNT. That hurts. So no, no one would win a nuclear war. Like Khrushchev said: "The surviviors [of nuclear winter] will envy the dead."

Actually this isn't true either. The Allied forces had more nukes than the Soviets did in the '60s. It was only after 1962 that they began a mass nuclear arms build up to reach nuclear parity. You just gotta love research.

I have read the numbers for the different countries(good luck remembering them!). I do know that DDR(East Ger.) had more troops than BRD(West Ger.), BRD relied mainly on US protection. The Soviet group in DDR had 20 divisions, most likely supposed to form two fronts in case of war. They would together with the DDR troops be able to deal swift blows before the entire Soviet war machine came on its feet.

Which wouldn't happen because of the hundreds of thousands (500,000 US alone) troops that were there.

Again, the 1980s was the decade when the WP began faltering. The economies of USSR and its allies had to cut defence spending, the USSR almost cut its manpower by half from 1985 to 1989. The Soviet Bloc was a lot more reluctant to threaten with nuclear weapons. During the Cuba crisis Khrushchev only allowed tactical nuclear weapons to be used if Cuba was invaded. Castro and many Soviet generals wanted a threat of a big strike.

And the US called them. The US forced that showdown with a blockade of Cuba. Khrushchev was forced to back down because he didn't have the nuclear capability to take out the US. Castro advocated the use of nukes btw during the whole affair. Khrushchev was smart not too but in the end, it cost him being the leader of the USSR. He was ousted from power shortly thereafter.

Have you read Red Army? It's an interesting book which portrays what I think is a possible scenario for the late 1980s. Of course, the book is mainly supposed to show that the Soviet soldiers weren't evil devils, but actually human beings(yes, they had feelings too :p ). It does show the difficulties the Soviet army would have, but also its advantages. Read it. Love it.

Both sides had advantages and disadvantages.