You know what, let’s say both sides try to hold off on using nukes as long as possible. This is to make things more interesting.
If NATO launches airstrikes first wouldn’t WP just respond with SS20 strikes all over Western Europe?
You know what, let’s say both sides try to hold off on using nukes as long as possible. This is to make things more interesting.
Okay to make it interesting as I've already posted I don't believe the West German army has the logistical capability to take part in operations other than home defence. Correspondingly I'm sceptical that the conscript Dutch or Belgium armies had this capability either. To even things out let's exclude non Soviet Warsaw Pact forces. That leaves from a standing start 2 2/3 British divisions, 5 2/3 US divisions & 1/3 Canadian for a total of 8 2/3 NATO divisions not trained for strategic offensive operations facing 26 Soviet Divisions. After some 7 -10 days you'll be up to 4 British, 10 US (less the missing National Guard round out brigade but possibly cancelled out by lighter forces like 9th Motorised Division being present) & 1/3 Canadian. Lets round that up to 15 NATO divisions facing 26 Soviet + reinforcements from the Baltic, Byelorussian & Kiev military districts. How do you see either of these 2 scenario's working out?You know what, let’s say both sides try to hold off on using nukes as long as possible. This is to make things more interesting.
Okay to make it interesting as I've already posted I don't believe the West German army has the logistical capability to take part in operations other than home defence. Correspondingly I'm sceptical that the conscript Dutch or Belgium armies had this capability either. To even things out let's exclude non Soviet Warsaw Pact forces. That leaves from a standing start 2 2/3 British divisions, 5 2/3 US divisions & 1/3 Canadian for a total of 8 2/3 NATO divisions not trained for strategic offensive operations facing 26 Soviet Divisions. After some 7 -10 days you'll be up to 4 British, 10 US (less the missing National Guard round out brigade but possibly cancelled out by lighter forces like 9th Motorised Division being present) & 1/3 Canadian. Lets round that up to 15 NATO divisions facing 26 Soviet + reinforcements from the Baltic, Byelorussian & Kiev military districts. How do you see either of these 2 scenario's working out?
Why it happens isn’t important in this scenario. Let’s say some military exercise in the Pact led NATO to believe they were planning to invade them.
I'm plenty old enough to remember Gorbachev (and even Brezhnev!) but there is an ASB forum for a reason - of course if there is a non ASB reason why NATO invades tyhe Warsaw Pact then fair game. But none has been suggested.Can we just play along please , this scenario is far more interesting than just another soviet invasion through Fulda gap etc
Plus it is only the benefit of hindsight that we see the start of Gorbachev of era as the start of reform and decline of the USSR but those of us who are old enough to remember ussr still posed a significant threat well into the late 80s
At any rate, I would request the members here to focus just on the military aspect of the scenario. Thank you.
Are the IRBM immune to interception by fighter aircraft of that era ?That's what they were there for, doctrinally to take out NATO nuclear and first line bases. Of course that's also what NATO is going to target first so there's that
The main issue is that the use of nuclear weapons is actually a part of the doctrine of both sides, especially is things are going "badly" for either side.
I'm trying to see a scenario where the numerically weak NATO versus a stronger Warsaw Pact would be viable. To be clear your original scenario with a "hard-liner" in charge makes a aggressive move by NATO even less viable. For example if East Germany suddenly has a movement where they wanted to rejoin with West Germany there are enough Russian forces in-country to stop that even if West Germany decided it was going to support East Germany with their own forces. NATO being a defensive alliance means that there is no "legal" reason for other NATO nations to join in but having a hard liner in charge in Moscow it's very much going to be made clear that any such move by West Germany will be seen as NATO sponsored aggression and things will go down hill from there.
Randy
If I may suggest a co-ordinated rebellion of the Soviet Satellite states that includes their armed forces defecting en-masse as coherent organised bodies that facing defeat at the hands of a Soviet intervention that is promising dire retribution against the civilian population puts political pressure on NATO governments to act. Said Western governments manage to convince themselves that military intervention will force the Soviets to back off because no-one is crazy enough to want WWIII.I'm plenty old enough to remember Gorbachev (and even Brezhnev!) but there is an ASB forum for a reason - of course if there is a non ASB reason why NATO invades tyhe Warsaw Pact then fair game. But none has been suggested.
Does this include reinforcements from America and Canada?Okay to make it interesting as I've already posted I don't believe the West German army has the logistical capability to take part in operations other than home defence. Correspondingly I'm sceptical that the conscript Dutch or Belgium armies had this capability either. To even things out let's exclude non Soviet Warsaw Pact forces. That leaves from a standing start 2 2/3 British divisions, 5 2/3 US divisions & 1/3 Canadian for a total of 8 2/3 NATO divisions not trained for strategic offensive operations facing 26 Soviet Divisions. After some 7 -10 days you'll be up to 4 British, 10 US (less the missing National Guard round out brigade but possibly cancelled out by lighter forces like 9th Motorised Division being present) & 1/3 Canadian. Lets round that up to 15 NATO divisions facing 26 Soviet + reinforcements from the Baltic, Byelorussian & Kiev military districts. How do you see either of these 2 scenario's working out?
It includes the Reforger reinforcements from the US in the 7 - 10 days scenario. Follow on forces would be National Guard who I believe did not have pre-positioned equipment so would have to travel by sea after being mobilised. There is the 24th Mechanised Division but my understanding is that this was allocated to Central Command. It could obviously be reallocated to Europe but would have to be shipped in. I am aware during the run-up to Desert Storm that some round-out NG units (i.e. the high readiness ones) were called up. After 30 days of training they were still classed as unready for operations. Of course the same issue might well affect Soviet Cat B & C divisions. The Soviet formations though would be moving in by rail not across the Atlantic. In 1985 I believe that the one Canadian brigade allocated to reinforce Europe was still earmarked for Norway. In the late 80's it was reallocated to West Germany but this was because it was anticipated that it would take too long to arrive in Norway so again outside the 7 -10 days scenario.Does this include reinforcements from America and Canada?
War. War never changes.There are so many alt histories on the Cold War going hot. However, they all seem to show Warsaw pact invading NATO. How would a NATO invasion of East Germany go? How far could NATO get before Warsaw Pact pushes them back? Will it go nuclear right away? Let’s say this occurs in 1985 and a hardliner is in power instead of Gorbachov.
Are the IRBM immune to interception by fighter aircraft of that era ?
Jumping in here — if NATO was able to halt a Soviet offensive before it reached the Rhine and fought the Soviet Army to a standstill, how much of West Germany could it liberate? Would invading the DDR, at least to reach West Berlin, have been feasible? I agree that going much beyond Berlin wouldn’t have been doable even under the best of circumstances… the numbers just weren’t there.
Nukes notwithstanding of course.
If I may suggest a coordinated rebellion of the Soviet Satellite states that includes their armed forces defecting en-masse as coherent organized bodies that facing defeat at the hands of a Soviet intervention that is promising dire retribution against the civilian population puts political pressure on NATO governments to act. Said Western governments manage to convince themselves that military intervention will force the Soviets to back off because no-one is crazy enough to want WWIII.
Yes none of this is remotely likely, no it won't end well for all concerned, yes I own Twilight 2000 1st & 2nd Editions! Is this unlikely enough to be ASB worthy? That's up to you to decide.
And the why makes a huge difference to the outcome. I mean if the scenario is the Warsaw Pact rises up and the USSR has fallen into civil war with Ukraine and Byelorussia turning against Russia, okay perhaps NATO could invade, but any notion that NATO could launch some sort of pre-emptive invasion of a fully prepared Warsaw Pact and the USSR is ASB.I'm plenty old enough to remember Gorbachev (and even Brezhnev!) but there is an ASB forum for a reason - of course if there is a non ASB reason why NATO invades tyhe Warsaw Pact then fair game. But none has been suggested.
How can fighter aircraft like F-15 shoot down IRBM ?Fighters? Yes. We had the Patriot in theatre but it was without the updates to make it effective against IRBM's. (Didn't come till 1988)
This is different from what the OP seemed to mean which was a general NATO attack on the WP. In this case, once we've got REFORGER up and running then it was planned that we'd go on the offensive and push the WP back. The concept was to push them out of Germany entirely and to push forward into Poland but I'm not sure of anything past that.
This was a nightmare scenario for NATO nations really, especially once Reagan was elected.
NOT supporting a nation trying to free itself from the Soviets means you own populations seeing every bit of rhetoric as baseless propaganda and NATO leaders being 'afraid' of the USSR. Horrible optics to say the least.
On the other hand going in in support is pretty much guarantees to start World War III, especially if there is a hardline government in Moscow. No matter how you slice it NATO forces are going to be going directly against Russian forces along with any WP forces brought in. Which is turn means Moscow has to respond or become irrelevant.
Pretty much move on to instant sunshine for everyone at that point.
Randy
Plus the perception that the NATO technological superiority would be able to neutralise the Soviet 'style of war', i.e. precision attacks on command centres and non-nuclear area-effect weapons like ICM/SICM. Also the potential first-strike decapitation abilities of Gryphon, Pershing II, Trident D5 and the F-117's that had been deployed to Europe. Also there was increased security at NATO installations (obviously to prevent Soviet infiltration) and the SHAPE meeting. Basically a perfect storm of events but in the context of heightened Soviet fears (e.g. Operation RYaN).^That can not be overstated enough.
Part of why Able Archer '83 scared the shit out of the Soviets and nearly got us a WW3 was because it involved a similar, but smaller, mobilization.
How would a NATO invasion of East Germany go?
How can fighter aircraft like F-15 shoot down IRBM ?