in a coventional war who would have won u
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: Historical Amusement
Forum Discription: For role playing and alternative history discussions.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21355
Printed Date: 21-May-2024 at 02:38
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: in a coventional war who would have won u
Posted By: communist
Subject: in a coventional war who would have won u
Date 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? |
Replies:
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 00:39
|
This also belongs in Historical Amusement. ------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 04:36
You what? ------------- |
Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 05:14
|
The USA would win, but it depends what a 'victory' means on those terms.. ------------- |
Posted By: Kamikaze 738
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 07:23
| Why 1987? |
Posted By: DesertHistorian
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 12:01
| USA would win, Soviets and Europe would lose big time. |
Posted By: communist
Date 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. |
Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2007 at 06:06
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 ?
|
Posted By: warwolf1969
Date 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. |
Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 03:04
|
Hackett wasnt bad, but it still went to nuclear, limited though it was.
------------- |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date 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 |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date 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. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date 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/ |
Posted By: Kanas_Krumesis
Date 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! |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date 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. |
Posted By: Kanas_Krumesis
Date 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 
|
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date 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. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 12:57
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:
And remember that these forces were already in Europe!!!! There was no need to mobilise them or transfer from other continent.
------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Kanas_Krumesis
Date 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. |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 13:12
|
NATO FORCES 1991
Including US army:
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. ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 13:21
Doesnt matter. Without most of the US forces which were not in Europe, concenrning the fact that some of the NATO armies wouldnt participate in the war on the begining (Portugal, Spain, Italy), that some of the Nato forces wouldnt exist because those states would be occupied in the first day of war (Denmark, Norway) and concenring the fact that the biggest blow would be recived by US forces in Germany and German army, the remaining resistance wouldnt be strong. The advantage is always on the attacking side, especially if NATO was surprised by WP attack.
And yes, this data might be lowered because it is data for year 1991. I know that few years earlier Poland had 500.000 strong standing army so it looks like it was partly disbanded. Probably in the other WP countries the number of troops was also lowered. ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 14:14
|
When i posted the warsaw pact forces - rocket launchers - I meant moblile rocket launchers on the tracked and halftracked vihicles:
-SS-21: range 70-120 km - SS-23: range 500 km - SS-1C/D: range 600-700 km - SS-22: range 900 km - SS-20: range 4500 km ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 14:21
|
Right now i found the info i needed.
According to the Warsaw Pact plan of attack all the western Europe was supposed to be occupied before USA will be able to transfer enough big forces to Europe and to stop the attack. It was considered that if the operation will take 16 days, it will be enough and the plan was considered as realistic. ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 14:27
|
Again, you pesky, blood sucking insect!, you have found the answer!
Except you forgot the thousands of "wire guided" anti-tank missiles that were specifically designated to destroy the Soviet Armour! You might well not know it but the terrain of a lot of W. Europe was massaged to make the Soviet forces have to concentrate their forces at specific places! I see no way that the Soviets could have done better, without the use of nukes, than our planners had predicted? And, I have not even metioned our ability to "jam" Soviet communications! Sorry, some of my information may still be covered? ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 14:40
Still doesnt matter. According to the plan of attack, Warsaw Pact was supposed to use tactital nuclear weapon before the advancing panzer collumns. In the plan was written that under protection of the tanks and armoured vehicles the soldiers will suffer from radiation but will keep combat readiness for about next 14 days - next would be disabled or start dieing from radiation sickness . ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 14:46
|
But really this plan wasnt possible to launch for one but important reason - and the Soviets knew it. Colonel Kuklinski of the Polish army, officer of Warsaw Pact Headquaters, stole them and gave to CIA.
Some info from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryszard_Kukli%C5%84ski - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryszard_Kukli%C5%84ski
Ryszard Jerzy Kukliński (June 13, 1930 – February 11, 2004) was a Polish colonel and Cold War spy. He passed top secret /wiki/Warsaw_Pact - Warsaw Pact documents to the /wiki/CIA - CIA between 1971 and 1981. Former United States /wiki/National_Security_Advisor_%28United_States%29 - National Security Advisor /wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezi%C5%84ski - Zbigniew Brzeziński has described him as "the first Polish officer in NATO."Kukliński was born in Warsaw into a working class family with socialist traditions. His father was a member of the /wiki/Polish_resistance_movement - Polish resistance movement during World War II who was captured by the Gestapo and died in the /wiki/Sachsenhausen_concentration_camp - Sachsenhausen concentration camp . After the war, Kukliński began a successful career in the /wiki/Polish_Peoples_Army - Polish People's Army . He took part in the preparations for the /wiki/Warsaw_Pact - Warsaw Pact 's /wiki/Invasion_of_Czechoslovakia - invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.
Disturbed by this invasion of Czechoslovakia and by the brutal crushing of the /wiki/Polish_1970_protests - Polish 1970 protests , in 1972 Kukliński had a letter sent to the US embassy in Bonn that described himself as "an foregen MAF from Communistische Kantry" (sic) and requested a secret meeting. #cite_note-0 - [1] In 1994 Kukliński said that his awareness of the "unambiguously offensive" nature of Soviet military plans was an important factor in his decision to communicate the details of those plans to the United States, adding that "Our front could only be a sacrifice of Polish blood at the altar of the Red Empire" #cite_note-1 - [2] Kukliński was also concerned that his homeland would be turned into a nuclear wasteland as the Warsaw Pact's superiority in conventional forces would mean /wiki/NATO - NATO would respond to a military action with tactical nuclear weapons. Between 1971 and 1981 he passed 35,000 pages of mostly /wiki/Soviet - Soviet secret documents to the CIA. The documents described Moscow's strategic plans regarding the use of /wiki/Nuclear_weapons - nuclear weapons , technical data about the /wiki/T-72 - T-72 tank and /wiki/Strela - Strela -1 missiles, the whereabouts of Soviet /wiki/Anti-aircraft - anti-aircraft bases in Poland and East Germany, the methods used by the Soviets to avoid /wiki/Spy_satellite - spy satellite detection of their military hardware, plans for the imposition of /wiki/Martial_law_in_Poland - martial law in Poland , and many other matters. Facing imminent danger of discovery, Kukliński was spirited out of Poland by the CIA, along with his wife and two sons, shortly before the imposition of martial law in December 1981. On May 23, 1984 Kukliński was /wiki/Sentenced_to_death - sentenced to death , /wiki/In_absentia - in absentia , by a secret /wiki/Military_court - military court in Warsaw. After the /wiki/History_of_Poland_%281989-present%29#Roundtable_Talks_and_Elections - fall of communism , the sentence was changed to 25 years. In 1995 the court cancelled the sentence and said that Kuklinski was acting under special circumstances that warranted a higher need. Kukliński visited Poland again in April 1998. ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 14:50
|
Interesting information. Now, when they say that the WP countries forces were superior, are we talking numbers or also technologically? Also, the scenario we are considering is conventional war (no usage of nukes), and I'm still convinced that the WP countries would not win a long term war against NATO. Economically they simply would not be able to sustain their war effort. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 14:55
The equipment of NATO and WP in 80ties was comparable, some western arms were better, some soviets were better. For example Soviet Mig 29 was considered the best fighter of those times. As for the war effort - if the WP conquered western europe in 16 days, it would fight only USA and Canada - which were behind the ocean. ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 15:03
|
See, I dont believe that the WP countries would have taken Europe in 16 days. The WP countries would have been stalled in Central Europe. Furthermore, Russia would have to deal with the United States on its Eastern shores (Pacific side). The United States Navy dominated the Soviet Navy so much that the Soviets didnt even bother to compete with it. The United States would have easily blockaded the Warsaw Pact countries, further harming their struggling economies. US basis in Turkey would have bombarded Western Russia to a pulp. The United States would have, with its naval superiority, kept the WP countries at bay until it could land reinforcements on Europe, if they were even necessary. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 15:15
Why dont you first read some more things before starting posting nuissences? Do you think that YOU THE GREAT SIMBA are more clever than thousands of generals, strategists and tacticians who were preparing invasion plans for years? Do you belive that they all were stupid and tried to do somthing what is impossible but you can clearly see what would be the result? Why dont you first just read somthing about Soviet fleet and its goals in case of invasion on western Europe? How can you belive that US superiority on the sea would stop 70.000 tanks in Germany? Do you think that US atlantic fleet wouldnt be busy enough in case of invasion to care mostly for its self? Have you ever heard about soviet aricrafts and rockets which were designed and built only for 1 thing - sinking the US aircraft carriers? ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 15:19
|
Hey, I thought that tactical nukes were removed from this discussion?
You all might well notice that the title of this entire thread is "conventional war!" If we avoid that particular word, then in that case, it might well have been worse for the Russkies? Our Atomic cannon were better than theirs! As well, none of us know just how many Nukes were really buried in the valleys and passes that the Soviet might have been forced to use? Secrets are secrets! Even today! Prosit! ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 15:30
Calm down. Its funny you claim that I need to do more reading yet you're basing all your arguments on WP countries plans, you think NATO didnt have plans of their own? Just as the Soviets had offensive and defensive plans, so did NATO.
Yes, because the Soviets could not compete with the US on the sea, they focus on anti-ship tactics, such as missiles and planes, yet once again, you dont even think for one second NATO responses to such things. You are looking at all of this from one perspective, why dont you look at it from NATO's perspective? We are considering a CONVENTIONAL WAR (no nuclear weapons) and in a CONVENTIONAL WAR the WP countries would not have overran Europe in 16 days. Sorry to burst your bubble, it doesnt even sound realistic. It took Germany a month just to take France even though they had complete air superiority and surprise on their side. You claim that the WP countries could have taken all of Europe in just 16 days even though Europe was planning for and expecting such scenarios, and were ready for them at all times (it was the COLD WAR) Fact is that both sides made their plans with nuclear weapons in mind. What we are talking about is a scenario without nukes. This would have resulted in a long drawn out and bloody war, nothing as quick as you suggest. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 15:52
|
TheGreatSimba just try to understand few things. Soviet forces didnt have to defeat US Navy- only to stop it for few days - and were able to do it. They didnt have to sink US Navy to achieve the goals of operation. They have invented the plans of sinking US aircraft carriers which were quite realistic (even if the forces designed to do it were annihilated during the attack) what would highly limit US supremacy on the seas, and it was enough. To win the war you dont have to kill all enemies, somtimes it is just enough to stop them for long enough to achieve its own targets.
As for NATO readiness to stop WP offensive I would rate chances 70% for WP and 30% for NATO. You seems to forget few things. First of all, NATO forces would be attacked in few places by the whole might of WP, while NATO forces were not concentrated. How much time would it take to transfer forces from Spain, Portugal, Britain where they were needed? How would Denmark and Norwey defend itself in the first 2-3 days? And dont even dare to belive that NATO would have air superiority. The truth is that in the first few days the whole preassure would be on the US forces in Europe and not so big West German army. You also dont understand one thing. Western general would care for the lifes of their soldiers and try to spare them, while Soviet Commanders (and they were WP highest commanders) were ready to sacrifice millions of lifes to achieve their goals and targets. In my opinion it was quite possible that WP would take over western Europe in 16 days but only using the strategy "whatever the cost". And they were going to use this strategy. ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 16:19
Wow, I'll just let some one else respond to this. I dont even think the most optimistic Soviet general would agree with your assessment. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2010 at 03:59
|
2 points to consider. Who gets the kick off? The war starts, all well and good, but who fires first shots, or more importantly, who gets pre-emptive attacks? Quality vs quantity. Iraq's T72s and others were no real match for coalition tanks, even though Iraq had more armour than the Coalition forces. ------------- |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2010 at 05:15
T72 was designed as the first wave attack tank. In fact they all were supposed to be destroyed together with their crews. In 1982 in Liban T 72 proved to be an equal opponent against American tanks, with very effective cannon 125 mm, but unsufficient armour. In Liban many times the bullets of T 72 were able to throw out the turret of american M 60 Patton tanks. In 1991 in Iraq war T 72 wasnt an equal opponent against allied Abrams and chaleger tanks, but Iraq had only the oldest versions of T 72 tanks. Soviet army had also about 5000 T 80 tanks. ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: warwolf1969
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2010 at 05:24
| The WP plan would rely upon a total tactical surprise, which they would never get. Remember that the figures for the WP forces include catagory B and C troops, which would have to be mobalised. Nato would be on alert the moment catagory B divs were mobilised. As soon as any Cat C divs were mobilised then Nato would be on war footing. US re-enforcements would be either all ready in Europe or on their way. At that point the WP plan fails, Nato holds them somewhere around the Rhine. WP economys fail after a few weeks of trying to support a massive war, NATO wins. Any premptive strike would only use Cat A divs, which brings the numbers down to a more even balance. At that point NATO's qualitive advantage kicks in. With better tanks, AT weaponry and training again the WP attack becomes blunted on the Rhine. Same result, so either way the WP losses. The only way they could win was through the use of Nukes, which is why they are so central to their plans. As this thread specifially states no Nukes, WP lose. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2010 at 06:14
|
As I mentioned earlier, it is my understanding that from the 1950's, till the 1980', or so, the NATO strategy was to force any attacking Soviet forces into valleys of distruction. Large portions of the old Eastern border area of old W. Germany were actually physically converted to defensive positions. Ridges and hill tops, were either used as found or manipulated into defensive positions for the tens of thousands of tank killing wire guided missiles.
Anti-tank helicopter units trained to hide behind these ridges, and tree lines, and pop-up fire and drop down behind cover! The theory being that if the Soviets could not get a good look at them, they could not hit them! Ground troops also had their wire guided missiles and anti-aircraft defenses! Who knows what other plans were conceived, perhaps blowing dams and flooding the Soviets in the valleys was even considered where feasible? One has to understand that just because the Soviet forces had thousands of tanks in the West,this does not mean that the mass of them could be considered reliable enough, or that they were maintained well enough to actually field them! Soviet and their allied divisions were known for years to exist by canabilizing their own equipment, and selling it on the black market! Rubber, fuel, metals, etc., were routinely stolen and sold, so the actual percentage of Soviet armour that might hit the road, so to speak, was considered to only be a partial number compared to the Book Total! Let's say, one might consider that only 200 or a 400 tank division, whould actually be able to attack from the front! I could go on about it, but NATO really considered the Soviet forces facing them as a "paper tiger", that could not press an attack in force for very many days! There existed a great many defectors during this period and I am sure that the real status of the Soviet forces was pretty much known to the NATO high command. But, of course, as always, I could be wrong? Regards, ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Maximus Germanicus I
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2010 at 06:59
|
Mosquito like always is wrong,
First there were 3,700 M1s in Europe at the time. (or on PPAFO) The M1 was battle tested and when facing T-72s were very succesfull
The M1A1 was capable of making kills at ranges in excess of 2,500 metres (8,200 ft). This range was crucial in combat against tanks of Soviet design in Desert Storm, as the effective range of the main gun in the Soviet/Iraqi tanks was less than 2,000 metres (6,600 ft)
The M-60 was also battle tested they destroyed T-72s in the Gulf war and in the Isreali -Egyptina war.
But guess what the British Cheiftans and Challengers were even better and they were in Europe waiting for the WP. I an not even counting the 1,000 plus lepard 2s (which had M! FCO sysetems in optics, and the nearly 4,000 lepaord 1s that where in Equal match for the T-72. Then you had 1,000 AMX 30 from the French, this coupled with a defensive terrian tanks dug in in depth a lot of River crossings gave the allies a huge advnatge in Armor.
Now the Mosquito will say what about the T-80s--The bug said They had 5,000 of them--Wrong my insect friend there were about 2,700 iproduced by 1987, and of those maybe half were battle ready. Further when the T-80 went to combat it was considered a FAILURE, A FAILURE "Out of all armored vehicles that entered Grozny, 225 were destroyed in the first month alone, representing 10.23% of all the tanks committed to the campaign. The T-80 performed so poorly that General-Lieutenant A. Galkin, the head of the Armor Directorate, convinced the Minister of Defence after the conflict to never again procure tanks with gas-turbine engines. After that T-80 MBTs were never again used to capture cities and instead supported infantry squads from a safe distance.
Kolekcja Czołgi Świata, Issue 8, pp 11,12 http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/rusav.htm - http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/rusav.htm Mikhail Zakharchuk, 'Uroki Chechenskogo krizisa' (Lessons of the Chechen crisis), Armeyskiy sbornik, April 1995, 46. Further
Recently, the Russians seem to be abandoning the T-80s design. Perhaps because of the turbine-powered tank's high fuel consumption, and the poor combat performance of older T-80BV tanks in Chechnya, the Russian Army decided to standardize on the T-90 derived from the T-72BMZaloga 2000, p 3.
So really the T-72 was the better tank, and when the T-72 went head to head with the M1 the Patton or the Lepoard or the CT the T-72 lost. The T-80 was an abject failure. And Guess what we are not even into the good stuff yet. Even if we went Tank on Tank the Allies win
But the two most important things were the TOW (along with the MILAN, SPIKE, DRAGON and COPPERHEAD) and the Apache. The Apache could set back and blast Soviet tanks with hellfires from miles and miles away, and based on allied control of friendly Airspace the WP could not stop them. This coupled with the valleys of death with literally 10s of thousands of wire guided missles meant that the WP would never make it across the Rhine. Granted Germany would be destroyed. By the way i have personally seen Hellfires shred T-80s and T-72s it isn't pretty.
Also not to mention the better trained and better equipped western soldier vs the conscript Russian/WP soldier
|
Posted By: Maximus Germanicus I
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2010 at 07:04
Do you just make this stuff up--The T-72 was a failure against the M1 and the Patton. It was proven over and over again, where do you get these comments can you cite them--becuase I can cite my sources. You are really going to claim that sombody for the WP era Polish intell world is a relaible source--I have read a lot of books by former soviet generals and spys most of them confirm they were a paper tiger.
|
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2010 at 07:32
|
Voices of reason, thanks! Mosquito doesnt consider the following things: 1) NATO war plans 2) NATO readiness (NATO was always on alert regarding events in WP countries, they would never have been able to make a surprise attack) 3) NATO technological superiority 4) NATO economic superiority. 5) Quality of NATO troops By the 1980's, the Soviet Union was but a shadow of its former self, it couldnt compete with the United States in any field. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2010 at 07:46
|
Maximus, could you find please how big were US forces in Europe in 80ties of 20th century? Amount of soldiers, tanks and aircrafts? ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2010 at 07:59
|
It would have been very difficult for NATO forces to advance easily, they would have had to stop and move the hulks of the T72's and the T 80's. The T 80 is a good tank, it just has the same fatal design flaw that the T 72 has, there isn't any protection against their own ammo blowing up when hit. As a matter of fact the old joke about the Sherman tank being called the Ronson, because it lights every time, was revived with the T 72 replacing the Sherman.
There are more than a few reasons why The Warsaw Pact forces would have had a tough time of it.
Opuslola has hit on some of them.
He skipped over a few though. The F117 was operational, but the WP forces didn't know that, and they certainly didn't figure on the superiority of the Abrams. [I don't believe anyone US or WP really knew how big a gap that was until the Gulf War.]
------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2010 at 08:16
The NATO planners always knew that the WP forces would have numbers on their side, weapons developement and deployment was done always with that in mind. So don't look at the Quantity, look at the Quality.
A former roomate from Uni somehow managed to talk himself into a lt. Col. by the late 80's.
  His views were a little scary at the time. He figured that any conflict would turn into a major Nuke exchange between US and Soviet Russia. The reason being the WP would have "had their butts handed to them on a plate" in a conventional war. In order to save face they would have used their long range nukes. ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2010 at 08:31
|
Well you are right Red! I did miss some stuff, like the Warthog! If the F-15's and 16's, etc., could keep the Soviet fighters off of them, then the Warthogs would have run through the Soviet armour like crap through a Goose!
Just think, valleys full of T-72 or 80's, and all of that depleted uranium just waiting for a good home! And speaking of the Red Air Force, they might well have dominated for a while, but would they have any airfields left to return to after the stealth bombs started falling? There are tons of things to consider, especially in the 1980's! This is an interesting topic and I enjoy it immensly! Regards, ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2010 at 08:32
Why this emphasis on the US troops? British, French, Italian, and West German troops alone, alongside the Americans on the continent, would have been able to halt a WP advance. Mosquito, you have to accept the fact that a conventional war would have turn into a long term war, with NATO eventually winning because of economic superiority. Like Red Clay said, WP war plans included heavy use of nukes for the sole reason that they could not compete conventionally with NATO forces. Quality over quantity, you can have a million man army, but if they have inferior weaponry and inferior training, they can and will be defeated by a much smaller, better trained, better equiped, and organized force. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: Maximus Germanicus I
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2010 at 10:44
I don't think the WP ever would have had Air Superiority at any time during the war-They would not have been able to crack western ADA. Our ADA coupled with our fighters would have rendered the WP AIrforces useless.
The Mosq talks about the GRAD and the Uragan the effective range is 35K (22 Miles)--Hell we have tube Artillery with RAPs that can smack you at 35K.
Compare this to the MLRS (you know steel rain, 1 shot 1 grid square, the 90K sniper rifle)
MLRS was developed jointly by the United Kingdom, United States, Germany, and France. It was developed from the older http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General_Support_Rocket_System&action=edit&redlink=1 - General Support Rocket System (GSRS).
The rockets and ATACMS missiles are contained in interchangeable pods. Each pod contains six standard rockets or one guided ATACMS missile (the two types cannot be mixed). The launcher can hold two pods at a time, which it loads using an integrated crane. All twelve rockets or two ATACMS missiles can be fired in under a minute. One launcher firing twelve rockets can completely blanket one square http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilometer - kilometer with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_bomb - submunitions . For this reason, the MLRS is sometimes referred to as the "Grid Square Removal Service" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MLRS#cite_note-0 - [1] ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_system - metric maps are usually divided up into 1km grids). The MLRS can shoot and scout the WP UG requires a Pan Tele and takes up to 20 minutes to lay, the MLRS battery does not nead to lay therefore it can shoot move and communicate making countery battry fire very difficult at best.
Further the Reload time is 4 min for the MLRS vs 20 min for the UG
The Range is from 32 to 90 KM depending the rockets used.
Some the Rocket packages that the M270 sports are:
The M270 system can fire MFOM, MLRS Family Of Munition rockets and artillery missiles, which are manufactured and used by a number of countries. These include:
|
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2010 at 11:13
|
The Warsaw Pact could have won between 1970-1982. The claim that NATO always enjoyed a huge technological supereority is a myth. The NATO technological gap only became huge after the Reagan build up.
Consider the Warsaw Pact advangates in 1977:
-A U.S. Army with many internal problems after Vietnam
-Warsaw Pact has numerical advantage and some pretty good quality: T-72s, BMPS, sophisticated (for the time) and mobile SAMS, heavy rocket systems (Soviet specialty) etc
-There are either no or very few F-16s, M-1s, Bradleys, Apaches, advanced Leopards, stealth fighters, cruise missiles in the NATO inventory
-Internal political problems with in NATO could lead to some members only offering token forces to meet treaty obligations. (Especially if Soviet propaganda could show that U.S. provoked the war).
- Soviets have already compensated for unethusiastic Warsaw Pact members.
The results.... Warsaw Pact starts a sudden pre emptive strike, good Soviet propaganda leads Spain, Italy, Netherlands and Greece to make only token commitments. The French sit it out. Turkey is left alone and is busy watching Greece. Da 'Pact (mostly Soviet) steadily steamrollers the American, West German and British forces in the FDR. 30 days later, Game is over. NATO loses.
|
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2010 at 11:43
|
But we are talking about 1987. By that time, NATO far surpassed WP countries.
------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2010 at 12:30
Yeah, get with it. The man put up the year 1987, not 1977.  ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2010 at 14:14
|
Well, whatever I did said before, I dont really belive that in 1987 WP would defeat NATO in the conventional war. To say the truth most of Soviet satelite countries wouldnt like to fight either, they would go to war only with soviet machine guns behind their back.
However, on the maps and plans of WP, it was looking much better than in the reality. But year 1987 was the time when communism was about to fell. For example in Poland in 1980 communists had to introduce martial law, to keep the society under control. One of the reasons why Poland wasnt invaded by Warsaw Pact forces was that Polish generals were not able to guarantee that Polish soldiers will stay idle in such situation. The soldiers were conscripts who felt to be more related with the society they were coming from than with communist party. Not to mention that opposition in Poland in 1980 had 10 millions registered members while communist party only a little bit more than 1 million. ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2010 at 14:21
|
But as for air superiority still noone told me how strong were the US forces in Europe. As for european air forces if Im not wrong - only the French had good equimpment and numbers. If i remember well most of RAF were harriers and Tornados, western Germans had Tornados - and those planes were not able to fight as equal against modern soviet fighters such as Migs 29. In fact even F 16 were not quite equal opponents for Migs. ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2010 at 17:19
Yikes, he did say "1977"
. 1987 was probably "one year too far" for the Warsaw Pact. Even a year or two, however, could make a huge difference in the amount of hi tech equipment the Soviets would be facing. I think that a Sovet victory was feasible, though unlikely, as late as 1985.
I think the F-16 had the edge on the MIG 29. Also, with the Reagan build up, the USA was probably producing more F-16s than the Soviet Union was MIG-29s. Then factor in Hornets, Tomcats and Eagles. The bankrupt Soviets could not produce advanced MIGs or sukhois in quantity.
True, but the Soviets already knew that most Warsaw PAct troops were unreliable and they planned acordingly. Soviet battle plans called for Poland, East Germany to merely defend their air space and supply only a small number of elite units (paratroopers, marines) for special missions.
Also, not all NATO allies were going to be fully committed to ground combat unless they were directly threatned by the Soviets. I have a suspision that NATO members such as Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal, France and maybe the Netherlands would have discovered reasons to keep their armies home and in uhmmmm " strategic reserve" against other possible Soviet offensives.
|
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2010 at 17:23
|
One thing I have yet to hear anyone mention is that once the Soviets fell behind with regards to computer technology, they started an espionage program in order to steal western computer technology. What the Soviets didnt know was that the United States found out and was feeding the Soviets false technology for years. For example, the US would intentionally "give" soviet spies computer technology in which the programs were designed to crash after a certain period. This was a huge nuisance to the Soviets, who didnt have a clue what was happening. This could have played a huge factor in a soviet defeat. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2010 at 17:44
Not quite truth. Polish army was supposed to occupy Northern Germany and to launch amfibious invasion of Denmark.
------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2010 at 18:26
Ok, it was more than just super elite units. But was that the entire Polish conscript army to be used? Or was the Polish contribution to be the Airborne Division, Marine Division and a mechanized division or two of known reliability?
Also, Polish units may have fought well due to their military professionalism and not for communism or for Russians. In addition, the Soviets probably would ensure that the selected Polish units would be fighting mostly Germans, and not British or American units.
|
Posted By: Maximus Germanicus I
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2010 at 22:21
|
Do you really think the Poles would have fought for the WP in 87-- Had a war brohen out I can see the Czechs, Hungarians and Poles all leading major Rebellions against the Soviets.
I don't see the WP winning in 77 either, It would have been a lot closer. However western tank technology was already ahead of the WP (as evidenced by the performace of the PT vs the T-72 is the Isreali -Egyptian war)
The wireguided missles were perfected at that time (the came out in the Vietnam era)
The French and the Dutch would not sit it out. More than likley it would be France and Holland saving Europe in 77 becuase at that time the plan called for a sacrifice of West Germany create as much hell is you could in Germany then make a stand at The Rhine. Even though France had formally pulled out of the NATO peace time structure they were still part of the wartime structure and planning.
France and Holland were to make a stand at the Rhine allowing REFORGER (return of forces to Germany) to take place. At the time the Russians reached the Rhine most US troops and West german troops would be killed or destroyed. REFORGER is the move of the rest of the British, Canadian and American troops into locations in France and Holland.
|
Posted By: Maximus Germanicus I
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2010 at 22:27
| France remained a member of the alliance, and committed to the defence of Europe from possible Communist attack with its own forces stationed in the Federal Republic of Germany throughout the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War - Cold War . A series of secret accords between U.S. and French officials, the Lemnitzer-Ailleret Agreements, detailed how French forces would dovetail back into NATO's command structure should East-West hostilities break out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#cite_note-17 - [ |
Posted By: Maximus Germanicus I
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2010 at 22:31
| The one huge advantge that the WP did have was in APCs the BDRM and BMP were excellent APCs and the WP Mech infantry could move swiftley--They are also designed to swim (BDRM), however the Rhine was to big and swift for them, but they coul dcross small rivers rather quickly (quickley being relative to amphibs, you could prob swim almost as fast) but they didn't need to bridge. |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 00:45
How many Tomcats, F16, Hornets and eagles were in Europe? As I said before, The British and Germans had only harriers and Tornados (if I rmember well the Germans had also outdated F104 starfighters). Only french Mirages were modern fighter planes. It might be funny but after reunification of Germany and joining eastern and western German armies together, the most modern fighter plane of German air forces were eastern German Mig's 29.
Italian army shouldnt be counted except for ariforces because between Italy and Germany was neutral Austria. ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Maximus Germanicus I
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 01:21
|
Italy was also hemmed in by a Neutral Switzerland and Yugoslavia, but they could get troop into France.
The Key in 77 would be the French and the low countires. Coupled with The US and Westgermany inflicting a max amount of destruction to the Russians to slow the progress to the Rhine. Denmark and Norway would be a wild card, Denmark my likley fall however NATO naval superiority would keep the baltic at least semi open. Norway would not fall--What would Sweeden do? I think they would join a NATO war at least as a defensive measure as would Austria.
in 87-Like cryptic said was a year (I think 3 years too late) too late for the WP to even make it a war.
|
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 02:14
Yeah i forgot about Switzerland because I always drive trough Austria.
Nah, Austria wouldnt join NATO. After WW 2 Austria was occupied by Soviet Union and Soviet Army left Austria making deal with them, that they will stay neutral. Considering it i guess that austrians wouldnt like to risk as long as their borders wouldnt be violated.
As for Sweden, theyu did nothning when Germans took Norway in 1940 so I see no reason why should they act and join Nato against Soviet Union. They also didnt help Finland in 1939 against Soviets. And belive me, the decision about resignation from neutrality in Sweden would take years.
And still noone answered on my question about the strenght of NATO Air Forces in Europe. I still cant see the NATO air superiority in such conflict. In such conflict if the WP had air superiority, it could change the result of war and highly limit possibility of getting reinforcements from USA and Canada. ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Maximus Germanicus I
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 02:33
|
I don't think either side would have AS per see. I think the Air defeses in western europe coupled with better US/ Euro Air forces to include the French Mirage which was a battle tested excellent Air craft would prevent the WP from any type of air cover into the west.
However, I don't think NATO would have free skies over eastern europe either.
By 77 AD and ADA (Air Defense and Air Defense Artillery) had an advantage over Air power on both sides, thats why Stealth became so important. By 87 NATO had the ability to disect WP AD becuase of stealth, therefore being able to stifle or stimey WP air power by destroying there air bases.
|
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 02:39
|
I just found that not only Germany but also Italy, Spain, Norway and Denmark had obsolete Lockheed F-104 Starfighter. I such situation there is no way that NATO would have superiority in case of conflict in Europe. In Italy F 104 was in use till 2004!!!! ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Maximus Germanicus I
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 02:40
Air Defense 1987 US study of WP http://www.fas.org/irp/dia/product/87_58.jpg"> Major organizational changes instituted in 1980 transferred control of air defense aircraft, SAMs, and radars from national air defense authorities to local military district commanders. This change was probably implemented to provide battlefield commanders with greater flexibility. Even after reorganizing, the Soviets appeared to be dissatisfied with their air defense structure. More recent shifts are apparently resubordinating surface-to-air missiles and aircraft back to the national air defense forces. The rationale may involve a desire for greater centralized control over weapons rather than the flexibility of the local commander in making certain decisions. http://www.fas.org/irp/dia/product/87_air_radar.jpg"> The Soviets have deployed a large number of strategic air defense systems with capabilities against aircraft flying at medium and high altitudes. They are now in the midst of a major effort to improve their capabilities against aircraft and cruise missiles that operate at low altitudes. This effort includes upgrading their early warning and surveillance systems; deployment of more efficient data-transmission systems; as well as development and initial deployment of new aircraft, associated air-to-air missiles, SAMs, and airborne warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft. Currently, the Soviets have more than 9,000 strategic SAM launchers, nearly 5,000 tactical SAM launchers (excluding handheld), and some 10,000 air defense radars. Approximately 2,250 air defense forces interceptor aircraft are dedicated to strategic defense. An additional 2,100 interceptors assigned to Soviet air Forces could be drawn upon for strategic defense missions. Collectively, these assets present a formidable defense barrier. |
The USSR continues to modernize and expand what is already the most extensive strategic air defense network in the world. The mission is to be carried out by a strong pre-positioned national air defense force established in peacetime according to a unified concept and plan. The leadership appears to be in constant search for the optimum organizational structure of the air defense assets.
Posted By: Maximus Germanicus I
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 02:42
|
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 02:47
|
Maximus you are showing aircraft which most of european airforces were not equipped with. ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 03:08
RAF also has Jaguars, everybody always forgets those, poor Jaguars, dont worry I remember you and your funny noses. ------------- |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 03:09
|
These are the aircrafts of western European air forces:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-104_Starfighter - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-104_Starfighter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavia_Tornado - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavia_Tornado
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_III - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_III
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_G - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_G
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage_2000 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage_2000
And for Dreamweaver:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEPECAT_Jaguar - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEPECAT_Jaguar
------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 03:38
It wasnt the matter of quality of tanks. No intelligent commander will send the tanks into the city to fight on the narrow streets knowing that enemy has great opportunity to use anti tank weapons. And only an idiot will send the tanks to the city without infantry cover.
The Germans learned it in 1944 in Warsaw during Warsaw Uprising that tanks became easy targets so one can only be astonished that Russian generals used mass tank force to fight in the city and didnt even provide enough infantry to protect the sides and backs of those tanks. ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 04:36
Realistic WP goals would be blitzing West Germany, Denmark and maybe parts of the Netherlands and then declaring victory.
The French also had a conscript army during the cold war. The French commitment seems tailor made for them: a small number of elite, all volunteer units weaken Soviets in Germany then fall back, Germany gets swallowed (darn), the larger French conscript Army is only used to defend France proper.
But.... Soviets on the Rhine and offering a cease fire effectively means a Soviet victory.
Though I agree that western tanks completely outclassed T-8os and T-72s, the first Chechen was saw a totally unprepared Russian army fight determined defenders. The Second Chechen war with motivated Russians using the same equipment had far different results.
|
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 05:03
|
And if I remember well someone posted that USA had in Europe about 3000 tanks. It means that all together about 70.000 WP tanks would fight against about 10000-12000 NATO tanks.
So even if inferior WP could have win a tank battle.
Its like Shermans or T 34's during WW2, to destroy 1 German tiger they had to use 4 or 5 but had enough to do it.
And considering WP superiority in the air those inferior WP tanks would have air cover while NATO tanks would have to trust its anti - air defence. ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Maximus Germanicus I
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 06:47
|
Where do you get your info? the F-16 was standard NATO since 1979 for the Dutch, Danes and Nords.
The Dutch: From 1979 until now all remaining RNLAF squadrons (306, 311, 312, 313, 315, 322 and 323) are using NATO's standard fighter-bomber the multi role http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16_Fighting_Falcon - F-16 Fighting Falcon .
The US had around 4,000 of them, even if they weren't in Europe they could be there oh in about 12 hours. Not to mention the F-15, 18, 14.
How do you figure Air Sup of the WP--When Pakistan flying F-16s shot down 10 Russian piolted MIGs in the 80's. The F-15 in all air forces had an air-to-air combined record of 104 kills to 0 losses in air combat as of February 2008
Bottom line there was no Air Sup, for the WP. They had denail of Airspace over Eastern Europe due to ADA, as NATO could deny Airspace over Western Europe.
Plus you forget about the stealth fighter and bomber, they had penetrate Eastern Airspace and destroy air fields.
|
Posted By: Maximus Germanicus I
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 06:51
| There was about 6,000 more tanks in the WP then NATO--However, they have to advance thr/ citites and difficult terrian, they need bridges and rivers--They would not have Aircover--NATO warthogs and Apaches (along with TOWs) had neutralize any numbers and to attack on that kind of terrian which would include Urban combat you need to have a 5 to 1 ratio--When you figure the quality of the NATO tanks into the numbers game NATO has about a 2 to 1 advantage, figure in Air Power and Attack Helios it isn't even a contest. |
Posted By: Maximus Germanicus I
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 06:53
| I don't doubt that the Russians could make it to the Rhine but that is where they had lose, they then would be in a protracted war with NATO and they could not sustain it. For the Russians to win they need to take the COGs of NATO (Paris and London) only then would a peace be brokered, they couldn't so WP would lose. |
Posted By: Maximus Germanicus I
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 06:54
| MOSQ where are the WP jets going to land, a jet can't fle forever, 117s along with Cruise missles would devesate WP Air Fields, no matter how far they fly into Russia |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 06:59
|
Well, we tend to leave out the Western Navies! I know that it is said that the WP had a plan to destroy all Western carriers! But, that is easier said than done! For one, if the Western carrier groups were placed in a stand off position, they could, as was mentioned, only be attacked in a conventional manner by either long range bombers, who would be easy prey for the F-14's, etc., and/or by one way suicide attacks. In other words the attacking aircraft could reach the carrier groups but had no chance of returning to a safe airfield.
If indeed WP pilots had the desire to make a one way attack, then I would suspect that the WP was also willing to loose at least 500 aircraft and pilots! Of course my 500 is merely a guess, but F-14's could take out enemy aircraft over 1,000 miles from the fleet, then return and reload. But, if such an attack was not successful, then the WP faced even more problems. And, one has to realize that not all Western carriers whould actually be in a position to be attacked in force by the WP! They would then form up again, and face the next attack, if any could then be organzed. Again, the WP number of actual tanks, and tanks actually capable of fighting is somewhat of a fake number, that is, as I have already mentioned, a big difference when that is taken into account! Thus, it is possible that after the first three days of the conflict, their might well be but about 15,000 to 20,000 WP tanks still in service? If the West only had 9,000 battle ready tanks available, and assuming that these tanks were formed into battle some where West of the initial attacks, then with a 4 to 5 to one kill ratio, they could actually take care of the 15 to 20 thousand WP tanks! Especially if the WP was forced into the already designated killing areas! It is mostly a matter of the distance the Western tanks could take on and destroy the WP tanks! Thus you would attack, destroy and move back to another safe distance and repeat step one, etc.! Taking this scenerio as possible, then the WP tanks would rarely get off a good shot at the Western tanks! Note, that if the WP was able to control the skies for very long, then this scenerio would not hold for long, but as has been mentioned, there is little doubt that NATO forces whould have long since have bombed or mined all of the attacking forces airfields, leaving them forced to abandon their aircraft or die! Note again, this is 1987! But, all of war is sometimes based upon pure chance! And, communications! Thus a "convential EMP device or devices" spread arround W. Europe, might well have taken out most of NATO's communications and radar coverage? Take that away, and NATO could well be overrun! Who really knows? But, it is fun to consider all of the "what if's?" ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 07:20
|
In the case of such great conflict the Dutch Air Forces are simply too small to be taken into account. And the fact is that major western european powers did have obsolete air forces. Even in the Dutch Air Forces F 16s were less than half of their planes, the rest were.... good old F 114 and canadian CF - 5.
You raised interesting questions about landings. The WP planists saw this problem and prepared for it. Only in Poland were built hundrieds of places where jets could land. Usually it were parts of the roads situated in the forests prepared to become fully operational in case of need with underground facilities. As far as I remember, most of them were empty, but could have been used if needed. I do belive that in case of conflict the WP was better prepared for the situation that airfields were destroyed than NATO. While Im really not sure if Western Europe was prepared to host a 1000 or more US planes in case if their own aierfields were destroyed or damaged.
This is the fact - in the end of 70ties most of western European NATO countries had outdated Air Forces - and belive me or not - they still have outdated Air Forces. For last over 30 years Germany, Italy, Spain and Great Britain are working on the contruction of new modern fighter plane. If I remember well they started in the end of 70ties and are about to finish it right now. They just proudly presented a jet which is called "EUROFIGHTER"..... and guess what..... they were working on it so long that it is obsolete now ;) ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 07:31
|
As for anti aircraft defence NATO didnt have anything better than this Soviet system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_%28missile - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile )
Even if Soviet fighters werent able to neutralise all NATO apaches and other helicopters - S 300 could do it.
Do not understimate the power of the dark side Max.
------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Maximus Germanicus I
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 07:50
|
The Soviet helicopter lacked the long range weapons of the Apache (some apaches were armed with stingers of all things, Didn't they do a number on the Russians) I agree that both AD was formidable and wit out stealth the allies could not pentrate it, in 77 it would have been tough but in 87 we have 117s and cruise missles.
Landing Planes is one thing but servicing re fueling and rearming is a nother, with 117s, and CMs denying Air fields and logistics hubs the WP would be in a bad way.
I still think the Poles, Czechs and Hungarians would have risen up simply becuase they knew if the WP won they would never be free of them.
The East Germans wouldn't they would be to happy ttrying to take over the rest of Germany.
Op makes a good point the standoff range of the F14 and F15 was so great they would be blowing Migs out of the sky before the migs new what hit them.
|
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 07:54
|
you are still talking about the aircrafts that were not in Europe...... ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 08:07
Yes, that was the plan. Soviet air forces formed special units which were supposed to attack US carriers with nuclear weapon and were not supposed to come back from this missions. The soviets exactly counted how many planes and rockets they need to sacrifice to make such attack. We cannot really talk about Western Navies. Other navies didnt have carriers that could have been considered by Soviets as dangerous. If I remember in such units were long range sea bombers able to operate on very high altitude. I will look for more details about it.
------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 08:40
Soviets on the rhine would lead to a prolonged war that NATO could not afford. Consider the following Soviet thoughts:
-Unethusiastic allies? We are now on the strategic defensive. If the other WP send us a few reliable units for defensive operations, they get a proportional share of the loot from Germany. NATO needs to convince the unenthused to support offensive operations
- Uenthusiastic conscripts, high casualties? Going to hurt NATO harder. We are a totalitarian system and can stand it longer. Calls for peace at home? Going to hurt the democarcies first.
-U.S. Carrier raids, naval blockade? Not worried about the blockade. We can soak up the raids, sinking one carrier is going to cause a thousand U.S. fatalities, we get most of our downed pilots back. NATO loses most of theirs.
-Propganda War? The war mongering leadership of the US, UK, and FRG provoked the war. We now offer peace. The U.S. still chooses war. In fact, the Germans have just "elected" members of the Green Party to chair a uhmm... "national reconciliation commitee".
|
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 09:14
|
Ok guys, I have consulted with my friend who is a cold war expert.
He told me that in the early 70ties the Soviets considered the conventional attack on Western Europe - and they didnt want to go farther than to the western border of Western Germany. Why? They saw no need to conquer France or Great Britain or Spain or Italy. For them important targets were Germany, Denmark and Norway - what could give them the air control over northern sea and part of Atlantic without having aircraft carriers. Soviet commanders supposed that if they wont use nuclear weapons - the other side wont do it as well.
The goal on the Atlantic wasnt to sink the US Navy - only to stop it. For this they made new classes of ships, both submarines and Rocket Cruisers.
The submarines were type 945 (NATO CODENAME "SIERRA"), 947 (NATO CODENAME "AKULA") and Oscar class submarines - type 949 and 949 A - Navy cruise missiles submarines - the last designed to attack aircraft carriers.
You can find descriptions of those ships in Wikipedia.
As for the US Aircraft carriers - Soviet Forces were not going to sink them. The goal was to damage them and the repairs which would take months, would give enough time to conquer Europe.
An attack against US carriers would be made with conventional weapons but specially designed to attack them - and it wasnt suicide mission!
The attack was to be conducted by naval bombers The Tupolev 22 M (NATO NAME "Backfire") a supersonic swing-wing, long range strike bombers. They would be accompanied by TU 95 with radar platforms. The position of US aircraft carriers was known due to Soviet fleet of satelites.
Tu 22 M for attacking US aircraft carriers were to be armed with rockets AS-6 (NATO name "KINGFISH"). Each TU 22M could have carried 3 such missiles, each had conventional warhead 1 tone heavy. The missile had range of 300 nautical miles and speed 4-5 x the sonic speed. In each attack on US aircraft carrier would take part about 100 Tu 22 M, what was giving 300 missiles launched from the distance of 300 nm. The epxeriences of British navy from the Falkland war showned that those time it wasnt easy to defend the ship from much inferior french made single Exocete missile which wasnt even supersonic. Defending the ship from 300 supersonic missiles was that time impossible. The missiles would be launched moreless in the same time when US Fleet would discover attacking Soviet forces - which after launching would imidatelly retreat - with their supersonic speed.
As for tanks and T72 experiences in Iraq my friend told me to forget it. T 72 was an assault tank designed to fight in Europe, not in the desert. In Europe you got a lot of land obstacles, rivers, valeys, houses, forests, lakes etc. The tanks would fight on much closer range than 2,5 km and T 72 canon would destroy western tanks as easilly, as the western tanks were destroying T72's in Desert War.
As for this what Opuslola said about wire guided missles - the other side had them as well, just add 50% to recive the number of those missles possesed by WP.
Opuslola dont forget 1 thing - the enemy wasnt backward in rocketry - he was rather more advanced.
------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 09:41
|
You might well be correct Mosquito? But, on what front would the WP armour attack? If it was directed across the mostly flat Northern plains, then the range superiority of the West would have again the edge!
Other directions of attack, would it seems place these armoured columns within large valleys, or having to cross large high ridges, or go around them! Again, wire guided anti-tank and anti-helo missisiles seem to be more important to the defender rather than the agressor! The defender already has his defensive positions marked and known like the back of his hand! And, I am sure "pre-ranging" of the cannon and tank cannon had already been calibrated to a "T!" As I said earlier, it is my belief that the NATO forces had planned upon forcing WP forces into a field of fire from which they could not escape! But, of course they could have been wrong, much like me? Also, I might well suggest that large portions of Germany's vast highway system, might also have been reserved for both supply and runway support? It also seems that the "kingfish" missile, had but a range of 185 miles or so! It seems that the outer defensive ring of a carrier fleet, whould have a long time to interfer with the bombers! Not even mentioning that these bombers would quite likely have no fighter support! It can also be considered that Western jamming, and other devices, might well have been more advanced that Soviet guidance systems? So, outer ring of smaller crusiers, f-14's, FA-18's, and ship to air missiles? It might have been interesting? Regards, ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Maximus Germanicus I
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 09:48
|
However wire guided rockets are much better in the defensive. You also have to figire advancing tanks with a poor FSC which the T-72 had, really had no chance against a M1 or a Lep dug in. Remember the Allies would bb in defensive postures. The only thing you see on a dug in tank is the turrent, a small target. The T-72 would have to advance and get in range to even be effective and it wouldn't be able to.
The T-72 didn't have the range to hang with the M1-any other talk about the T-72 is pure hypothetical becuase they have faced eachother in combat and both the M1 and the Patton always won and won easily.
the T-72 and T-80 are both proven comabt failures where as the m1 the CH and the Lep are combat proven.
How do you figure the WP was more advanced in Rocketry-- Not even close, Comapre the UG to the 270 not even close.
Remember I am a Cav guy, I know about armor, and Rockets--the last good russian Tank was the T-55 (actually love the T-55) e/t else was junk.
Now your friend is right that Russias plan was to take Germany, Denmark and Norway--Germany yes would have fallen up to the Rhine at first, but the occupation would not be sustainable, and there would be no more Germany. Norway would not have fallen.
The US, GB and France would not have given up until Russia would have been done at that point.
|
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 09:51
Sorry Opuslola but I dont know all the answers. My friend is an expert and he says that WP had a great chance to win, but not in 1987, lets say rather up to 1985. He also confirmed my opinion about complete air superiority of WP in Europe. Its because western european countries neglected their airforces so much...
He also said that in our discussion the power of French army in years 1975-1985 was highly overrrated. ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Maximus Germanicus I
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 09:58
|
By the way if you think the Backfire would have got within 1500 miles of a US carrier group you are nuts. The Tomcat was and my opinion still is esp with the Phalnx the best AS aircraft ever.
By the way you know this is a two front war-The US carrier groups, along with B-2s and B-1s annihilate eastern USSR from the pacific to the URALS and there is nothing Russia can do to stop them becuase the B1s fly to high for the Manned AD and most of the Rocket Ad was already taken out by Stealth bombers anyway, with F-14 Air Sup systems escorted by F-18 SHs from the Carriers no Russain plan gets close. Then they land Marines and Armor. As well as the US PACOM divs
I can see the 9th Infantry (manchus) and the 7th ID (Wolfhounds), 25th ID (tropical lightning), 2nd BAT all marching thr the streets of Vladivostok (along withe the Aussies the NZ armies, who under the ANZAC pact are tied to NATO)
|
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 09:58
|
And neither do I Mosquito!
But, speaking of wire guided anti-tank weapons, watch this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwSCsV2rGY8 Regards, ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 10:04
Mac this is pure fantasy. Such operation wasnt even being prepared. You cant launch great invasion with thousands of troops and thousands miles of the ocean between to continents. But lets say that you have done it and occupied Vladivostok..... what next .... just thousands miles of land...... up to Ural with no chance to even supply the forces on the road. Noone ever tried to invade Russia from this side, even Japs. ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 10:08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGf-sS4js5Y - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGf-sS4js5Y
------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 10:09
------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 10:19
|
Before I let this go, I would like to point out again that my sources, indicated that the US Inteligence networks, figured out quite early that most WP divisions, were always more like "Potemkin villiages" than a real division! Always a lack of spare parts, routine maintainence mostly ignored, reports falsified all the way to the top, etc.!
Thus, on paper, and within the Kremlin walls, the WP was armed to the teeth, but when a "push" came to a "shove", they could not produce an effective division anywhere! Theft from army and air force supplies was a never ending thing, and since many division leaders were profiting from it, it was never really stopped! My sources tended to think of everthing as in reality being about one half of what could have been used (by the WP forces), would really be usable in a combat situation! Much the same could be said about the large number of Soviet ICBM's! These are very sensitive implements of war, and need a great deal of regular inspection and maintanence or they just will not work! Given the average moral of WP troops, it was expected that much of this work was merely done on paper! I a nuke world war, I think the USA did not expect one half of the Soviet ICMB's would make it out of their holes, and much less hit a target thousands of miles away! But, again, sources are merely sources! You've got yours and I have mine, and Max has his! ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Maximus Germanicus I
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 10:21
Actually it was. That was part if the deterent. All the units I mentioned were already in the PACCOM.
|
Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 10:22
|
Flicking through Hackettls Third World War of which I have a copy he gives the figure of 1150 fighters in Europe for the US alone, approx 1/2 of all NATO Fighters in Europe. Can you identify these Mosquito? Were they F16's F14's et al? ------------- |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 10:29
I will try but hard to get reliable data... ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 10:30
|
Of course here are the ones that the French wish you would watch!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H1u7iWVfdY&feature=related Regarde' vous! ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 10:31
|
Because currently you keep declaring that none of these aircraft were in Europe. Yet these aircraft were the core of the USAF in ther period in question. That is unless you are saying the USAF was not in europe at all at this time, is that what you are saying?
------------- |
Posted By: Maximus Germanicus I
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 10:33
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Posted By: Maximus Germanicus I
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2010 at 10:35
|
Mosq doesn't figure they can fly from The US to GB in less than 12 hrs. So really every US plane is on the Table.
|