NATO vs Warsaw Pact

[Cassius Clay]

Who would win a conventional war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact say around 1982? Brezheve is still in power although practically dead and the politburo is scarred to death of Ronald 'We Can win a Nuclear War' Reagen who appears to be something from their worse nightmares.

As for NATO, it is a lot better armed than it was just a few years ago when Carter was around when only nuclear deterent would of prevented the Soviets overunning West Germany in a few hours. But Ronald 'I have alzeihmers while still in office' Reagen is now here to safe the day from those evil Reds who threaten civilisation itself.

Try and ignore how the war starts, the politburo was far to beucratic and comfortable to be risking there privalges while Reagen is NOT to crazy to go launch another Barbarosa. Lets just say the local American and Soviet Commanders come to blows after a border incident and due to both of them having pride (or rather having far to big ego's) refuse to back down. By the time their respective governments are informed it is to late and the Soviet Forces in GDR and NATO in West Germany go into action.

So does the Warsaw Pact overun Europe? If so where does it go from there? I can imagine China allying with the U$ and the Soviets backing the Arabs against Isreal.

The U$ should have air dominace, afterall F-15's and F-16's have just been put into service and should be able to deal with hordes of MiG 25's (however Soviet pilots are alot better than their Syrian counterparts). As for ground forces, well the Warsaw Pact has T-72's and 80's aswell as left over junk from the 60's probably used by their allies. Also remember that NATO (okay it wasn't NATO but you know what I mean) does not have the same level of tech that they used in Desert Storm to such good affect.

At sea the U$ and co should dominate, I don't really know about Soviet Naval forces but the U$, Royal and French Navies should suffice.

What about the internal politics of the other nations at the time. I can't really imagine the average Pole conscript being to pleased fighting in Belgium, although perhaps it could be sold to him as anti-German war. But neither can I imagine French and Italian (Communists were strong in these countries at this time) soldiers being to pleased.

Does Yugoslavia explode? What about the Middle East?

[Sulla the Dictator]

NATO would win in any conventional war.

The Soviets mass tank divisions may look pretty and sound scary, but they're incredibly outdated in an era of bombing fleets. NATO aircraft was superior to their Russian counterparts, and B-52 bombing fleets would have done the same thing to those massed Russian army blocks that they did to grouped German panzer divisions in WWII.

Its possible that Russia would have been able to make some gains into W. Germany, but it couldn't keep up the pace from sustained action. Russia was using a massive amount of its budget for military spending in peace time, imagine the disasterous consequences to its economy with the cost of sustaining a war.

The Warsaw Pact's BEST CHANCE for victory in a Conventional war is from 1970-1980. Before 1970, and after 1980, they never had a chance IMO.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Undeniably NATO

Almost all military analysts as well as historians concede that, conventionally speaking, the true power of any nation's military is cornerstoned in its navy.

At sea, it wouldn't even be a contest. The US Navy is the single most powerful military force on earth, and was always much more capable then the soviet navy.

The soviets never had one nuclear carrier, or even an A/CC the size of a nimitz class ship. Due to this size difference, russian fighter planes on A/CC's were mostly fleet defense (air to air) fighters, as take-off requirements for catapult launches off of russian carriers did not allow for take-off weights akin to planes with ground-strike payloads and fuel requirements. Such loadouts were just to heavy to get off pinko decks.

IN other words, the USSR could not use their carriers as an extended platform for purposes of launching actual groung-attack and close air support missions striaght from the carriers

US carriers by contrast, with their superior size and technology, and in addition to their highly capable fleet-defense F-14 squadrons, could easily coordinate and launch large and formidable strike packages directly from the carrier, often from relatively long ranges. And I'm talking about full loadouts, 6k in bombs, a few air to surface missles, rocket pods, and external tanks and full fuel internally.

All of this, and US carriers could sustain ground bombardament 24/7.

This advantage cannot be undercored enough!

[GUTB]

This scenario will be decided by several key factors:

1. What is the real readiness of WARPAC mobile forces in 1982?
2. Is nuclear war avoided?
3. How much preperation does WARPAC have?

In 1982, the weakening Soviet economy may have had a serious impact on the border forces. But how much? 1982 wasn't nearly as bad as, say, 1988. How much force could drive forward and keep driving? The shape of the conflict would be very different if it went nuclear, so we'll assume this does not happen. We'll also assume WARPAC doesn't pre-plan this and doesn't get to mass artillery and airpower.

WARPAC forces greatly outnumber their NATO opposites, and their military intelligence is much better. For a few days both sides' air forces should be going all out on each other to gain superiority. The frontline aviation wing of WARPAC is only the cheaper half of Soviet aviation, with the better half dedicated to protection of the USSR. NATO should eventually gain overall superiority, but this will take some days of intense operations. Any NATO stategic aviation adventure over the USSR would be met with certain ruin.

NATO lines wouldn't be so much massed fighting power like WARPAC echelons, but more like widely dispersed, highly mobile hit-and-run cells. It will take a few days for NATO mass significant counter-attacking power on the front. Then it will be a contest of NATO communications and mobility vs. WARPAC operational art. This is the crucial phase -- if WARPAC is on its toes, NATO is crushed in short order. If WARPAC stalls or hesitates, it risks becoming mired in trench warfare, but their operational art should protect them from this fate.

If the days are allowed to drag into weeks, NATO should be able to crack the North Atlantic and large re-enforcments should be able to come through from the UK and the US. Then it will become a test of WARPAC's big re-enforcment pool.

If the weeks are allowed to drag into months, NATO will be wearing itself desperatly thin in Europe, as the Soviet's vastly superior strategic preperation will begin to shine through as effects of going to a war setting will be seen much quicker than it will in the West. *IF* Soviet logistics can stand up to the task, and if they made the right moves -- they will have France, and NATO is screwed.

If the months are allowed to drag into years, the greater overall economic power of NATO will win the day as force grows and snowballs, eventually turning the tide on WARPAC. The reason why this would not happen sooner is because the USSR was heavily engineered into a war economy that can kick loose in an instant's notice, while NATO (and Japan) would take some time to gear up.

[Turnoviseous]

However, as Marx said, there would never be such a thing as a nuclear war. If USSR had attacked Western Europe, America would never throw nuclear bombs on USSR, because that would mean its defeat also (counter a-bomb attack).

Capitalists never want to destroy the proletariat, noone likes to destroy his tool.

[Guest]

Quote: from Turnoviseous on 10:47 pm on Oct. 15, 2002
However, as Marx said, there would never be such a thing as a nuclear war. If USSR had attacked Western Europe, America would never throw nuclear bombs on USSR, because that would mean its defeat also (counter a-bomb attack).

Capitalists never want to destroy the proletariat, noone likes to destroy his tool.

this is CI...

LOL, dude, get serious.

If you think that the USA would just let the USSR annihalate europe without retaliation, you are way off base.

the USSR would be a parking lot within 1 hour