in a coventional war who would have won u

When i posted the warsaw pact forces - rocket launchers - I meant moblile rocket launchers on the tracked and halftracked vihicles:

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?

Edited by opuslola - 13-Jul-2010 at 14:30

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.

Edited by Mosquito - 13-Jul-2010 at 15:01

Originally posted by TheGreatSimba 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.

Originally posted by TheGreatSimba 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.

Originally posted by Mosquito 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?

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.

Originally posted by Mosquito  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?

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.



Edited by TheGreatSimba - 13-Jul-2010 at 15:37

Originally posted by Mosquito 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.

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.

Originally posted by DreamWeaver 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.

Edited by Mosquito - 14-Jul-2010 at 05:19

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,

Edited by opuslola - 14-Jul-2010 at 06:17

Originally posted by Mosquito Originally posted by DreamWeaver 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.   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.

Edited by Maximus Germanicus I - 14-Jul-2010 at 07:11