Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

in a coventional war who would have won u
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>
Poll Question: in a conventional war in 1987 who would have won nato or warsaw pact
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
12 [75.00%]
4 [25.00%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
communist View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2007
Location: Cuba
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote communist Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: in a coventional war who would have won u
    Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 00:28
in 1987 who would have come out the victor in a conventional war between Nato and the Warsaw pact?
Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800 		  Quote Byzantine Emperor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 00:39
This also belongs in Historical Amusement.
Late Byzantine Military
Ottoman perceptions of the Americas
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409 		  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 04:36
Originally posted by loser

in 1987 say for some unpredictable reason the two super powers decided to attack each other. who would win the usa or ussr? also take into account that there are no nuclear weapons only conventional forces.
 
You what?
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Suspended

Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551 		  Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 05:14
The USA would win, but it depends what a 'victory' means on those terms..
Back to Top
Kamikaze 738 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 26-Mar-2007
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 463 		  Quote Kamikaze 738 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 07:23
Why 1987?
Back to Top
DesertHistorian View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 22-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 127 		  Quote DesertHistorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 12:01
USA would win, Soviets and Europe would lose big time.
Back to Top
communist View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2007
Location: Cuba
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote communist Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 14:22
i said 1987 because it was before the major arms reductions and military cuts by gorbachev in 1988. if the soviets were agressor i think they might be able to push their weak economy into a wartime state which might have strenghthened it. the soviets always out numbered the americans numerically in conventional forces and if they tryed to drive their way to the atlantic in 1987 i think it might have been possible.
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591 		  Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Aug-2007 at 06:06
Originally posted by DesertHistorian

USA would win, Soviets and Europe would lose big time.
 
Rather thought Europe (West) were on the US side ?  Eastern Europe would have loved to help. They didn't like the Russians!
 
Anyone read Sir John Hackett's World War III ?


Edited by Peteratwar - 31-Aug-2007 at 06:06
Back to Top
warwolf1969 View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 08-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 56 		  Quote warwolf1969 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2010 at 06:44
The soviet army would have been stopped somewhere close to the Rhine.  After a few weeks of war their economy would have collapsed and Nato won.
Back to Top
DreamWeaver View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 02-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 555 		  Quote DreamWeaver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 03:04
Hackett wasnt bad, but it still went to nuclear, limited though it was.
Back to Top
Mosquito View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537 		  Quote Mosquito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 06:46

I would say that Warsaw Pact would win. US forces in Europe were too small and without using nuclear weapon on tactical level the forces of Soviet Union and its allies would have been unstopable. Soviet Union counted that for every destroyed western tank Warsaw Pact will loose 4-5 its own tanks - and still would have remain a lot more. I think that without nuking advancing warsaw pact forces, Paris would have been occupied in space of 14-21 days. The west wouldnt also have superiority in the air and in 1987 quality of western airforces wasnt higher than eastern.

But it wouldnt happend anyway, both blocks were prepared to use nucelar weapons at least on the tactical level. All the bigger army groups, raillways, roads and bridges would have been nuked with small nuclear bombs.
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Back to Top
TheGreatSimba View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 22-Nov-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1152 		  Quote TheGreatSimba Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 08:02
Assuming nukes would not have been used, NATO would definetly have won, Europe and the Soviet Union would have been utterly destroyed, and the Western Coast of the United States and the Eastern Coast of the United States would have been devastated but still intact.
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620 		  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 12:18
The problem I see is the date, I.e. 1987! This is way too close to the present for me to comfortably respond, but prior to that, NATO, had created "Valleys of distruction!" That is with the use of "wire guided" anti-tank missiles, the Soviet attack points were covered in a "death field!"

Our helicopters, with sufficent air cover, etc., and with the manned "wire guided" missles available, were considered viable enough to have a 50 to one kill ratio! Soviet armour, and tactics were just not ready to try to enter these "Kill Zones!", and they had no way around them!

NATO tankers, were there to merely plug leaks!

But, as always, I could well be incorrect?
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Kanas_Krumesis View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2009
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326 		  Quote Kanas_Krumesis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 12:19
If we talking about coventional war I`m 100 % agree with Mosquito. NATO forces didn`t have any chances. In their plans option about coventional war with Warshaw pact never exist. In begining of 80`s only Bulgaria on south flank had more than 3500 tanks T-72, balistic rockets SS-23 (enough to destroy Istanbul for 20 minutes), thousands of BM-21 Grad missile units, well-trained army... but it was drop in the sea of the Soviet military power!
Back to Top
TheGreatSimba View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 22-Nov-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1152 		  Quote TheGreatSimba Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 12:21
The Soviets were occupied in Afghanistan until 1989.

The Soviet Union could not sustain the war against Afghanistan economically, how do you think they would have done against NATO?
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.
Back to Top
Kanas_Krumesis View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2009
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326 		  Quote Kanas_Krumesis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 12:40
You mix up two things. Afghanistan until 1989 was a partisan war. Today NATO (including Bulgaria as NATO member with it`s units there) faced the same problems in Afghanistan. The end of the war is a mirage. If it was a war on destruction, I think USSR would easily solve their problems. To annihilate all population. But we don`t do it like that Smile

Edited by Kanas_Krumesis - 13-Jul-2010 at 12:41
Back to Top
TheGreatSimba View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 22-Nov-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1152 		  Quote TheGreatSimba Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 12:47
Well, economically speaking, there is no way that the Warsaw pact countries could have fought a long term war with NATO.

Assuming nuclear weapons are not used in a war between NATO and W.P countries, it would certainly have been a long and bloody war. The economies of the WP countries would have collapsed.

As regards to numbers of tanks and missiles, NATO technology was superior, which would have made up for the disparity.


Edited by TheGreatSimba - 13-Jul-2010 at 12:48
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.
Back to Top
Mosquito View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537 		  Quote Mosquito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 12:57
Originally posted by TheGreatSimba

The Soviets were occupied in Afghanistan until 1989.

The Soviet Union could not sustain the war against Afghanistan economically, how do you think they would have done against NATO?
 
 
I dont see the Nato succes in Afghanistan either. Whats more, allies start considering withdrawning its forces. In Afganistan Soviet Union had only 3 panzer divisions, that is much less than Nato has now. And in the communist system was much easier to conduct the war. Just like in Soviet Union during WW2, people wouldnt get much food, no civil goods would be producted, all the industries would be changed into military production (in the communist block every new factory when was built was designed to be easily converted into military production). In the democratic country it would be impossible - but in the communist block people would just accept it, and those who wouldnt would finish executed.
Im not sure Opuslola about your death zones, if the Warsaw Pact had air superiority, and those death zones would be destroyed by thousands of Mi 24 helicopters.
 
Today people simply dont remember how huge were the forces of Warsaw Pact, let me remind you. The forces of Warsaw Pact in 1991, just before it has collapsed:
 
 
 
 
 
Country SU Poland CZ DDR HU Bulg Rum Together
Soldiers in service 2458000 347000 199700 173100 106800 117500 171000 3573100
Tanks 41580 3330 4585 3140 1435 2200 3200 59470
Armoured personnel carrier 45000 4855 4900 5900 2310 2365 5000 70330
Rocket launchers 1121 81 77 80 27 72 50 1508
military aircraft 5955 480 407 307 113 234 380 7876
 
 
And remember that these forces were already in Europe!!!! There was no need to mobilise them or transfer from other continent.
 
 


Edited by Mosquito - 13-Jul-2010 at 14:31
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Back to Top
Kanas_Krumesis View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2009
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326 		  Quote Kanas_Krumesis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 13:10
I think this data is too lowered and not real. Soldiers in service does not mean soldiers after mobilization. We both know how fast and overall this could be made in one communist state.
Back to Top
Mosquito View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537 		  Quote Mosquito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 13:12
NATO FORCES 1991
 
Including US army:
 
 
Country USA GER UK Fr Italy Tur Canada Spain Gr Holand Belg Nor Portugal Denmark Together
Soldiers in service 122298
all together		 47233 34444 446950 400960 647400 136500 274000 162500 96900 92000 34400 68000 31700 5174010
Tanks 17119
all together		 5292 1910 1568 1620 3936 309 963 1970 1283 369 224 136 390 37089
armoured carriers 37155
all together		 6599 5453 5510 4900 3600 1388 2288 2377 3238 2315 250 341 636 76080
military aircraft 7333
all together		 605 245 729 242 363 271 52 287 236 340 116 47 128 11267

I didnt find the numbers for US forces stationing in Europe so for the USA got only the numbers for all US forces, of which majority wasnt in Europe.



Edited by Mosquito - 13-Jul-2010 at 14:32
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.064 seconds.