AHC: NATO vs Warsaw Pact

Cold War Flashpoints

  • Korean War (1950)

    Votes: 10 16.4%
  • Check Point Charlie (1961)

    Votes: 4 6.6%
  • Cuban Missile Crisis (1962)

    Votes: 14 23.0%
  • Able Archer (1983)

    Votes: 26 42.6%
  • Hungarian Revolution (1956)

    Votes: 7 11.5%

  • Total voters
    61
Unit11_map_Cold_War_Europe_1.GIF


This is not Operation Unthinkable

Now that we have that out of the way...

The Challenge:

You are the top military strategist for NATO.

Your job is to draw up a war plan for a conventional war against the Warsaw Pact.

You are told you can use nuclear weapons in your war plan (tactical or M.A.D) if you so choose.

**********************

First, pick the flashpoint & time-period (poll) that you think IOTL would give NATO the best shot at winning a war against the Warsaw Pact.

Then share how your war plan would capitalize on it.

+100 Points: Comment on the long term geo-political effects of your strategy.

+1000 Points: If you share a map or illustration to supplement your tactical strategy :)

**********************

Note: Your plan doesn't have to result in a NATO win

2nd Note: If the "best" flashpoint for your strategy isn't in the poll, you can still choose it for your post. :cool:
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised this doesn't have the Taiwan Strait crises or the Yom Kippur War. Although, of course, they are far away from Europe.
 
Korean War of course.

Follow mccarthy's plan.

nuke the bridges, peking, and vladivostok.


if they move in europe then full scale nuclear exchange,

if not, then fight a limited war in asia where they have the longer supply line, which is always cut.

siberia just looks like more alaska anyways.;)
 
Cuban missile crisis (because this is the one of the last crises that the USA has the nuclear edge, the Chinese Civil War, the Greek Cvil War and the Korean War are equally good oppurtunities)

An all out nuclear attack on the WPO while the USA has a vast nuclear advantage in numbers of nukes and size of bomber and missile forces.

Try and fight a defensive war behind rivers against the Red Army until such a time as the USSR is utterly destroyed as a nation.

(Until the collapse in 1990, having read "Inside the Soviet Army" by Viktor Suvourov I can't envision a NATO conventional victory as the Red Army must have been far larger and more capable than the west could have imagined.)
 
Korean War of course.

Follow mccarthy's plan.

nuke the bridges, peking, and vladivostok.


if they move in europe then full scale nuclear exchange,

if not, then fight a limited war in asia where they have the longer supply line, which is always cut.

siberia just looks like more alaska anyways.;)

What full scale nuclear exchange? In 1950, the USSR only has about 5 nukes (fewer, if it's early in the year) and their best delivery system is the Tu 4 - which is a great plane, but it's no ICBM. The threat here is more full-scale conventional warfare, though I guess the US could use its 350+ nukes (all fission only devices, mostly in the 20-50kT range) and B36s to deliver them. I'm not sure whether they would have tried to strike Moscow and Petersburg (or if they would have succeeded if they'd tried), or used them more "tactically" to close the Fulda Gap and whatnot.

But definitely no "exchange"
 
What full scale nuclear exchange? In 1950, the USSR only has about 5 nukes (fewer, if it's early in the year) and their best delivery system is the Tu 4 - which is a great plane, but it's no ICBM. The threat here is more full-scale conventional warfare, though I guess the US could use its 350+ nukes (all fission only devices, mostly in the 20-50kT range) and B36s to deliver them. I'm not sure whether they would have tried to strike Moscow and Petersburg (or if they would have succeeded if they'd tried), or used them more "tactically" to close the Fulda Gap and whatnot.

But definitely no "exchange"

I would have launched a full scale assault because it's extremely difficult to envision a situation where the west can defeat the Soviets on the ground without first crippling the USSR's ability to make war and then using nukes to thin out the Red Army's tank formations.
 
What full scale nuclear exchange? In 1950, the USSR only has about 5 nukes (fewer, if it's early in the year) and their best delivery system is the Tu 4 - which is a great plane, but it's no ICBM. The threat here is more full-scale conventional warfare, though I guess the US could use its 350+ nukes (all fission only devices, mostly in the 20-50kT range) and B36s to deliver them. I'm not sure whether they would have tried to strike Moscow and Petersburg (or if they would have succeeded if they'd tried), or used them more "tactically" to close the Fulda Gap and whatnot.

But definitely no "exchange"


Exactly.

I assume the goal was to win.
 
1956: With the Hungarian Revolution in full-swing, and Poland mutinous, the Warsaw Pact is in a poor position to use its conventional forces. The Suez Crisis is similarly distracting for France/Britain, but less so (as the Israelis had the military aspect well in hand). Greece, Turkey and West Germany have been integrated into NATO, and de Gaulle hasn't had his tantrum yet, so France is still directly integrated into the command. The US has begun to implement changes as a result of the Korean War. It would still be really dicey, but about as even as could be hoped for (by the 1980s it would be more of a fair fight, but by then MAD means everyone dies anyway; 1950s the Soviets have neither the nukes nor the delivery capability to hurt the US, although Western Europe may be in trouble).

Initial bombing targets are known nuclear bases, major airbases and large troop formations, in that order. Nukes will be used liberally. The primary objective will be to secure air superiority in the combat theater, in order to allow nuclear strikes on enemy troop concentrations so as to limit the ability to counterattack. Initial land offensives aim to secure as much of East Germany as possible, and in particular to link up with Berlin before the Soviets can redeploy their forces. The Balkans are less promising for the initial offensive, but an effort will be made to reach the Veleka so as to protect Istanbul. Otherwise the Balkans and Caucuses will be mostly defensive actions, as will Korea. Further goals will depend on whether Poland honors its Warsaw Pact commitments or not, and how rapidly the Soviets can launch a counterattack (as well as which cities end up getting nuked). Longterm political objectives in decreasing order of importance are: to end the Soviet domination of Hungary and East Germany, of Eastern Europe more generally, to liberate the Baltic States, and to replace the Soviet government with a more capitalist one.

The whole thing ends in blood and tears, of course, but at least it gives a rally-round-the-flag effect and Eisenhower gets to bump up his reelection margin even higher. And the further devastation of Europe extends US economic dominance, as the Europeans have to rebuild everything again. Who knows, we might even win (at the cost of massive death and destruction)!
 
At the risk of being snarky, it's tough to come up with a plan leading to a better result for the West in OTL.

Win a one sided nuclear war? Awesome. End result, millions of dead Europeans and a crashed world economy.

Win a conventional war in Europe? Germany wrecked as a nation, the ground and air components of every NATO power a shadow of their former selves, and a costly rebuilding project. And, don't forget, global economic collapse.

Truly, the only way to win is not to play.
 
Top