NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a spin-off from the "War! Who would win?" thread.

Let's imagine it's somewhere between 1985 and 1990, and some hardliner gains power in the USSR, and he starts a war.

As some of you may know, the main battlefield on which WWIII was going to start was the "Fulda Gap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap)".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Germany_topo_Fulda_Gap.jpg
http://www.1-33rdar.org/NoRightHookAfter%20Rhine.jpg

This was a corridor of relatively easy terrain through which the Warsaw Pact's tank armies would've pushed rapidly, with Frankfurt being the first target (being an important financial centre, infrastructure hub etc), and then the Rhine.

Who do you think would have won the battle for the Fulda Gap, before everything descends into nuclear war?

If you're interested in this sort of thing, by the way, may I recommend this awesome if slightly disturbing mockumentary (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0180657/)?

I believe NATO doctrine was to use tactical nukes against Soviet tank armies in the Fulda Gap.

I believe NATO doctrine was to use tactical nukes against Soviet tank armies in the Fulda Gap.
It was being considered, yes.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-4102.htm
That's a description of the NATO plan. More or less.

And an interview with the last commander of the Soviet Western and Southern Forces:
http://www.exile.ru/2005-April-08/war_nerd.html

Warsaw, it will do this to each of the countries:

Netherlands-
Destroy all of its wooden shoes and its dams, flooding the country.

Belgium-
Attack its key port of Antwerp and its beer stock. After 1 day of no beer Belgium would be easy to bring down.

Finland-
No beer, no Molotove cocktails.

France-
In the first days the Red Air Force destroys its military production facilities. All remaining white cloth becomes a rare commodity. Also, minorities without a say in the government will burst forth in riots, protesting the berr shortage from Belgium; also, tired of snails.

Germany-
Counter attack all the way to Moscow, will be defeated right outside a sign saying "Welcome To Moscow". Leader, shoot self in head- found by Red Army.

Umm, wait, wrong war...

Italy-
Losing is better, keeps social welfare, loses independence, their need is now no more.

It depends on whether NATO could stop the Soviets within their defenses or, more preferably, at the border. If they can, it becomes a war of attrition in which the attention shifts to whether Russia can close off the sealanes and whether NATO can keep them open.

If the Soviets do break through in the first few days, the only things that are going to stop or slow them down is the thousands of car-jams as the West Germans become motorised refugee's... or NATO Tactical Nuclear Weapons. Once NATO nukes the Soviet troops, the gloves are off. I have SEVERE doubts whether the nuclear war could stay limited, much more likely it would escalate into an all out conflict, rendering most of civilization in Europe, Russia, and the United States destroyed, at best, or the extinction of all life on Earth, at worst.

If the war went down to one of attrition, then it would come down on whether Russia could shut-down the sea lanes. The SOSUS line would inflict casualties on the Soviets as they try to go through it, but there are ways the SOSUS line could be destroyed, damaged, cut, and/or sabotaged.

If the Soviets manage to compromise the SOSUS line, their freehand in the Atlantic grows much better and they can start to try and blow carrier groups and convoys out of the water. Whether they can succeed is a very different question.

If the Soviets manage to close the sea lanes, or at least sink enough convoys that insufficient reinforcements and supplies from the US get to Europe(and keep it that way), then the war of attrition goes into Russia's favor, eventually, the Russians would punch a whole in the NATO lines through sheer weight of numbers. Then the only thing that will stop them is going to be the use of tactical nukes... with the same results as when I first mentioned them.

If the Americans manage to keep the Sea lanes open, then the war shifts in NATO's favor, America actually can call up much more men then the Soviets can, having a larger population. Now it will be the Soviets utilising tactical nukes on NATO Armies.

Of course, in any one of these scenario's, sanity might break out somewhere in the war and a cease-fire called and peace treaty hammered out. If that happens... well, it depends on what the peace treaties terms are.

The Soviets would have annihilated the Westerners in Germany and the rest of western Europe unless we used tactical nukes against them.

Without NATO resorting to tactical nukes, I think the Warsaw Pact armies would have won the battle. AFAIK, they had more tanks, troops, etc than NATO & would have just overwhelmed them. If nukes were used, then no-one would have won.

It depends on whether NATO could stop the Soviets within their defenses or, more preferably, at the border. If they can, it becomes a war of attrition in which the attention shifts to whether Russia can close off the sealanes and whether NATO can keep them open.

If the Soviets do break through in the first few days, the only things that are going to stop or slow them down is the thousands of car-jams as the West Germans become motorised refugee's... or NATO Tactical Nuclear Weapons. Once NATO nukes the Soviet troops, the gloves are off. I have SEVERE doubts whether the nuclear war could stay limited, much more likely it would escalate into an all out conflict, rendering most of civilization in Europe, Russia, and the United States destroyed, at best, or the extinction of all life on Earth, at worst.

If the war went down to one of attrition, then it would come down on whether Russia could shut-down the sea lanes. The SOSUS line would inflict casualties on the Soviets as they try to go through it, but there are ways the SOSUS line could be destroyed, damaged, cut, and/or sabotaged.

If the Soviets manage to compromise the SOSUS line, their freehand in the Atlantic grows much better and they can start to try and blow carrier groups and convoys out of the water. Whether they can succeed is a very different question.

If the Soviets manage to close the sea lanes, or at least sink enough convoys that insufficient reinforcements and supplies from the US get to Europe(and keep it that way), then the war of attrition goes into Russia's favor, eventually, the Russians would punch a whole in the NATO lines through sheer weight of numbers. Then the only thing that will stop them is going to be the use of tactical nukes... with the same results as when I first mentioned them.

If the Americans manage to keep the Sea lanes open, then the war shifts in NATO's favor, America actually can call up much more men then the Soviets can, having a larger population. Now it will be the Soviets utilising tactical nukes on NATO Armies.

Of course, in any one of these scenario's, sanity might break out somewhere in the war and a cease-fire called and peace treaty hammered out. If that happens... well, it depends on what the peace treaties terms are.

Is SOSUS a coalition of the Scandanavian countries?

Edit: Nope, just looked it up on Wiki & it's an underwater listening system.

No, it was a submarine detection network stretching from Canada's East Coast to Greenland to Iceland to the United Kingdom.

SOSUS stands for SOund SUrveillance System.

I believe the NATO forces would have taken the gap first, for the simple reason that the quality of Warsaw Pact forces in the 1980's were deteriorating rapidly and internal dissent in the Eastern Bloc was accelerating making it very unlikely that a hard-liner would be able to keep the Bloc unified enough to make a successful strike before NATO.

The morale and quality of Eastern forces wouldn't be able to win the battle; also, we have to take in to account the aftermath of the Afghanistan war, which proved the glaring weaknesses of Soviet military forces. Also, the economic situation in the Eastern Bloc by the late 80's was more or less past the point of no return; their industrial base was too antiquated to support a large-scale military campaign especially if large numbers of conscripts had to be called up, stripping their labor-intensive economy of
badly needed workers

In fact, the best time for the Soviets to move would have been in the 1970-1975 period; their economy was healthy (3-4% per year growth), their industrial base was generally up-to-date and their military was at parity with the US and its allies. Also, a lot of US military resources were tied down in Vietnam, making it very difficult for US to disentangle and face the threat in Europe/

Warsaw, it will do this to each of the countries:

Netherlands-
Destroy all of its wooden shoes and its dams, flooding the country.

Belgium-
Attack its key port of Antwerp and its beer stock. After 1 day of no beer Belgium would be easy to bring down.

Finland-
No beer, no Molotove cocktails.

France-
In the first days the Red Air Force destroys its military production facilities. All remaining white cloth becomes a rare commodity. Also, minorities without a say in the government will burst forth in riots, protesting the berr shortage from Belgium; also, tired of snails.

Germany-
Counter attack all the way to Moscow, will be defeated right outside a sign saying "Welcome To Moscow". Leader, shoot self in head- found by Red Army.

Umm, wait, wrong war...

Italy-
Losing is better, keeps social welfare, loses independence, their need is now no more.

do you ever post anything that isnt just a list of uninteresting stereotypes? how old are you?

Without NATO resorting to tactical nukes, I think the Warsaw Pact armies would have won the battle. AFAIK, they had more tanks, troops, etc than NATO & would have just overwhelmed them. If nukes were used, then no-one would have won.

But numbers aren't really a guarantee of success; a lot of those troops were conscripted in to the armies and their quality is undoubtedly less than optimal, especially considering the massive discontent within the Communist bloc in the 1980's and in particular the period following the imposition of Gorbachev's reforms.

There's a chance many of those troops might have simply deserted or fallen apart in battle like Saddam's forces did in the Gulf War.

But numbers aren't really a guarantee of success; a lot of those troops were conscripted in to the armies and their quality is undoubtedly less than optimal, especially considering the massive discontent within the Communist bloc in the 1980's and in particular the period following the imposition of Gorbachev's reforms.

There's a chance many of those troops might have simply deserted or fallen apart in battle like Saddam's forces did in the Gulf War.

True, I was thinking more of the 60s & 70s when the quality & technology of the equipment was more equal.

True, I was thinking more of the 60s & 70s when the quality & technology of the equipment was more equal.

I actually mentioned that as well in the part of my first post. If, for example, this war were to break out in the mid to late 60's or 70's, the US and its allies would have been in a much weaker position.

I actually mentioned that as well in the part of my first post. If, for example, this war were to break out in the mid to late 60's or 70's, the US and its allies would have been in a much weaker position.

Yep, I read it, which is what made realise that I was thinking more of the 60s & 70s, rather than the mid 80s as NL originally posted.

I have ever confidence that that NATO would win.
Shame we didn't nip it in the bud at Trieste.

After the 70's I think NATO probably had the forces to stop the Warsaw Pact forces in Germany. Before then I suspect it would have been the Battle Of Britain all over again but with Soviet strategists learning from Goering's mistakes. Woulda seen some very surprised Soviet pilots watching their radar screens as Lightnings went from nought to firing range in two minutes but we'd have lost without using nukes at which stage everyone loses.