Soviet Invasion of the UK

[The Idler]

The Soviets plans to invade Manchester were revealed recently (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090826/tuk-soviets-planned-manchester-invasion-6323e80.html).

[ev]

And? I'm sure NATO had detailed maps of the Moscow area and military targets in the vicinity..

I don't know why the media tries so hard to stir up anti-russian sentiment, it seems they really want to validate the existence of NATO

[Bankotsu]

Operation Unthinkable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

Plan Totality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Totality

Operation Dropshot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dropshot


Mapping World War III: Soviet Global Invasion Routes


http://techconex.com/images/wwiii/western_Sm.jpg

http://techconex.com/tcblog/2008/04/05/mapping-world-war-iii-soviet-global-invasion-routes/

[The Bear]

why manchester ?

[h0m0revolutionary]

Actually I heard Manchester had plans to invade the Soviet Union :cool:

And "why Manchester?" Because it's fooking ace! Even Brezhnev knew where the fun was at!

[ls]

Liverpool should eat Manchester.

[manic expression]

why manchester ?

They were all Liverpool supporters, duh.


I don't know why the media tries so hard to stir up anti-russian sentiment, it seems they really want to validate the existence of NATO

Yeah, very true. Sometimes I think anti-Russian racism is one of the strongest prejudices in the American media, at least from what I've seen.

[The Bear]

no doubt soviets could step over europe in less then year... but why "invade manchester" ? why not invade great britain ? and why from western side ? why not invade hull for example ? which makes more sense...

[Sarah Palin]

Operation Unthinkable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable


Christ did any of you read that? It's fucking insane! They literally planned the entire thing, and theorized how it would all play out, like little school children playing army. Fucking in-sane.

[ComradeOm]

no doubt soviets could step over europe in less then year... but why "invade manchester" ? why not invade great britain ? and why from western side ? why not invade hull for example ? which makes more sense...Who says that Manchester was the initial point of the invasion? It is after all a landlocked city...


Christ did any of you read that? It's fucking insane! They literally planned the entire thing, and theorized how it would all play out, like little school children playing army. Fucking in-sane.Well yes, its called military planning. Its what armies do when they don't have any real wars to fight - so they plan for the next war

[mykittyhasaboner]

Who says that Manchester was the initial point of the invasion? It is after all a landlocked city...

Well yes, its called military planning. Its what armies do when they don't have any real wars to fight - so they plan for the next war

Indeed, the kind of logistics and necessary precautions needed to carry out a successful invasion/defend from one is staggering. So yes "planning for the next war" quite accurately describes what this was.

However, the livelihood of Great Britain ever invading the Soviet Union, imo, is very small and I'm not sure how likely their success would be. Logic dictates that since the Soviet Union is so large and had won the largest conflict in human history, the British and Americans would think way more than twice about such an attack.

[ComradeOm]

However, the livelihood of Great Britain ever invading the Soviet Union, imo, is very small and I'm not sure how likely their success would be. Logic dictates that since the Soviet Union is so large and had won the largest conflict in human history, the British and Americans would think way more than twice about such an attack.Both logic and history dictates that invading Russia is a very bad idea full stop... yet look at how many powers have given it a go ;)

It is also worth noting that while 1945 saw the Red Army at the peak of its strength, the Soviet Union itself was in shambles and in no position to fight another protracted war

[khad]

It is also worth noting that while 1945 saw the Red Army at the peak of its strength, the Soviet Union itself was in shambles and in no position to fight another protracted war
But at least that Nazi sympathizer Patton would have gotten his entire force annihilated if he were stupid enough to try anything in Germany.

[The Idler]

And? I'm sure NATO had detailed maps of the Moscow area and military targets in the vicinity..

I don't know why the media tries so hard to stir up anti-russian sentiment, it seems they really want to validate the existence of NATO
And? Maybe people should be able to decide their own fate rather than be invaded by NATO or the Soviets?

[communard resolution]

Actually I heard Manchester had plans to invade the Soviet Union :cool:

And "why Manchester?" Because it's fooking ace! Even Brezhnev knew where the fun was at!

It's Mynchester, comrade!

[Red October]

Holy crap, the Soviets had plans for war with NATO?? This shouldn't be much of a surprise. What is weird is that a little while ago the US government released old plans for the invasion of Canada: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474976959467

[puspendas]

Was there any presence of finance capital in Soviet Union ? Can a state without finance capital be called " Imperiallism" ?

[ev]

And? Maybe people should be able to decide their own fate rather than be invaded by NATO or the Soviets?

What you said doesn't make sense - care to reiterate?

[Dimentio]

I know by common wisdom/hearsay that the Swedish army has a scenario for an armed insurrection in the northern part of Sweden. Probably, that scenario was made to justify the army's budget when the Soviet Union imploded.

[KurtFF8]

no doubt soviets could step over europe in less then year... but why "invade manchester" ? why not invade great britain ? and why from western side ? why not invade hull for example ? which makes more sense...

Well the UK and France would certainly have put up a fight.

And let's not forget the USA would certainly been involved as well. It would be a long and bloody war, and likely would have ended in the use of nuclear weapons.

Imagine how many workers would die as a result of that...

[Dimentio]

Well the UK and France would certainly have put up a fight.

And let's not forget the USA would certainly been involved as well. It would be a long and bloody war, and likely would have ended in the use of nuclear weapons.

Imagine how many workers would die as a result of that...

The Soviet strategy was also to use nuclear weapons as artillery pieces, against Vienna, Venice, Münich and other Central European cities.

I guess in a land war (without nukes) between NATO and the Warszaw Pact, the Soviets would have triumphed, just because of their superiority in tanks, artillery, aircraft and manpower. In 1985, half of the soldiers on the planet belonged to the Red Army (and that was in peacetime). In wartime, the Soviet Army with reservists would have amounted to dozens of millions of soldiers. They would simply have swarmed Western Europe.

[Psy]

The Soviet strategy was also to use nuclear weapons as artillery pieces, against Vienna, Venice, Münich and other Central European cities.

Actually nuclear artillery was only a plan on paper, the main SOP was using conventional artillery and CAS at the brigade level to direct fire where it is needed to punch holes in the enemy lines so armor could exploit it and get past enemy lines so expose the enemy's flanks allow armor to encircle whole division like Russia did late in WWII, cutting the enemy off from their supply lines so the bulk of the Russian army can just steam roll over them with little resistance. The Russian's actually did this Afghanistan but ran into the problem that Afgansistan's mountain rangers was impassible for armor so instead of encircling the enemy all they did was push the enemy in the mountains were the Russian army couldn't encirlce and cut off supply lines thus the Russian's relied heavily on CAS that didn't work due to SAM's the CIA brought into the battlefield. Russia did this again reciecent in Georgia where armor pushed deep into Georgoia, CAS distrupted rear lines while infantry kept the pressure on enemy troops so armor had less resitence in encircling the Georgoian army.



I guess in a land war (without nukes) between NATO and the Warszaw Pact, the Soviets would have triumphed, just because of their superiority in tanks, artillery, aircraft and manpower. In 1985, half of the soldiers on the planet belonged to the Red Army (and that was in peacetime). In wartime, the Soviet Army with reservists would have amounted to dozens of millions of soldiers. They would simply have swarmed Western Europe.
That and Russian tactics were more sound being based on their experince in WWII while the US was tactics was based on theoritical ideas based on delisions of their own suppremecy on the battlefield.

[Dimentio]

I guess Afghanistan cannot be compared to a conventional enemy as the official Afghan army was allied with the Soviet Union during the war of the 80's. They fought a highly mobile guerilla force (compare Chechnya).

I don't think Russian tactics were necessarily more sound, or that the USA held any delusions about the Soviet threat. NATO had - if my memory doesn't fail me - a first strike doctrine with nuclear weapons, given the Soviet ground supremacy.

[Psy]

I don't think Russian tactics were necessarily more sound, or that the USA held any delusions about the Soviet threat. NATO had - if my memory doesn't fail me - a first strike doctrine with nuclear weapons, given the Soviet ground supremacy.
That won't really work tactically if Russian armor is already behind the bulk of your forces and crewing up artillery and missile launchers, also while the USA has a strategic nuclear advantage Russia had a tactical nuclear advantage with more mobile tactical missile launchers and with better organizational command structure allowing tactical nuclear missiles to be punch holes in the enemies front lines instead of simply pounding the enemy like US tactical nuclear missiles were capable of.

[ComradeOm]

That won't really work tactically if Russian armor is already behind the bulk of your forces and crewing up artillery and missile launchersThe intention was to employed tactical nuclear weapons against the massed Soviet echelons at the beginning of a conflict, strategic beachheads, and rear area supply/logistics depots. The objective was to prevent the concentration of Soviet forces required to conduct or exploit a breakthrough


...also while the USA has a strategic nuclear advantage Russia had a tactical nuclear advantage with more mobile tactical missile launchers...IIRC the US outstripped the USSR in the number of available tactical nuclear weapons. It too manufactured artillery shells and short range missiles with tactical warheads. More to the point however, the USSR overtook its rival in terms of the size of its strategic nuclear arsenal at some point in the early 1970s. I'm not sure how you'd construe the USA to hold a "strategic nuclear advantage"

[rednordman]

Surely these plans where not serious, even when they where made. It was probably a part of a 'what if' sernario plan that came before this, or something like that, that no-one has uncovered yet.

Interesting tread in anycase.

[Pogue]

No one could take over Manchester. The place has too many guns.

[rednordman]

^theres a chance that he isnt being sarcastic either there.

[Psy]

The intention was to employed tactical nuclear weapons against the massed Soviet echelons at the beginning of a conflict, strategic beachheads, and rear area supply/logistics depots. The objective was to prevent the concentration of Soviet forces required to conduct or exploit a breakthrough

If you look at Georgia you'd see that the problem is within hours Russian armor already broke out of Tbilisi and pushing past even the rear lines forces of the Georgian Army within a day Russian armor had full freedom of movement able to move where ever they wished, the Georgians army had completely disintegrated and the Russian amour was mostly being slowed down by retreating civilians that wasn't such a big deal as it gave the mechanized infantry time to catch up.

Also how can you prevent the concentration of Soviet forces they were already concentrated on the border railways could quickly bring reserves to the border. If the USSR launched a preemptive war against NATO in Europe Russian amour would be already be at the French Border by the time the US is aware that they at war with the USSR since the war plans of the USSR was to use self-propelled artillery, CAS and bombers to clear a path for their armor to push fast deep, for air borne units to secure/establish supply depot ahead of the armor so the armor can quickly get resupplied and back to pushing even deeper and to reinforce the armor when it comes to encircling.




IIRC the US outstripped the USSR in the number of available tactical nuclear weapons. It too manufactured artillery shells and short range missiles with tactical warheads.

USSR nuclear engineers was ahead of the USA in miniturising nuclear warheads, the USSR even used low yeild nuclear charges in consutrction for practical data as the USSR wanted to put nuclear weapons down at the squad level, the USSR could have easily mass produced the squad level nuclear weapons and have them in the hands of troops quickly. Also instead of simply preventing concentration of enemy troops the USSR's strategy for tactical weapons was to use them to remove key targets.




More to the point however, the USSR overtook its rival in terms of the size of its strategic nuclear arsenal at some point in the early 1970s. I'm not sure how you'd construe the USA to hold a "strategic nuclear advantage"
The USSR's key areas are more dense thus it wouldn't take many nucelar weapons to break the USSR's industrial base while the USA's industry was more spread out requiring far more nuclear weapons to get the same effect.

[ComradeOm]

If you look at Georgia you'd see that the problem is within hours Russian armor already broke out of Tbilisi and pushing past even the rear lines forces of the Georgian Army within a day Russian armor had full freedom of movement able to move where ever they wished, the Georgians army had completely disintegrated and the Russian amour was mostly being slowed down by retreating civilians that wasn't such a big deal as it gave the mechanized infantry time to catch upWhich is exactly why NATO was so eager to prevent a Soviet breakthrough and the USSR so eager to achieve it. Hence the NATO emphasis on the use of nuclear weapons to correct their overwhelming numerical disadvantage


Also how can you prevent the concentration of Soviet forces they were already concentrated on the border railways could quickly bring reserves to the borderThe implication being that nuclear weapons would have been used either on this first echelon of Soviet formations, ie from the first moments of the war, or the second echelon units that were intended to exploit any breakthrough. Not to mention the railways and depots themselves. I may have phrased it poorly above


If the USSR launched a preemptive war against NATO in Europe Russian amour would be already be at the French Border by the time the US is aware that they at war with the USSR since the war plans of the USSR was to use self-propelled artillery, CAS and bombers to clear a path for their armor to push fast deep, for air borne units to secure/establish supply depot ahead of the armor so the armor can quickly get resupplied and back to pushing even deeper and to reinforce the armor when it comes to encirclingNo one ever said that the NATO planners were right. These were the same clowns that persisted with the forward deployment after all. But then the entire concept of limited nuclear war was similarly flawed. Any Soviet invasion of Western Europe would have been nuclear from the very outset

Incidentally, IIRC the Soviet timetable dictated that the Bay of Biscay would be reached in about two weeks. In the best case scenario that I've heard of it would take at least nine days. Personally I think that this is far too optimistic given the terrain of Western Europe, in particular the rivers of Germany


USSR nuclear engineers was ahead of the USA in miniturising nuclear warheads, the USSR even used low yeild nuclear charges in consutrction for practical data as the USSR wanted to put nuclear weapons down at the squad level, the USSR could have easily mass produced the squad level nuclear weapons and have them in the hands of troops quicklyWhich does not change the fact that the US still maintained a large stockpile of tactical nukes in Europe and was more than capable of employing them. Although frankly once nukes started to fly the distinction between tactical and strategic is irrelevant - which is why the Soviets never thought in such terms. Soviet Army formations advancing west would have done so in synch with nuclear weapons targeted at both local military assets in Germany and cities across the N American continent


Also instead of simply preventing concentration of enemy troops the USSR's strategy for tactical weapons was to use them to remove key targetsSo they had no plans at all to use them for blasting open holes in the NATO lines? Please, both sides planned to use nukes against a variety of targets including both mobile and fixed assets


The USSR's key areas are more dense thus it wouldn't take many nucelar weapons to break the USSR's industrial base while the USA's industry was more spread out requiring far more nuclear weapons to get the same effect.An irrelevancy given that both sides (from the 70s onwards at least) possessed enough nuclear warheads to destroy each other twice over

[The Bear]

Well the UK and France would certainly have put up a fight.

And let's not forget the USA would certainly been involved as well. It would be a long and bloody war, and likely would have ended in the use of nuclear weapons.

Imagine how many workers would die as a result of that...

no i didnt not mean to present "soviet power omfg yeah" propaganda , i just think that western countries (USA excluded)from what i heard and read, and after the world war 2 , had more-less pathetic military force...USA is different story , no doubt they would stick their fingers in

[Psy]

Which is exactly why NATO was so eager to prevent a Soviet breakthrough and the USSR so eager to achieve it. Hence the NATO emphasis on the use of nuclear weapons to correct their overwhelming numerical disadvantage

Yet a Soviet breakthrough would have occurred in hours since all of the firepower of the USSR would be directed in clearing paths for armor to breakthrough and breakthrough very deep.



The implication being that nuclear weapons would have been used either on this first echelon of Soviet formations, ie from the first moments of the war, or the second echelon units that were intended to exploit any breakthrough. Not to mention the railways and depots themselves. I may have phrased it poorly above

That assumes NATO forces get authorization to use nukes very quickly it also assume NATO generals would be able to stay on top of Soviet advances and not run into the same problem of the French army had in 1940 where no one in command understands how far the enemy has advanced and where they have advanced to till it is too late, guess wrong and it would mean NATO would be just nuking their forces with minimal effect on USSR's forces thus basically nuclear friendly fire and just clearing a path for the USSR Army.

Also the USSR mobilized its reserved along the borders when ever it dedicated a build up on the other side of the borders. For example in 1983 just NATO having nuclear war games near the East German border caused the entire USSR armed force in the theater to be deployed along the border and put on high alert with order to be ready to advanced into West Germany at a moments notice, artillery was setup and given target coordinates of the NATO units in the war games on the other side of the border, loaded and ready to pound them into dust the second they got the word from Moscow that had spy planes scanning all of the border and Russian satellites were always watching Western Europe so I fail to see how NATO could have caught the USSR with its reserves not already near the borders.




No one ever said that the NATO planners were right. These were the same clowns that persisted with the forward deployment after all. But then the entire concept of limited nuclear war was similarly flawed. Any Soviet invasion of Western Europe would have been nuclear from the very outset

Not really, the USSR had no reason to instantly use nuclear weapons they have more then enough conventional firepower to punch through NATO lines in Europe early in a war with NATO and had limited number of nuclear weapons meaning the USSR probably would have saved their nuclear weapons in reserve till needed.



Incidentally, IIRC the Soviet timetable dictated that the Bay of Biscay would be reached in about two weeks. In the best case scenario that I've heard of it would take at least nine days. Personally I think that this is far too optimistic given the terrain of Western Europe, in particular the rivers of Germany

Russia had the ability to air drop mechanized airunits deep behind enemy lines as they devloped rocket parachutes for high alitidue heavy equipment drops rather then the Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System the US devloped. Russia also had the Vityaz off road transports that can drive along soft river beds without any problems.



Which does not change the fact that the US still maintained a large stockpile of tactical nukes in Europe and was more than capable of employing them. Although frankly once nukes started to fly the distinction between tactical and strategic is irrelevant - which is why the Soviets never thought in such terms. Soviet Army formations advancing west would have done so in synch with nuclear weapons targeted at both local military assets in Germany and cities across the N American continent

Most of which would have been capatured with the first few hours of a Soviet invansion as they were kept far too close to the border and the Soviet Army's tactics was to push fast and deep to get behind the enemy.



So they had no plans at all to use them for blasting open holes in the NATO lines? Please, both sides planned to use nukes against a variety of targets including both mobile and fixed assets

They had more then enough conventional firepower to blast holes in NATO lines, remeber the USSR had and still has far better thermobaric vacuum bombs then NATO including theormobaric vacuum sholder fired rockets (RPO-A ) that was used in 1969 against China to great effect which is why the USSR invested huge R&D into devloping better thermobaric vacuum warheads, thus by the 1980's the USSR had the capabilities of getting the same explosive yields from thermobaric vacuum warheads as they did from smaller tactical nukes and by 2007 Russia has gotten a much larger explosive force from their largest thermobaric vacuum bomb then from any tactical warhead currently in existance and Russia is devloping even bigger thermobaric bombs so it looks like nuclear weapons are comming obosolete since thermobaric bombs do the same job but cheaper and without fallout and NATO is still far behind the technology. Meaning if the USSR still existed by now they would have no reason to use tactical nukes as thermobatic vacuum warheads are superior to tactical nukes in everyway (unless you actually want fallout).




An irrelevancy given that both sides (from the 70s onwards at least) possessed enough nuclear warheads to destroy each other twice over
But most of those warheads was targeted at the enemies warheads since to win a nuclear war you had to both destroy the enemy's nuclear capabilities then attack their industrial base.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The Soviet strategy was also to use nuclear weapons as artillery pieces, against Vienna, Venice, Münich and other Central European cities.

Really? I'd known that the US had developed a piece of nuclear artillery and tested it in Nevada, but scrapped the idea because the notion of limiting nuclear explosions to a battlefield doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

In my opinion, a much more effective weapon would be nuclear torpedoes which could be launched from an attack sub to wipe out an enemy fleet, in the case of the Soviets a US carrier group would be a prime target. The Russians also (after 1974, obviously) developed their "Bear Bombers" to carry nukes in order to wipe out US fleets, but it's been released that the propellors give off a frequency which can be detected at huge distances.


I guess in a land war (without nukes) between NATO and the Warszaw Pact, the Soviets would have triumphed, just because of their superiority in tanks, artillery, aircraft and manpower. In 1985, half of the soldiers on the planet belonged to the Red Army (and that was in peacetime). In wartime, the Soviet Army with reservists would have amounted to dozens of millions of soldiers. They would simply have swarmed Western Europe.

Well, the without nukes part is the trick. Even if one power took the initiative and wiped out the others land-based silos, there was no way to count for the boomers, whether they were Ohios and Allens, or Typhoons and Deltas.

And it should be noted that, at leat in the US, the Captain of a boomer has the authority to launch even without order from the President, so DC being wiped out would not be a factor inhibiting a similar fate for Moscow.

[ComradeOm]

Yet a Soviet breakthrough would have occurred in hours since all of the firepower of the USSR would be directed in clearing paths for armor to breakthrough and breakthrough very deepClearly this sentiment was not shared by NATO planners. If it were then they would have abandoned plans for forward defence. Personally I agree with you, if not on the timescale, but then I have never had a role in devising NATO nuclear doctrine. You are preceding under the assumption that everything NATO did or planned to do was rational and correct


That assumes NATO forces get authorization to use nukes very quickly it also assume NATO generals would be able to stay on top of Soviet advances and not run into the same problem of the French army had in 1940 where no one in command understands how far the enemy has advanced and where they have advanced to till it is too late, guess wrong and it would mean NATO would be just nuking their forces with minimal effect on USSR's forces thus basically nuclear friendly fire and just clearing a path for the USSR ArmyAs far as I'm concerned the issue of political control over WMD has always been a major undermining factor in the very concept of tactical nukes. But then it is something of a moot point given that any Soviet advance would have been accompanied by mushroom clouds over Germany - one would expect that this would significantly speed up the NATO response in kind. And the US would still have a window of at least 2-3 days to decimate the Soviet Army's concentrated formations in Germany and cripple their logistical base to the east


Also the USSR mobilized its reserved along the borders when ever it dedicated a build up on the other side of the bordersAnd standard NATO response was to match Soviet mobilisation levels with their own heightened state of alertness. They weren't completely stupid

Incidentally, IIRC there were only three large scale mobilisations of the Soviet Army in the three decades before its collapse - 1968, 1979, and 1980


I fail to see how NATO could have caught the USSR with its reserves not already near the bordersAnd it is at precisely this point when the Soviet Army would be most vulnerable to WMD. That is, the stage at which they are in the process of concentrating for the breakthrough assault. The first echelon formations would be most densely gathered from the period immediately preceding the outbreak of war to the point in time where breakthrough was achieved. The second echelon formations, though of the OMG, would be vulnerable for a longer timeframe and logistical services for even longer


Not really, the USSR had no reason to instantly use nuclear weapons they have more then enough conventional firepower to punch through NATO lines in Europe early in a war with NATO and had limited number of nuclear weapons meaning the USSR probably would have saved their nuclear weapons in reserve till neededExcept that you are again substituting what you would do instead of what the Soviets planned to do. The 1964 Soviet war plan - which remained the template, with periodic revisions, for a Soviet invasion of Europe into the 1980s - explicitly calls for "nuclear strikes against the troops of the enemy" in order to facilitate a breakthrough. For example, "The Missile Forces of the [Czechoslovak] Front must in the first nuclear strike destroy the group of forces of the 7th US Army, part of the forces of the 2nd Army Corps of the FRG, and part of the air defences of the enemy". I reiterate that this was official Soviet doctrine and that it makes absolutely no distinction between 'nuclear' and 'conventional' warfare


Russia had the ability to air drop mechanized airunits deep behind enemy lines as they devloped rocket parachutes for high alitidue heavy equipment drops rather then the Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System the US devloped. Russia also had the Vityaz off road transports that can drive along soft river beds without any problemsAnd? None of which changes the fact that the Soviets planned for two weeks of operations or the reality that any invasion of Western Europe would have required successfully drawing entire Motor Rifle and Armour divisions (not just specialised units) across water obstacles. Such bottlenecks are natural targets for NATO nuclear strikes


But most of those warheads was targeted at the enemies warheads since to win a nuclear war you had to both destroy the enemy's nuclear capabilities then attack their industrial base.Have you ever heard of 'nuclear overkill'? This is the point where a certain number of nuclear weapons are required to destroy an enemy's strategic nuclear capability and major population centres. All weapons above this limit are effectively unnecessary and comprise an expensive waste of space. Both the US and USSR possessed vast overkill capacity - official US policy was to destroy each Soviet city/town of any size several times over in addition to strategic nuclear targets. According to Edward Luttwak, if the US had lost 90% of its nuclear arsenal to Soviet missiles then the remaining 10% would still be enough to "destroy every Soviet city worth destroying" as well as hitting other strategic targets. That both powers had the ability to destroy each other many times over rather scuppers the argument that one had some numerical advantage over the other

[Dimentio]

Really? I'd known that the US had developed a piece of nuclear artillery and tested it in Nevada, but scrapped the idea because the notion of limiting nuclear explosions to a battlefield doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

In my opinion, a much more effective weapon would be nuclear torpedoes which could be launched from an attack sub to wipe out an enemy fleet, in the case of the Soviets a US carrier group would be a prime target. The Russians also (after 1974, obviously) developed their "Bear Bombers" to carry nukes in order to wipe out US fleets, but it's been released that the propellors give off a frequency which can be detected at huge distances.



Well, the without nukes part is the trick. Even if one power took the initiative and wiped out the others land-based silos, there was no way to count for the boomers, whether they were Ohios and Allens, or Typhoons and Deltas.

And it should be noted that, at leat in the US, the Captain of a boomer has the authority to launch even without order from the President, so DC being wiped out would not be a factor inhibiting a similar fate for Moscow.

I meant, if we assume that no one ever had invented the nukes. Western Europe would have been turned into Soviet satellites within weeks.

[Psy]

Clearly this sentiment was not shared by NATO planners. If it were then they would have abandoned plans for forward defence. Personally I agree with you, if not on the timescale, but then I have never had a role in devising NATO nuclear doctrine. You are preceding under the assumption that everything NATO did or planned to do was rational and correct

Which wasn't even the USSR's plan for going on the defensive, WWII showed Russian generals rolling defenses work far better with armor absorbing hits (this where the Soviet T-10 Heavy Tank would have probably entered the battlefield to act as large slow sponges for enemy fire since most gunners aim for the largest target) giving time for new defensive positions to be entrenched farther back then the armor moves back to suck the enemy into the defenses then move back out when the defenses need to move back farther. This way the defenders slowly wares down the push.



As far as I'm concerned the issue of political control over WMD has always been a major undermining factor in the very concept of tactical nukes. But then it is something of a moot point given that any Soviet advance would have been accompanied by mushroom clouds over Germany - one would expect that this would significantly speed up the NATO response in kind. And the US would still have a window of at least 2-3 days to decimate the Soviet Army's concentrated formations in Germany and cripple their logistical base to the east

There has to have had been some generals that wanted to take West Germany in one piece so they don't have long supply lines through barren nuked wastelands that are easily spotted from the air and to keep the cities in tact in case of NATO counter attack so the Soviet infantry could dig into them. In the long run having the factories and cities in tact would make it much harder for NATO to push them back.




And it is at precisely this point when the Soviet Army would be most vulnerable to WMD. That is, the stage at which they are in the process of concentrating for the breakthrough assault. The first echelon formations would be most densely gathered from the period immediately preceding the outbreak of war to the point in time where breakthrough was achieved. The second echelon formations, though of the OMG, would be vulnerable for a longer timeframe and logistical services for even longer.

You are forgetting that withing minutes they would all very close to NATO forces meaning nuking them would result in NATO forces also getting hit .




Except that you are again substituting what you would do instead of what the Soviets planned to do. The 1964 Soviet war plan - which remained the template, with periodic revisions, for a Soviet invasion of Europe into the 1980s - explicitly calls for "nuclear strikes against the troops of the enemy" in order to facilitate a breakthrough. For example, "The Missile Forces of the [Czechoslovak] Front must in the first nuclear strike destroy the group of forces of the 7th US Army, part of the forces of the 2nd Army Corps of the FRG, and part of the air defences of the enemy". I reiterate that this was official Soviet doctrine and that it makes absolutely no distinction between 'nuclear' and 'conventional' warfare

Why would the Soviets need nuclear strikes when they had thermobaric vacuum bombs that has the same explosive force but cheaper to mass produce and no fallout? By the 1980's the USSR had thermometric rocket artillery (TOS-1 Buratino) that can blast through any NATO defenses and far more useful then tactical nukes



And? None of which changes the fact that the Soviets planned for two weeks of operations or the reality that any invasion of Western Europe would have required successfully drawing entire Motor Rifle and Armour divisions (not just specialised units) across water obstacles. Such bottlenecks are natural targets for NATO nuclear strikes

Vitz transports could ferry men equipmen back and forth anywhere, meaning NATO might not know where troops are crossing as it could be in the middle of a forest since the Vityaz can partially climb trees so it can squeeze through narrow paths in forests and cross anywhere, hell Russia uses Vityaz transports to rescue tanks stuck in snow and mud.



Have you ever heard of 'nuclear overkill'? This is the point where a certain number of nuclear weapons are required to destroy an enemy's strategic nuclear capability and major population centres. All weapons above this limit are effectively unnecessary and comprise an expensive waste of space. Both the US and USSR possessed vast overkill capacity - official US policy was to destroy each Soviet city/town of any size several times over in addition to strategic nuclear targets. According to Edward Luttwak, if the US had lost 90% of its nuclear arsenal to Soviet missiles then the remaining 10% would still be enough to "destroy every Soviet city worth destroying" as well as hitting other strategic targets. That both powers had the ability to destroy each other many times over rather scuppers the argument that one had some numerical advantage over the other
True

[ComradeOm]

Which wasn't even the USSR's plan for going on the defensive, WWII showed Russian generals rolling defenses work far better with armor absorbing hits (this where the Soviet T-10 Heavy Tank would have probably entered the battlefield to act as large slow sponges for enemy fire since most gunners aim for the largest target) giving time for new defensive positions to be entrenched farther back then the armor moves back to suck the enemy into the defenses then move back out when the defenses need to move back farther. This way the defenders slowly wares down the pushWhat? I don't understand what this has to do with NATO planning?


There has to have had been some generals that wanted to take West Germany in one piece so they don't have long supply lines through barren nuked wastelands that are easily spotted from the air and to keep the cities in tact in case of NATO counter attack so the Soviet infantry could dig into them. In the long run having the factories and cities in tact would make it much harder for NATO to push them back

...

Why would the Soviets need nuclear strikes when they had thermobaric vacuum bombs that has the same explosive force but cheaper to mass produce and no fallout? By the 1980's the USSR had thermometric rocket artillery (TOS-1 Buratino) that can blast through any NATO defenses and far more useful then tactical nukesAgain, I state that this was just not the case. I don't care how many times you put forward your own logic the reality is that the Soviet planners disagreed with your assessment. Actual Soviet war plans (http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/collections/colltopic.cfm?q=Final+recomendations+1973&lng=en&id=16239&navinfo=15365) from the 1960s onwards explicitly called for the use of nuclear weapons in accompanying any Warsaw Pact advance. Period. Furthermore they believed that NATO would similarly employ nuclear weapons from the outset of war. This is not my logic, this was official Soviet doctrine


Vitz transports could ferry men equipmen back and forth anywhere, meaning NATO might not know where troops are crossing as it could be in the middle of a forest since the Vityaz can partially climb trees so it can squeeze through narrow paths in forests and cross anywhere, hell Russia uses Vityaz transports to rescue tanks stuck in snow and mudSo the USSR possessed magic transports that meant it did not have to seize or hold beachheads? It may surprise you to learn this but the war plan linked to above specifically tasks certain formations with the "capturing and holding river crossings" over specific waterways. Clearly the Soviet planners lacked your faith in their magic transports

[Psy]

What? I don't understand what this has to do with NATO planning?

Rolling defense is a variation of layered defense it just uses mobile armor to suck and push enemy force. Meaning you have lines of entrenches and armor delays advances till infantry moves back then armor moves back to suck the enemy into the new defensive position. The Nazi's quickly adopted rolling defenses in the Western Front when the Soviets started to push back and the Russian's quickly learned that the Nazi's were delaying till infantry entrenched then armor pulled back to suck them into a defensive ambush that pulled back as soon as the Russian's tried to push forward. Eventually this tactic was scraped by Hitler as he didn't like his generals retreating even tactically and demanded a all or nothing forward defensive like NATO later adopted that resulted in the Russian's breaking the back of the German army in the eastern front pretty much the instant the German army switched tactics.



Again, I state that this was just not the case. I don't care how many times you put forward your own logic the reality is that the Soviet planners disagreed with your assessment. Actual Soviet war plans (http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/collections/colltopic.cfm?q=Final+recomendations+1973&lng=en&id=16239&navinfo=15365) from the 1960s onwards explicitly called for the use of nuclear weapons in accompanying any Warsaw Pact advance. Period. Furthermore they believed that NATO would similarly employ nuclear weapons from the outset of war. This is not my logic, this was official Soviet doctrine

Yet Soviet sub captains in the Cuban missile crisis didn't follow their orders to deploy nuclear torpedo's is fired upon so there is no way to say for sure generals would have followed Moscow's orders if they told them to launch tactical nukes especially if they knew their thermobaric rocket artillery would destroy NATO forces faster since the lack of fallout means they they can rain down thermobaric rockets right infront of advancing armor and the tanks could rush through the bast area seconds after the fash of a thermobaric exploision as the only aftermath of thermobaric exploision is lots of heat (since a thermobaric exploision is one fast fule explision to create a expanding dome of fire and to heat and compress the unburned chemicals so they will ignite heating up the area thousdands of degrees celtus in millisecods as the wall of fire acts like a large oven turning tanks into molten metal (far more effective then napolm).

Most weapon engineer know that nulcear weapons are old news and thermobaric technology has mostly made them totally obsolete since they are effectivly nuclear weapons without fallout since they do the same damage then tactical nukes and even infantry can march through the aftermath of a thermobaric with only minor health concerens that mostly can be solved with goggles and masks (mostly metal dust caused by metals turning into a gas then cooling into dust).



So the USSR possessed magic transports that meant it did not have to seize or hold beachheads? It may surprise you to learn this but the war plan linked to above specifically tasks certain formations with the "capturing and holding river crossings" over specific waterways. Clearly the Soviet planners lacked your faith in their magic transports
No they possessed transports that allowed them to traverse over most terrain meaning they could make beachheads at more rought crossings.

[ComradeOm]

Rolling defense is a variation of layered defense it just uses mobile armor to suck and push enemy force. Meaning you have lines of entrenches and armor delays advances till infantry moves back then armor moves back to suck the enemy into the new defensive position. The Nazi's quickly adopted rolling defenses in the Western Front when the Soviets started to push back and the Russian's quickly learned that the Nazi's were delaying till infantry entrenched then armor pulled back to suck them into a defensive ambush that pulled back as soon as the Russian's tried to push forward. Eventually this tactic was scraped by Hitler as he didn't like his generals retreating even tactically and demanded a all or nothing forward defensive like NATO later adopted that resulted in the Russian's breaking the back of the German army in the eastern front pretty much the instant the German army switched tacticsI understand what a rolling defence is, I just don't grasp the relevance to my point that NATO planners were not entirely rational beings that based their plans on your logic


Yet Soviet sub captains in the Cuban missile crisis didn't follow their orders to deploy nuclear torpedo's is fired uponTheir standing orders were to deploy their nuclear weapons if crippled/holed. At no point was the order to fire nuclear weapons given - indeed the captain was explicitly ordered by his superiors not to do so. As a comparison that is poor


...so there is no way to say for sure generals would have followed Moscow's orders if they told them to launch tactical nukes...Of course they would. The use of nuclear weapons was an integral part of their war plans, to the point where the number of bombs and individual targets had already been allocated. The idea that every Soviet commander in the Western Theatre would simultaneously disobey their orders is ridiculous

And just what is it with you and these thermobaric weapons? Its all you seem to talk about. I've given links to actual official Soviet war plans and you continue to insist that the plans are wrong and you are right? Perhaps if you were planning this war we'd have seen the use of thermobaric weaponry (which are really great, blah, blah, blah) but the actual Soviet planners disagree with you on this count


No they possessed transports that allowed them to traverse over most terrain meaning they could make beachheads at more rought crossings.Do you have any idea as to the logistical nightmare of trying to move several divisions (tens of thousands of men, fighting vehicles, and support services) across a muddy river bank? I suspect not. There is a very good reason why the Soviets prioritised the seizure of river crossings - they did not share your blind faith in their transports

[Psy]

I understand what a rolling defence is, I just don't grasp the relevance to my point that NATO planners were not entirely rational beings that based their plans on your logic

It calls in question the need for the USSR to need nuclear weapons, if they were able to break the back the NATO army in a few days tactical nuclear weapons would actually slow down advances as troops can't sprint in rad suits and vehicles require to be serviced far more often when operating in high radiative areas since seals and filers have to be changed more often and the hull would have to be constantly decontaminated before they can even be serviced.



Their standing orders were to deploy their nuclear weapons if crippled/holed. At no point was the order to fire nuclear weapons given - indeed the captain was explicitly ordered by his superiors not to do so. As a comparison that is poor

They were getting crippled so it is a good comparision.




Of course they would. The use of nuclear weapons was an integral part of their war plans, to the point where the number of bombs and individual targets had already been allocated. The idea that every Soviet commander in the Western Theatre would simultaneously disobey their orders is ridiculous

If Russian vanguard forces already broke through in a counter attack to a NATO sneek attack and Russian forces already destroyed/occupied most of the targets assigned to tactical nukes I think many Russian generals would disregard with that part of their standing order and tell Moscow they is no need to nuke those targets as they already took them or currently in the process of taking them. Remeber in Georgia Russian generals didn't wait for conformation from Moscow and I don't see why generals in the European theater would wait for conformation from Moscow before counter attacking since Russian generals still remembered how far Nazi Germany advanced into Russia because generals waited for Stalin to give them orders.



And just what is it with you and these thermobaric weapons?

Thermobaric warheads can recreate the heat caused by tactical warheads yet without fallout.



Its all you seem to talk about. I've given links to actual official Soviet war plans and you continue to insist that the plans are wrong and you are right? Perhaps if you were planning this war we'd have seen the use of thermobaric weaponry (which are really great, blah, blah, blah) but the actual Soviet planners disagree with you on this count

And we are to assume Soviet planners were wise in this? Or that the Soviet Army would be not advance fast enough for their plans to be impossible for risk of freidnly fire?



Do you have any idea as to the logistical nightmare of trying to move several divisions (tens of thousands of men, fighting vehicles, and support services) across a muddy river bank? I suspect not. There is a very good reason why the Soviets prioritised the seizure of river crossings - they did not share your blind faith in their transports
You seen a Vityaz transport (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VOULfira3o)? They are speficially built to ferry men and equipment over bad terrain, sure they would be a bottleneck since they are only so many of them but the idea is that the enemy would not be expecting a significant force to cross rough terrain thus they could be used to go around defenses and surprise the enemy like Nazi Germany's invasion of France.

[Dimentio]

I am sorry for OT, but these WWIII threads are quite entertaining. History buffs remind a lot of bickering children in a sandbox sometimes.

"My dad could beat your dad"
"But my dad got a BAZOKAH!"

[oujiQualm]

Well at least they wont go near the Central Asian Republics which is right next to the buildup of our Democratic forces in Afghanistan. Who cares about those dusty landlocked countries anyway !!:D