Poll: World War Three.
- Thread starter LtWigglesworth
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I wouldn't be so quick to call the US a winner. while yes vs the export quality stuff the US would win, they would be weakened and the Russian higher quality and much higher numbers, would seriously maul if not take out the remaining NATO forces. conventional weapons alone it could go either way, history has proven that quality doesn't guarentee victory. See Germany vs allied forces in WW2.Shock and Awe said:
How about a nice game of chess?....Pallindromemordnillap said:
..... I'll let myself out.
Germany was defeated in World War 2 because it had a weak logistical system and industrial base compared to the Allies. The US and NATO on the other hand had a industrial base that was at least on par with that of the USSR and it's Warsaw Pact allies. Yes the Warsaw Pact would have superior numbers, but the NATO militaries fielded superior aircraft and tanks. The structure of the NATO militaries was also far superior as it had professional NCOs in their militaries as opposed to up jumped privates used in the Soviet military.RicoADF said:
If I had a nickel for everytime I heard somebody say that somebody told them that their unit was a speed bump in front a full on enemy assault, I'd be the richest man on Earth. Here's a little context for you, in the West, we don't station Army sized military units wherever there exists a chance of an axis of enemy advance. We put battalion sized units there, enough to hold out and get the word back to theater command about the enemy forces present so we could react with overwhelming power in terms or air support, artillery support and reinforcements.wombat_of_war said:
By the 80's, we had A-10As and AH-1Fs ready to pounce on any armored spearhead the Soviets could cook up to push through the Fulda gap.
Not actually true, nuclear winter was played up by anti-nuclear activists, who reeeeally annoy me sometimes.rhizhim said:
Now, as much as I can sympathise with people worried about nuclear war, a lot of them overstated the case in an attempt to frighten people. Because of this, a lot of people (quite reasonably) think there'd be no chance of surviving, and thus no point preparing or learning what to do. Simple stuff like sticky tape on the windows and ducking and covering would save an awful lot of lives. A lot of people would be far enough from ground zero to have a decent chance of survival, and things like that would increase their chances a lot. Any number of people would still be killed, people who'd have no chance, but that's very different from no point trying.
...
As an aside, people say nuclear war would send society back to the stone age, as hyperbole, and that's obviously not true, but it would send us back the odd century or three, in a very real sense. Plague, no medical resources, women turned back into baby machines etc. All the progress people have fought so hard for for many long years cast aside.
As another aside, the USSR had nuclear submarines that would lurk underwater for a year after the war started, then launch spy satellites to see who was rebuilding and launch missiles against them.
Right, this may be long or it may not. But I'll address a few issues and say why I think the Warsaw Pact would have won.
1) The time frame is say 1980-1985.
2) At this point the Warsaw pact actually had a significant numerical and possibly qualitative superiority in tanks. I know that the second part sounds bizarre but there is a good reason for it. At this time frame the VASt majority of NATO tankd forces were M60s and Leopard ones. The M1 and Leopard 2 were only fielded in small numbers (in 1981 there were only 150 M1s in europe and about the same amount of Leopard 2A1s).
The M1 is not the M1A1 and only has a 105mm main gun, and less efective protection. These were tested against T72Bs after the cold war and found to be unable to penetrate the frontal armour at combat ranges.
In comparison the soviets had 10000 T72s, T64s and T80s.
3) The soviet battle plans were well established and they had a sophisticated understanding of how warfare would be conducted on an operational scale, with an emphasis on deception, decisive force at key points and extreme speed in order to exploit penetration into the operational rear.
4) NATO at this time had poor co-ordination above corps level. In regards to the poster that sair that the warsaw pact would have difficulty with internatonal diplomacy, I would suggest that they would have less difficulties than NATO would as NATO is made up of very independent nations.
5) The speed of the operation would be crucial. The aim would be to transition from peace to war in a 72 hour period. At this time the Warsaw pact forces were typically at around 90-95 % readiness in peacetime. NATO forces were around 70% and would require several day to bring to full strength. A sudden strike by the Warsaw Pact would take advantage of this, causing confusion and difficulty in reinforcing and striking forces travelling to the front by use of OMGs committed after penetration of defensive lines in the first 24-36 hours of the conflict. US reforger convoys would take about 30 days to reinforce europe, by which stage it'll be all over and done with.
6) The NATO strategy of forward defence as opposed to a defence in depth is a TERRIBLE idea. Against it the soviet forces would likely push a sizeable force into a penetration and be able to wreak havoc behing the main NATO defensive line.
Here is a very interesting discussion with a US Intelligence officer who discusses why he thinks NATO would have lost
rapidly in the event of a shooting war: http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53026
7) Any war would be fought "come as you are". The conflict would be decided one way or the other before either side needed to ramp up production of weaponry, so relative production strengths probably aren't relevant.
8) With regards to naval powers, the USSR certainly had a disadvantage when compared with the US. However the comparitive aims of the two forces must be taken into account.
The US navy had the unenviable task of power projection across two huge oceans, with the aim of fighting a war halfway across the world. On the other hand the soviet navy's aim would be to deny the US navy access to the Batic in the week of so that the war would take place in and defend russian SSBNs in the arctic. Hitting reforger convoys would be the task of naval aviation. If the conflict lasted long enough for that to be necessary.
So while if both fleets met nicely in the pacific to duke it out the US fleet would romp to a win, in the event of a european war the soviet navy had a decent chance of accomplishing its limited aims.
9) The equipment fielded by US airforce was at a higher standard than that of the USSR. However I doubt either side would gain air superiority. One of the first major action on the part of the warsaw pact would be large scale airborne, artillery and ballistic missile strikes against NATO's forward air bases. This would be coupled with large scale drops of airborne troops to capture and disrupt airfields. ( Unlike the US which operated its airborne forces as a light, dismounted infantry force, the USSR's airborne forces consisted of 8 mechanised infantry divisions who were trained to drop INSIDE of their vehicles. Seriously, watch that shit on youtube.)
10) In full awareness of NATO superiority in the air the Warsaw Pact fielded a large, multilayered and extremely capable air defence system,that would have made the task of NATO CAS aircraft hellish. The ZSU 23-4 was extremely capable and in advance of what the us had fielded. (Look up the failure that is the Sergeant York SPAAG to see what I mean.) The BUK and KUB missiles were deadly, and the S300 still gives the US nightmares when the russians sell them to Iran/Syria.
Phew! That was a long post! May it inspire much discussion!
1) The time frame is say 1980-1985.
2) At this point the Warsaw pact actually had a significant numerical and possibly qualitative superiority in tanks. I know that the second part sounds bizarre but there is a good reason for it. At this time frame the VASt majority of NATO tankd forces were M60s and Leopard ones. The M1 and Leopard 2 were only fielded in small numbers (in 1981 there were only 150 M1s in europe and about the same amount of Leopard 2A1s).
The M1 is not the M1A1 and only has a 105mm main gun, and less efective protection. These were tested against T72Bs after the cold war and found to be unable to penetrate the frontal armour at combat ranges.
In comparison the soviets had 10000 T72s, T64s and T80s.
3) The soviet battle plans were well established and they had a sophisticated understanding of how warfare would be conducted on an operational scale, with an emphasis on deception, decisive force at key points and extreme speed in order to exploit penetration into the operational rear.
4) NATO at this time had poor co-ordination above corps level. In regards to the poster that sair that the warsaw pact would have difficulty with internatonal diplomacy, I would suggest that they would have less difficulties than NATO would as NATO is made up of very independent nations.
5) The speed of the operation would be crucial. The aim would be to transition from peace to war in a 72 hour period. At this time the Warsaw pact forces were typically at around 90-95 % readiness in peacetime. NATO forces were around 70% and would require several day to bring to full strength. A sudden strike by the Warsaw Pact would take advantage of this, causing confusion and difficulty in reinforcing and striking forces travelling to the front by use of OMGs committed after penetration of defensive lines in the first 24-36 hours of the conflict. US reforger convoys would take about 30 days to reinforce europe, by which stage it'll be all over and done with.
6) The NATO strategy of forward defence as opposed to a defence in depth is a TERRIBLE idea. Against it the soviet forces would likely push a sizeable force into a penetration and be able to wreak havoc behing the main NATO defensive line.
Here is a very interesting discussion with a US Intelligence officer who discusses why he thinks NATO would have lost
rapidly in the event of a shooting war: http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53026
7) Any war would be fought "come as you are". The conflict would be decided one way or the other before either side needed to ramp up production of weaponry, so relative production strengths probably aren't relevant.
8) With regards to naval powers, the USSR certainly had a disadvantage when compared with the US. However the comparitive aims of the two forces must be taken into account.
The US navy had the unenviable task of power projection across two huge oceans, with the aim of fighting a war halfway across the world. On the other hand the soviet navy's aim would be to deny the US navy access to the Batic in the week of so that the war would take place in and defend russian SSBNs in the arctic. Hitting reforger convoys would be the task of naval aviation. If the conflict lasted long enough for that to be necessary.
So while if both fleets met nicely in the pacific to duke it out the US fleet would romp to a win, in the event of a european war the soviet navy had a decent chance of accomplishing its limited aims.
9) The equipment fielded by US airforce was at a higher standard than that of the USSR. However I doubt either side would gain air superiority. One of the first major action on the part of the warsaw pact would be large scale airborne, artillery and ballistic missile strikes against NATO's forward air bases. This would be coupled with large scale drops of airborne troops to capture and disrupt airfields. ( Unlike the US which operated its airborne forces as a light, dismounted infantry force, the USSR's airborne forces consisted of 8 mechanised infantry divisions who were trained to drop INSIDE of their vehicles. Seriously, watch that shit on youtube.)
10) In full awareness of NATO superiority in the air the Warsaw Pact fielded a large, multilayered and extremely capable air defence system,that would have made the task of NATO CAS aircraft hellish. The ZSU 23-4 was extremely capable and in advance of what the us had fielded. (Look up the failure that is the Sergeant York SPAAG to see what I mean.) The BUK and KUB missiles were deadly, and the S300 still gives the US nightmares when the russians sell them to Iran/Syria.
Phew! That was a long post! May it inspire much discussion!
I sorry but that is factually incorrect, The regular Red army alone was 2.3 million strong. The regular US armed forces post Vietnam never amounted to more that 1.5 million. The soviets could mobilise anything to a top estimate of 25 million reserves but that would entail the use of 1945 era equipment, practically you are talking around 5 million. The Air advantage in the mid 80s was not decisive because unlike the 1st gulf war Warsaw pact forces wouldn't have sat still for 1 month and let them destroy the air defences. Nato air commanders would have to balance ground support with air superiority and deepstrike missions. The red air force did not have to win air superiority but merely limit nato air power for 2 months. Soviet naval doctrine was not about defeating the US/UK navies at sea but doing enough damage to conveys crossing the Atlantic to slow the supplies of reinforcements and ammunition for a 2 month period. The other branches of soviets forces were not designed to win but cause enough damage for a limited time period for the ground forces to reach the Rhine.TornadoADV said:
All well and good, but when the battalion sized force is in on an axis of advance it will get rolled over by a soviet corps. The reinforcements will the rush to help a force that doesn't exist. And why the hell would you bother with the Fulda gap as a main route? Its defended by the Americans, which would be a hard nut to crack. It'd be better to make a major push along the north german plain on the intersection of the dutch, german and britsh corps. Then you either make a push through the fulda gap when the american forces turn to counter attack north, or make a sustained attack simultaneously to tie american forces down and commit an OMG of a corps or so to make a mess of the american rear area. In fact you could make a sustained push in the south through northern austria to make the americans turn to the south as well as the north. This would make the fulda gap easier also.TornadoADV said:
Oh, and I would not want to fly at a soviet armoured spearhead that is packed with 14.5mm KPVTs, 12.7mm DShKs, ZSU 23-4s, Iglas, Strelas, Kubs and Buks in a Cobra. The helicopter that had the armoured windshield replaced with plastic because it was too heavy. An A 10 would be less scary, but still not a pleasant experience.
Phyrric Victory. Appropriate captcha haha.
Achievement: Ninja'd by a dead guylRookiel said:
The only winner of nuclear war are the cockroaches and the twinkies.
Let us not forget that around that time frame America was absolutely gripped in fear of invasion and of a nuclear Apocalypse. Forget which group is better armed or better trained (you all seem to forget the GRU and Spetsnaz fighting for the soviets anyways which are the ultimate badasses and the modern day equivalent to the greatest warriors of all time: Spartans). The amount of civil unrest, and tension within the states would likely be too much for the local law enforcement and gov't therefore NATO and such would be forced into their own borders to stop mass riots, looting and other such civil terror. Of course this is all in a "what if" scenario to if the "Cold War" became a "hot" war.
Another interesting factor is that you would have the mother of all traffic jams. You have about half the population of west germany fleeing in one direction, and NATO supply and reinforcement columns rushing in the other. All while being shelled, bombed and shot at by any soviet forces that have penetrated into the rear.Zak Dorosh said:
It'd be awful.
Unlike the absymal air launched SALCOs ATGMs the Soviets had, by the 80's, all Cobras had TOW-2s (B/C versions appeared in 87', but by then you had Apaches and Hellfires to worry about.) with a range of 2.5 miles, well outside the range of anything that wasen't 30mm. Same thing with Thunderbolt IIs and their AGM-65D Mavericks, hell practically every aircraft in the NATO inventory could carry Mavericks, each more then capable of destroying anything less then a T-80 outright on the first hit.LtWigglesworth said:
Finally, you have the B-52, the legend, it always carries the best and most ECM of any airborne aircraft outside the EF-111A or the EA-6B. It would of removed entire swaths of Soviet combat divisions from the fight at once, safely behind the ECM shield of friendly Ravens and Prowlers.
There wasen't a need for defense in depth for NATO, because the much superior US/NATO air assets were on call to pounch on any breakthroughs.
Captcha : Easy As Cake
You got that right, computer.
No-one would win WW3 as quite simply there aren't any winners in war. There are victors, but no-one wins - unless you're America and sit on the sidelines trading weapons till near the end, but even then you still lose some infrastructure and a fair number of lives.
Of the options given, seeing as you counted out nukes, I'd probably go for NATO. England has not been successfully invaded in close to if not over a millennia, and it was the Soviet Union that eventually collapsed, as opposed to America, so in the drawn out war it would likely end up being America would probably end up on top. Additionally the Soviets had to put up with minor rebellions and uprising with their military as well, which would spread their forces thinner, whilst, in general, the NATO members fought together because they wanted to, rather than because they were owned by a sovereign state that oppressed them with some truly retarded laws at times.
At the same time, invading America is the hardest challenge anyone would have to overcome. We all know a lot of Americans have guns. We know a lot of them aren't afraid to use them. What do you think would happen if someone sent their army in to conquer some city in America?
My guess, the local's wouldn't like it and they'd put up as much of a resistance as the military would until they were certain they couldn't win, or until the more stubborn ones died. The more intelligent people like that have become legends in the past, like the "White Death" from WWII. Just need a bit of luck and a gun.
Of the options given, seeing as you counted out nukes, I'd probably go for NATO. England has not been successfully invaded in close to if not over a millennia, and it was the Soviet Union that eventually collapsed, as opposed to America, so in the drawn out war it would likely end up being America would probably end up on top. Additionally the Soviets had to put up with minor rebellions and uprising with their military as well, which would spread their forces thinner, whilst, in general, the NATO members fought together because they wanted to, rather than because they were owned by a sovereign state that oppressed them with some truly retarded laws at times.
At the same time, invading America is the hardest challenge anyone would have to overcome. We all know a lot of Americans have guns. We know a lot of them aren't afraid to use them. What do you think would happen if someone sent their army in to conquer some city in America?
My guess, the local's wouldn't like it and they'd put up as much of a resistance as the military would until they were certain they couldn't win, or until the more stubborn ones died. The more intelligent people like that have become legends in the past, like the "White Death" from WWII. Just need a bit of luck and a gun.