Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Cold War Who would of won?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by dovergunner (U2879723) on Monday, 17th April 2006
No nukes just army, navy and air forces who would have come out on top. There would be three fronts Europe, far east and middle east.
-
Message 2
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Monday, 17th April 2006
dovergunner,
Could you provide a little flesh on the bones? A decade perhaps?
Cheers AA. -
Message 3
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 18th April 2006
Without nukes maybe USA had a hope (taken for granted it had more airplanes and carriers (but then again Russia had better missiles in large quantities and that could be a problem). I would give USA a 55%-45%. With nukes however I would give Russia a 65%-35%.
-
Message 4
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Tuesday, 18th April 2006
would have been a stale mate as the US couldn't have done much about the soviet ground troops while the soviets would have had a hard time tackling the US navy.
-
Message 5
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 18th April 2006
Aha!
A good new thread!! Yippee!!
OK, where to begin. I suppose it depends on which time period you set your conflict in. If we're talking about the late 70s and early 80s, then the Russians would walk it (given a conventional war that is). The US army, which would have made up the bulk of the NATO forces, was in a shocking state back then, having just been through Vietnam. It is commonly stated that a commissioned officer could be endangering his life by entering enlisted men's quarters unarmed at that time. The US military was badly demoralised, badly run and riddled with alcohol and drug abuse, and very poorly equipped (I'd suggest General Fred Franks' account, co written with Tom Clancy, it goes into great detail on the amount of work the US had to put in to rebuild their military). In comparison, the Russians were at their peak, with high morale (admittedly politically motivated)and reasonably good equipment. The Yanks would have struggled to even get their men to fight in some units, and I personally think REFORGER (the code name for the operation to reinforce the troops in Germany) would have fallen on its ass-given the US public's attitude to soldiers post-Vietnam, how many Vietnam vet reservists who had been called "baby killers" on their return, or National Guardsmen who had had to shoot student demonstrators would have been keen to respond to the call up? Not many in my opinion, whereas the Russians would have just rolled over the border, and stopped at the Bay of Biscay.
Now, if you move this scenario forward to the period at the end of the Soviet Union, 1989, say for example, the Russians had opened fire in Berlin when the Germans had started to tear the wall down, we get a totally different thing.
The Russians are now way behind in equipment, with the US now having the "big three" of mobile warfare in place (The M1A1 Abrams, the M2 Bradley and the Apache gunship) up against T72s and T80s, BMPs, BTRs and BRDMs, the result is totally different. Also, the Germans are now equipped with Leopards, the Brits with Challengers and Warriors, plus the Yanks have stealthy aircraft too. The Russians would have had a serious kicking. Remember also by this time, their economy was failing, communism coming apart at the seams, and they too had had their "Vietnam", having been booted out of Afghanistan by bin Laden and company. Their troops pay was becoming erratic, and their troops' morale plummeting. They would have been pushed right back, and with the seeds of discontent already beginning to take root in Poland, the Baltic states and Ukraine, with the first set back, those opposed to communist rule in these states would have begun to rise up as well, leading to supplies failing to the frontline troops. They would have been slaughtered. We all wondered at the time what would happen -I was a freshly trained sprog on the Iron Curtain border when the wall came down, and can remember the Border Guards going home, waving across the minefields to us as they left, it was a really surreal situation!
So to go back to the original thread, if your conflict is between 1975 and 1982, the Russians walk it, and the whole of Europe falls under Brezhnev's rule. If you set it between 1987-90, NATO does to the Warsaw Pact's troops what it did to Saddam's masses of Soviet tanks in Desert Storm.
Cheers
DL -
Message 6
Posted by Sabre-Wulf (U2142937) on Tuesday, 18th April 2006
Nice post DL.
I've just finished reading Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" after you recommended it on another thread - seems to fit this post quite nicely! -
Message 7
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 18th April 2006
Hi Sabre Wulf,
I remember reading that book for the first time, stuck on a border patrol in Northern Germany, thinking to myself that according to Tom Clancy, we went down in a few hours in a rather nasty battle!! A couple of months later the Russians packed up and went home...
Weird! -
Message 8
Posted by Sabre-Wulf (U2142937) on Tuesday, 18th April 2006
Who would have thought Iceland could be so important!
-
Message 9
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 19th April 2006
Well, it was always thought of as the main "choke point" for cutting maritime trade between the US and Europe, and Iceland is smack in the middle of it! I did love the "covert invasion" plan in "Red Storm Rising" though, so it in plain sight, in an ordinary looking cargo ship. Good idea!
-
Message 10
Posted by Zeiltje1thehague (U3193096) on Wednesday, 19th April 2006
Without nukes there would not have been a Cold War. That started with the Berlin-crises in november 1948 after the Sovjet-Union had detonated her first nuclear bomb.
The official reason given by the SU was the forming of an independent West-Germany with her own currancy. -
Message 11
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 19th April 2006
Hi there,
So would you think that if you take the development of nuclear weapons out of the equation we'd have seen a "hot" war between NATO and the Soviet Bloc?
Cheers -
Message 12
Posted by Little Enos Rides Again (U1777880) on Wednesday, 19th April 2006
If the Cold War went hot though so to speak say anytime from 1950 up to 1985, wouldn't the Soviets go for a two front attack?
(Again assuming no nukes were used)
1. Invade mainland USA through the "backdoor" of Alaska, then sweep through Canada and into the USA, possibly taking Washington.
2. Invade Western Europe via Poland / Germany and sweeping through into France.
Objective being the US would be over-stretched to fight with NATO in Europe and then defend it's own mainland.
Maybe the Soviets could also get Cuba & possibly a Latin coalition i.e. Mexico to invade from the South into Florida?
Incidentally on a seperate note, is Red Storm Rising a good read? Guess it's a little dated now but it's always struck me as an interesting book to take a look at. I have read "No Remorse" by Tom Clancy which was a very good book (dealt more with Vietnam) and seen Clear & Present Danger, Patriot Games and a few of the other movie tie ins etc. -
Message 13
Posted by Zeiltje1thehague (U3193096) on Wednesday, 19th April 2006
If the Sovjet-Union would not have developed nuclear weapons, there would not have been a Cold War. Stalin wanted at all costs an atombomb after Hirosjima. After Stalin died in 1953 the Korean War was over and Peacefull Co-exsistenty would have been established then instead of in 1966. Or maybe it would have been the lifting of the Iron Curtain in 1956 after the Hungary Uprising and the Suez-crisis would never have happened.
-
Message 14
Posted by Sabre-Wulf (U2142937) on Wednesday, 19th April 2006
Incidentally on a seperate note, is Red Storm Rising a good read? Guess it's a little dated now but it's always struck me as an interesting book to take a look at. I have read "No Remorse" by Tom Clancy which was a very good book (dealt more with Vietnam) and seen Clear & Present Danger, Patriot Games and a few of the other movie tie ins etc. Ìý
I found it very interesting and a ripping good read. I usually find his books drag at the start and then pick up speed in the last 1/4. RSR goes pretty much right from the start.
A bit too much submarine dogfighting, the American tanks appear to be invincible and never miss, but at least the Royal Marines make an appearance and save the day.
Without wanting to spoil the plot of RSR, there are a couple of factors which force the Soviets to attack in a way in which they would possibly not if they had free rein to choose when and where they went, but its still worrying to read how it could have happened! -
Message 15
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
Definitely a recommended read, and given a big budget it would have made an outstanding film too! It isn't Clancy's finest though, "The Bear and the Dragon" has to be the best, although it takes a while before the action really kicks off. That one covers an invasion of Russia by China, which results in Russia joining NATO, and an typically outstanding Clancy battle scene where a Chinese armoured force gets battered by lots of hi-tech toys. A lot more believable too.
-
Message 16
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
I remember talking to a tank officer many years ago. He pointed to the river in Germany. "This is where we will stand and fight the Russians." He said. "our tanks will go hull down here. Of course the Russians know that as well, and have every inch zeroed in. We have," he went on "Suggested that we dig in and make concrete type bunkers so the we can drive the tanks straight in, and fight from cover, but treasury won't cough up."
Isn't strange how the treasury seem to crop up every time there is a suggestion of something that would save lives for the troops on thec ground. -
Message 17
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
The Warsaw Pact would have been in Portugal within three weeks. No way could NATO come close to beating Soviet armor without Nukes. Russians, Poles and East Germans are not Arabs. The long gone land bridge between Siberia and Alaska would have been our English Channel.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 18
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
bucks has a point
-
Message 19
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
Agreed...+ we must take in our account the quality of the European roads...Hitler had his chance to compare some things..
Good evening,Matt.
Jack. -
Message 20
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
then again, ive been to spain and greece, and through a couple other place's (though i slpet through the journey's) and i encountered a total of 6 relatively straight roads-one island (greek) we drove half way across the island to get to the islands capital, which was about 3 kilometers north! (and the island is relatively large believe it or not-about two thirds the size of manchester)
-
Message 21
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
My opinion has always been -
the soviets would have attacked from the iron curtain countries with mass tank attacks which we could not stop - after 3 days the USA would have warned the USSR that a nuke atack was coming and the USSR would have stopped and there would have been some sort of negotiated settlement = and the west would have lost a bit of land
ST -
Message 22
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
we could always have turned germany into one massive tank trap....
-
Message 23
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
I thought it was = but probably couldnt cope with the numbers coming at it we could always have turned germany into one massive tank trap....Ìý
-
Message 24
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 21st April 2006
As I said earlier, it all depends WHEN the confrontation takes place.
On a bit of a tangent, I've been thinking of how the Soviets would have been able to take Western Europe. Everyone assumes they drive straight across the East German border, and keep heading west. Surely common sense and good military planning would be to use a "softer" route, just like the Wehrmacht in 1940. Why attack the Maginot line when you can go round it? If the Soviets attacked through Austria, the mountainous terrain and associated cloud cover would have hampered air strikes, which were the west's big advantage. They would have a few tens of thousands of tanks streaming north up the autobahns within hours, and I reckon a huge clash of armour in the region around Wiesbaden and Giessen.
Combine this with an invasion of the UK mainland, and the West is cut off. Reforger falls on its butt, because the air route to Europe is threatened, and the vitally important US reinforcements never arrive. Game over, 3-0 to the "Romping Stomping Russian Red Ass" as the Yanks used to call it!
Yeah, sorry Matt, I think if they showed any kind of strategic originality, then they'd have won, and we'd have a nice statue of Lenin on top of Nelson's column now!! -
Message 25
Posted by Artydad (U3360619) on Friday, 21st April 2006
I read that the soviets if going to attack mainland europe would start to attack through norway,finland,sweden,and denmark this would suprise NATO armed forces and put even more stress on troop deployments in Germany also if Norway had Fallen the Soviet Air Force would be able to hit the UK very easy something to look at also the soviet navy could use Norway to its advantage.
-
Message 26
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 21st April 2006
I read that the soviets if going to attack mainland europe would start to attack through norway,finland,sweden,and denmark this would suprise NATO armed forces and put even more stress on troop deployments in Germany also if Norway had Fallen the Soviet Air Force would be able to hit the UK very easy something to look at also the soviet navy could use Norway to its advantage.Ìý
what was the point of hitting the mainland UK (apart from a nuclear strike) every single tank aircraft or soldier that we would have been able use in WW3 was already in place in the BAOR - this was not a war that production would have any impact one way or other it was not going to last more than 2 weeks
-- wot was in place was what was going to determine the result
taking scandinavia would also have been of no use - the only battle of any use was going to happen on the west german plains - and in my opinion the 90.000 + soviet block tanks would have been unstoppable even given US air power
then after about 3-5 days the US would have said if u dont stop we will play the nuke game and things would have come to a halt
there would have been no naval action at all- too quick for that
just a thought
ST -
Message 27
Posted by Artydad (U3360619) on Friday, 21st April 2006
I Get the point but the soviets would most probably attacked from two fronts.What would have happened to Turkey ie the Black Sea Fleet?.
-
Message 28
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Saturday, 22nd April 2006
My Red Battle Plan (for what it's worth call me Comrade Falconetsky
)
1. An initial fainting attack on the Turkish territory on European continent citing "territorial integrety" of the Black Sea channel and the movement of the Black Sea fleet in "naval exercise" off the Turkish coast - result Turkey asks for NATO assistance which in the US Med. fleet plus a back up force of RN ships incl. one carrier - this means less RN cover for the North Atlantic including Northern Norway...(see where I'm coming from here)
Meanwhile my diplomats are in the UN moaning on some issue or other.
2. My Main-Force is busy meanwhile massing in Poland/Czechoslovakia/Hungary but on "exercise" (a'la RSR) but in a slight of hand I'll deploy a force on exercis also in Norway conducting "agressive" marine-style operations which would focus NATO minds on seeing these ops. happen esp. if they might be expecting an invasion on the Northern Turkish coast.
However my deception is here...my exercising forces are low-grade reserves and Polish/German/Czech troops all with Sov. painted kit etc.
In the UN my diplomats are making issues of "middle-eastern" problems saying they support a "kurdistan" or something similar - causing problems for Turkey.
3. My main forces are now currently being deployed into ships in the Baltic ports and setting sail towards "Cuba"...ha ha ha - you NATO fools.
My diplomats are now suggesting the Turkey incident has been nothing more than a mis-understanding but could we [Sovs.) have one off permission to use the Black Sea straits for a gaurentee of Turkish soverignty (by not supporting Turkish Marxists)....
4. The invasion strikes Denmark and Northern Germany along with a massive air-raid directed against Berlin, Hamburg, Kiel and Dortmund....WP forces are plunging across the borders into Germany and Austria....meanwhile paratroopers are landing in/around Munich...
What do you reckon?
Add in a constant air-support presence from Cuba attacking US/RN shipping in the N. Atlantic that could be pretty good IMO.
DL - one of the problems with the Plan-Osterreich is that the Austrian army could have blown up loads of bridges and you are stuck - a big, big target for NATO fighter-bombers. -
Message 29
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Saturday, 22nd April 2006
However my deception is here...my exercising forces are low-grade reserves and Polish/German/Czech troops all with Sov. painted kit etc.
Ìý
I know you are tongue in cheek, but there was no such animal as low grade Polish, German, or Czech troops. These guys were well trained and tough nuts. Not to mention that there was umteen of them. No nukes = no chance. I personally think we would have neutroned them without warning.
Matt. -
Message 30
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Saturday, 22nd April 2006
For the russians to invade the westin the late 1970's early eighties ? All they would have had to do was wait till Friday night. Wait for the baor to get lashed and do a cold roll across the border. The germans and the dutch wouldnt allow trucks to move over the weekend, the british armys hungover, the American army is holed up in its barracks well away with the fairies.
Their biggest danger would be running out of petrol before they hit calais! -
Message 31
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Sunday, 23rd April 2006
However my deception is here...my exercising forces are low-grade reserves and Polish/German/Czech troops all with Sov. painted kit etc.
Ìý
I know you are tongue in cheek, but there was no such animal as low grade Polish, German, or Czech troops. These guys were well trained and tough nuts. Not to mention that there was umteen of them. No nukes = no chance. I personally think we would have neutroned them without warning.
Matt.Ìý
Hi Matt,
the idea was in my mind to uise these troops as a screen to stop any NATO counter-offensive but put 2nd grade Sov. reserves here to stop "anti-revolutionary" WP forces and also to deceive NATO intel. as to what was going on.
I think we would have opened up with non-conventional weapons as soon as too...my Dad would have been dead in all likelyhood - he was a reservist and he'd have been in Germany if anything kicked off - makes you think... -
Message 32
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 24th April 2006
Oh dear, Mr Falcon, you've neglected one important element from the Austria plan. I thought you'd read "Red Storm Rising"? You appear to have forgotten the Spetsnaz lads, battle-hardened from Afghanistan, who would have been infiltrated to seize key objectives such as bridges!!! Alternatively, the reds could have just waited until Christmas Day!
We'd be talking about many army units being stood down, those who weren't on leave would be seriously hungover, and 75% of those remaining would have been out of their skulls by about 2 in the afternoon (for those unaware, the tradition on British Army bases is that the married troops and officers have the single ones round for Christmas lunch, and the single guys would be well and truly hammered anyway, due to the delightful tradition of "gunfire" where the CO and RSM go round the barracks giving the troops a pint or two of "gunfire"-strong hot tea laced (and I mean laced) as a wake up call. The result of this is that most troops were smashed before they even got dressed!!!). So, had the Russians decided to attack on Christmas day after lunch, then the NATO boys would have been caught napping! (The same would have worked the other way round for May Day) So, that gives the Russians about 3 or 4 hours at the least to get those bridges secured.
Going on to your plan, I think the Russians would remember the fun they had when they took on Finland before. They took seriously heavy losses. I'd doubt they would consider the Scandinavian route an easy option-it isn't. Sorry, Austria and South Germany is the easy route. Also, if you look at a detailed map of Norway, Finland and Sweden, you'll see that the countries are absolutely peppered with lakes, and also these inland regions have a much poorer infrastructure when compared to central Europe. -
Message 33
Posted by Artydad (U3360619) on Monday, 24th April 2006
we all know that British Army officers wait on, on xmas day your plan would be on a suprise attack do you think the soviets would do that. there would have to have a reason for them to attack and a build up to going to war and believe me the British Army although outgunned by shockwave red army would be ready. Oh dear, Mr Falcon, you've neglected one important element from the Austria plan. I thought you'd read "Red Storm Rising"? You appear to have forgotten the Spetsnaz lads, battle-hardened from Afghanistan, who would have been infiltrated to seize key objectives such as bridges!!! Alternatively, the reds could have just waited until Christmas Day!
We'd be talking about many army units being stood down, those who weren't on leave would be seriously hungover, and 75% of those remaining would have been out of their skulls by about 2 in the afternoon (for those unaware, the tradition on British Army bases is that the married troops and officers have the single ones round for Christmas lunch, and the single guys would be well and truly hammered anyway, due to the delightful tradition of "gunfire" where the CO and RSM go round the barracks giving the troops a pint or two of "gunfire"-strong hot tea laced (and I mean laced) as a wake up call. The result of this is that most troops were smashed before they even got dressed!!!). So, had the Russians decided to attack on Christmas day after lunch, then the NATO boys would have been caught napping! (The same would have worked the other way round for May Day) So, that gives the Russians about 3 or 4 hours at the least to get those bridges secured.
Going on to your plan, I think the Russians would remember the fun they had when they took on Finland before. They took seriously heavy losses. I'd doubt they would consider the Scandinavian route an easy option-it isn't. Sorry, Austria and South Germany is the easy route. Also, if you look at a detailed map of Norway, Finland and Sweden, you'll see that the countries are absolutely peppered with lakes, and also these inland regions have a much poorer infrastructure when compared to central Europe. Ìý -
Message 34
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 25th April 2006
Again I go back to my original statement-it all depends when this notional attack takes place! If we're talking around 1989 or 90, then sorry Ivan, you're toast! Set it ten or fifteen years earlier and we'd have been hammered!
As an afterthought, what is the bit about officers? The main benefit with attack on Christmas Day around 3 pm would be the fact that (if you take for example an attack across the North German Plain, directly aimed at the British armoured units, striking through Fallingbostel, then moving on encircling Hamburg and heading west. The frontline unit (7th Armoured Brigade) would have been wiped out in an hour or two. Why? Because if you attack then, almost all the WOs and SNCOs are sat in front of the TV sozzled, and stuffed with food. The officers likewise in the mess. The enlisted men are probably 5% on duty, 50% on leave and the remainder-they're sozzled in front of the TV at some SNCOs house!! The result. the 5% on duty get probably another 10% reinforcements to fact the Russian 3rd Shock Army (the unit which faced 7th Armoured across the border). Game over. Things would improve with time with respect to the numbers we Brits could have thrown at them, but the fact remains that on Christmas day, approximately 50% of units not on active service (more in some instances) would be at home on leave. Most of the remainder would not be on duty. If the Red Army had rolled over the border in such a manner, then we'd have lost.
I'm quite confident of that, being as I once spent a very miserable Christmas Day hungover and on a border patrol in that region.
However, roll the clock forward to the 90s, and we'd have slaughtered them. The US army was back up to full strength, well equipped and experienced, and the Brits were likewise, and with a fair bit of combat experience against Russian armour. Nowadays? They'd probably squash us again (if they managed to pay their troops to turn up!!!) since we're so drastically over committed elsewhere in the world, although the Germans with their Leopard IIs would chew them up rather badly. -
Message 35
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Tuesday, 25th April 2006
I'm a bit pushed for time here DL but I think the main Soviet armor thrust would have been thru the Fulda Gap.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 36
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 25th April 2006
In reality Matt, you're right. That was always their plan of attack. However, with a bit of "un-Soviet" thinking, a flanking manoeuvre would have worked wonders.
I think if they'd attacked in my day, the North German Plain would have been a slaugherhouse (just prior to the first Gulf war). The British army had trained on that ground for decades, finally had some half decent armour, and were as well trained as ever. The route the 3rd Shock Army were planning to take would have taken them straight through a horribly inhospitable bit of land known to generations of squaddies as the SLA. The Soltau-Luneburg Area. The Brits had been training on this patch of miserable heath and forest since 1945, and knew it like the back of their hands. They'd have probably killed 90% of us, but they'd have lost thousands. It would have been one huge ambush. Prokhorovka all over again, but at night, with Challengers against T-80s. They'd have got through but at massive cost since 7th Armoured's role was to simply slow them down as much as possible while Reforger went into effect, and every plane which had wings flew in troops and tanks. Once the reinforcements started coming in, the orders for any survivors were to leg it!! -
Message 37
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Tuesday, 25th April 2006
What do you reckon then if the Sovs had have blasted their way into Germany but at the same time decided to hedge their bets with a RSR-style coup de main on the Mid-East oilfields and as we are talking 1980 here the middle east just IMO wouldn't have been prepared - and then the West would have begged for mercy like a puppy in a sack - or used nukes....
the Iceland plan in RSR was a brilliant invention and if you believe the "urban-myth" about Tom Clancy being a "mouthpiece" for US intelligence then is there some inteligence evidence that the Sovs. wanted to do something like that? -
Message 38
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 25th April 2006
That would never have happened.
Mutually Assured Destruction. That's all there is to say! They probably planned for it, but then we planned a lot of silly things too! I doubt they were ever serious about a war with NATO, the nuclear deterrent was there to prevent such things getting started, and it did its job.
They've have been nuked, and then they'd have nuked us back. Game over. -
Message 39
Posted by Malleeboy (U3001129) on Wednesday, 26th April 2006
Although I believe that for much of the time in question the soviets would have cut a swathe through Northern Europe, I think some important factors have been overlooked in this discussion so far.
Allies: It is not just NATO v Warsaw, the US had numerous alliances including with Japan, S Korea, Aus, NZ and others
Territory: All of Europe minus Russia is 5.9 mkm2 (million square kilometres). US is 9.5 mkm2 and Can is 10 mkm2, combined they are over 3 times the size of Europe. (France for comparison is 0.5 mkm2 and Aus is 7.6mkm2). This would be a war on multi-continental scale which would invariable take time even if you totally outclassed your enemy, the size requires logistic support that is going to slow you down. (Not to mention the amount of troops you need to leave to hold land after you’ve conquered it) the time frames that have been presented of a couple of weeks I just can’t accept as realistic.
Economy: The imbalance in economic war potential between the two sides even with most of the Western Europe gone is still quite large. It may take a year or two (but given the info above I believe the US would have that time.) but the west’s output once geared would quickly outstrip Warsaw in armaments and weaponry.
China: Since no time has been given, this is the one big unknown. I think clearly from 73 onwards if not before the Chinese would have at least mobilized. I don’t think they would have happy with either side dominating the other. An attack on the Soviet Union, given the length of there shared boarder, would have IMO been terminal for the soviets. If they sided with the soviets, the west would clearly have struggled with the numbers they could throw into battle. More likely, would have been mobilization and a demand for a negotiated settlement on the existing borders. -
Message 40
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 26th April 2006
Malleeboy,
Good post! I think we've all looked at this as a regional conflict, but it is obvious that it would be a global one from day one!
Another aspect to be included would be Cuba. Would the US decide that since there is already a war of ideologies, Communism v Capitalism underway, now is an ideal time to invade Cuba. Cuba was of course, an ally of Soviet Russia, so would they be obliged to declare war as a result of war between Moscow and the west?
Possibilities for another nice move on the part of the Red side would be to have deployed bombers and more importantly fighters to Cuba ahead of the outbreak of war. So much of NATO's strategy to defend Western Europe relies on the reinforcement supplies to Germany from the Continental US, and imagine the nightmare scenario of fully laden airliners, loaded with troops being attacked by MIG 29s and SU 27s.
Cuba would have to be neutralised before even starting the REFORGER operation, or any aircraft which got within missile range would be targetted. We could have seen a new "Battle of the Atlantic" only this time being fought in the air and on the sea, since the Russians would have had every attack sub in their navy off the eastern seaboard of the US. Granted the US were the masters of sub technology, but the Soviets had such numbers that some would have got through and wreaked havoc on the shipping lanes.
The Soviet forces in Cuba would have only had a limited time before they were neutralised, that is obvious, but could they have delivered enough disruption to the resupply of units in Europe to allow the Red Army to win through? I reckon they could have done it!
From an Economic perspective, well the Soviet economy was always primarily internal, and not heavily reliant on international trade (which eventually caused its collapse), so I'd imagine that the disruption to international trade would affect NATO more than the Warsaw Pact.
China, well who knows. Two possible outcomes, that the rift between Maoist China and Russia is closed, and they join their communist brothers in an alliance-then we're in big trouble. This could see China invading its neighbours, and Japan would undoubtedly be first on their list for attack-they have a long collective memory, especially when it comes to brutal occupation!! However there is always the possibility that if Russia starts to suffer setbacks, that China, with its massive population and limited territory, seizes the opportunity to attack Russia in Asia, and invade the vast natural resource rich area of Siberia. With China, it is difficult to tell which way they would jump, so there is always the (highly doubtful) possibility that they would remain neutral, and just sit on the fence to see how things pan out. -
Message 41
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Wednesday, 26th April 2006
Really interesting discussion this one! Just a short question - have any of you read the book "The Chieftains"; must of been published in the 80s. Its a good read about a tank crew in just such a scenario; also features some recon crews and an M1 crew in just the situation we are talking about. I won't spoil the ending but you can geuss it only to well, especially yourself DL.
BTW ANZAC Day came and went and I forgot it; I had to stay at home with my sick daughter and she was 100% demanding (11 months old). -
Message 42
Posted by Artydad (U3360619) on Wednesday, 26th April 2006
what is the FULDA GAP??
In reality Matt, you're right. That was always their plan of attack. However, with a bit of "un-Soviet" thinking, a flanking manoeuvre would have worked wonders.
I think if they'd attacked in my day, the North German Plain would have been a slaugherhouse (just prior to the first Gulf war). The British army had trained on that ground for decades, finally had some half decent armour, and were as well trained as ever. The route the 3rd Shock Army were planning to take would have taken them straight through a horribly inhospitable bit of land known to generations of squaddies as the SLA. The Soltau-Luneburg Area. The Brits had been training on this patch of miserable heath and forest since 1945, and knew it like the back of their hands. They'd have probably killed 90% of us, but they'd have lost thousands. It would have been one huge ambush. Prokhorovka all over again, but at night, with Challengers against T-80s. They'd have got through but at massive cost since 7th Armoured's role was to simply slow them down as much as possible while Reforger went into effect, and every plane which had wings flew in troops and tanks. Once the reinforcements started coming in, the orders for any survivors were to leg it!!
Ìý -
Message 43
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 3rd May 2006
The "Fulda Gap" is a part of central Germany which NATO always believed that the Russians would attack through. About 20 or 30 miles east of Frankfurt if I remember correctly. It was always assumed that the Warsaw Pact, if they ever attacked, would invade through this area. I'd guess it was good terrain for mobile armoured warfare, but not entirely sure, never been there!
Don't ask me why they called it a gap, as there was a few US armoured divisions stationed nearby in case the Soviets came to visit! -
Message 44
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Wednesday, 3rd May 2006
Great to see you back DL.
Matt. -
Message 45
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 3rd May 2006
Cheers Matt,
No major damage, and am looking forward to spending the compensation!!
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.