ABLE ARCHER 83: Timeline of a Third World War in 1983

Status
Not open for further replies.

Allen81

It's interesting, but it seems a bit far-fetched.
Too many conveniently successful high-profile assassinations, too much unexplained difficulties by NATO to contain and/or counterattack soviet armed forces. Too many sabotage attempts that cripple key structures in Europe...it's a fairly irrealistic streak of good luck. And by "fairly irrealistic" I mean "bordering on the impossible". A few of the things you described? Good. Some of them? Eyebrow-raising, but cool. All of them combined? Too much, I'm sorry.

Something in particular that confused me: the bit about Austria being overrun in a short time sounds quite implausible. Italy' separate armistice seems also...quite odd. In a few days a neutral country has been invaded, its government captured. Shortly after one of the most strategically important european states, Italy, sign a separated peace after a few days (not years or even months, days) of hostility...and even if Italy wasn't losing badly it agree on a complete occupation of its most rich and industrialized area, northern Italy. Switzerland is under attack and when it falls Germany and France are going to suffer badly.

The sudden, irrealistic capitulation of Austria and the equally implausible italian armistice puts NATO in a very tight corner. After so many political assassinations and the use of chemical warheads, losing Italy would probably force the US and NATO to escalate the war. Tactical nuclear strikes would be considered, and considered the situation you described on the German and the Northern Front, approved.
 

giobastia

@Franks and Allen81

"The WP successes in Southern Germany strike me as odd, considering the geography is extremely suited for defensive operations. Lots of rivers, forests mountain ranges, built-up areas".
Only if you are ready to defend them. If you are taken by surprise it's a bit different. Here the surprise is double: a first Soviet surprise attack with both conventional and chemical weapons and a surprise invasion of Austria, which could expose suddenly the Southern flank of the Second German Corps. Adding the Soviet air dominance in this first phase of war, a NATO retreat is not surprising at all. I'm even optimistic.

"For some reason the large pool of reservists (all those field replacement companies and battalions assigned to battalions, regiments, brigades and division would provide a steady stream of manpower) and the Territorial Army of the Bundeswehr (light infantry for guarding the rear area against Soviet Airborne/Special Purpose Forces operations and the mechanized/armored Home Defence Brigades for supporting the Field Army) are completely absent from the action and it seems the German Army is suffering from severe attrition"
You could mobilize all of them in one week at least, not immediately after a Soviet surprise attack. "Also, you dismiss the Austrian military too easily". After a surprise attack, of course.

"And finally, while the westernmost WP units were able to deploy from their barracks within hours, the gargantuan logistical effort of an offensive would have been noticed quite early on".
Yes, in two to three weeks you'll see the difference

"Italy' separate armistice seems also...quite odd".
Maybe we're very pessimistic, but here in Italy the most diffused opinion, at the time, was: "just try to resist three days, then disperse and fight a guerrilla war with Stay Behind units"
 

Otis R. Needleman

Banned
MUC said:
B52s wont survive over E.Europe with all WP radars and air defences still functional. It's just too dense. B52s were limited to deep penetrations over less densely defended airspace (Siberia) or standoff attacks by 1983. the problem is, that ALCMs were only nuclear tipped in 1983. After nuclear release however B52s could fly over the wrecked air defenses. We are just not that far yet. Electronic warfare is good but wont help you, when you are flying that deep alone.
Remember the B52 raid on Keflavik in Red Storm Rising? :)

Allowing a B52 to reach Kiev over Europe is like saying the Soviets can carpet bomb London.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing...in this scenario the WP IADS has taken hits. Gaps are there. B-52s can hit staging areas in EG, Poland, and CZ. Can't say much more but was a USAF intelligence officer on active duty in 1983.
 

asnys

Otis R. Needleman said:
Here's the thing...in this scenario the WP IADS has taken hits. Gaps are there. B-52s can hit staging areas in EG, Poland, and CZ. Can't say much more but was a USAF intelligence officer on active duty in 1983.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't they want to hold the B-52s for potential strategic nuclear duties?

And giobastia, glad to see it's up; I'm looking forward to reading the rest. :)
 

giobastia

Thank you Asnys!
As for the B52s, you can try to use them, of course, but it's much useful to deploy them in Europe after you have achieved air dominance.

About the situation up in the air, the following post is the last update (second week of war)
 

giobastia

The war over Europe (air operations, November 15th-21st)

Also in this second week of campaign in Europe, the Soviet Frontal Aviation and the Warsaw Pact national air forces keep a limited air dominance over Central Europe, but they suffer much more losses because of many factors.

First of all, the anti-aircraft assets of NATO are getting better with new mobile weapons: other Hawks and Rapier mobile batteries from USA and UK and the first new Patriot missile batteries from USA. They prove very effective against all kinds of aircrafts at all altitudes.

Second: not only air tactical units continue to arrive from USA, but all the carriers are basically free from naval engagements, once the Soviet Black Sea Fleet and the Baltic Fleet are no more a threat. USS Kennedy and Independence (along with the French carrier Foch) in the Mediterranean Sea; USS Nimitz and America (along with the French carrier Clemanceau) in North Atlantic, can launch a lot of interdiction/bombardment sorties all over Western Europe. Their F-14s engage dog fights with their MIG-27s and MIG-29s counterparts, while the Intruders (and the French Super Etendards) launch a series of low altitude strikes against Warsaw Pact targets, hitting hard bridges, railway nodes and main highways.

Last but not least: after an initial campaign against Soviet and WP logistical assets, the F-117s concentrate on the decapitation of command and control assets of WP air forces and air defenses. On November 17th, also the main command and control center of Soviet Frontal Aviation in Zossen Wunsdorf (DDR) is incapacitated, if not completely destroyed. Between November 18th and November 21st, Soviet and WP air forces registers increasing lack of coordination.

By the end of the week, the WP and Soviet Union air forces can keep an almost complete dominance on their own air space, thus interdicting nearly all NATO deep incursions (with the only significant exception of the F-117s which can easily penetrate the WP defenses), but their air dominance over Northern Norway and Western Germany begin to be crippled. The SU-25s ground attack raids begin to cost them huge losses and the MI-24 attack helicopters are shot down in large numbers. On the other side, the A-10s incursions against the prolonged logistical lines in West Germany become more and more frequent, inflicting heavy losses to the second-echelon Soviet and WP columns.

Over the peripheral theatres of operations, the situation is getting even better for NATO forces. French air space, defended also by the new Mirage 2000s (versions A and C) becomes very dangerous for long range Soviet incursions. The Soviets continue to bomb regularly the bridges on the Rhine and French road and railways nodes in Alsace and Lorraine, but they have to pay a harsh price. All the deep incursions against the French air bases are stopped without any significant result. Moroever, through French and Belgian protected harbors, USA and UK continue to send ammos, equipment and personnel to the first line in Germany.
The RAF and USAF interceptors, validly supported by the carriers in North Atlantic, can intercept almost all the Soviet long range air raids against Britain. Thus, after the first shocks and bombardments, the British Isles become again the safe “unsinkable carrier” of pre-war situation, the main base (along with Iceland, Spain, Portugal, Sardinia and Sicily) of all medium and long range NATO incursions.

After the naval and air raids against the Soviet Far East bases, especially after the beginning of operations in Korea, Alaska becomes another “quiet” place.

In Northern Norway, the Soviets could keep a better control thanks to their numerous (and still untouched) air bases in the Kola Peninsula. But they are more and more contrasted by the US and British naval air forces based on the USS Eisenhower and the three British light carriers.
 

Questerr

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't NATO still have chemical weapons in 1983? Why aren't they launching retaliatory chemical strikes against WP forces?
 

MUC

Two potential developments in the Med:

1. What will Yugoslavia do?

2. Can NATO carriers force their way into the Black Sea?
 

giobastia

@Questerr "Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't NATO still have chemical weapons in 1983? Why aren't they launching retaliatory chemical strikes against WP forces?"

Oh yes, they are using them, since the first day of conflict. I wrote it.
 

giobastia

@MUC

Yugoslavia is entering the conflict. Just wait and see...

Us carriers in Black Sea are not a good idea, I think. First of all because they are desperately needed in the Mediterranean, to support ground operations in Europe. Second because of... certain nuclear retaliation by Ussr. A carrier too close to Soviet coasts is a certain nuclear trigger. (While the destruction of some boomer at sea or some launcher on the battlefield are NOT).
 

Questerr

giobastia said:
@Questerr "Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't NATO still have chemical weapons in 1983? Why aren't they launching retaliatory chemical strikes against WP forces?"

Oh yes, they are using them, since the first day of conflict. I wrote it.
Click to expand...

I must have missed it. What are NATO using their chemical weapons on?
 

bsmart

Otis R. Needleman said:
B-52s could do the job. SAC had been trained to operate against the WP integrated air defense system (IADS), which has taken plenty of hits of its' own in this conflict. B-52s could fly from the UK, Spain, possibly the Azores, Portugal or France. Allied electronic warfare was ahead of the WP and the lead got bigger every year.
Click to expand...

B-52s were NOT going to flying from the UK. They would not be risked at bases with long wide runways that were within range of IRBMs. If the B-52Ds from the Vietnam era were still in the inventory ( I think they had been retired by then) they may have been used for conventional attacks but the newer BUFFS would have been dedicated to nuclear strikes from their bases in CONUS.

One thing I haven't seen much comment on is the shortage of munitions that NATO suffered in the early to mid 80s. The shortage would become grave in a couple days. AIm-9s (especially the latest versions) would have been used up as well as AIM-7s and probably most of the AIM-54s. 20mm ammo would be running low. I can't say for sure if the A-10s would be running low of 30mm ammo or Mavericks but Since I worked on an F-15 fightline from 1976-1982 (When I crosstrained off) I know about the Air to air munitions. Spare parts for the F-15s and F-16s would be very short ( The Carter years were a nightmare for the supply system and the shortages were not made up until 85 or later)

Hacketts book The Third World War - August 1985

is a pretty good description of the European portion of the war although many of us felt it was actually 'generous' and could almost be considered a NATOwank
 

Orville_third

Banned
In regards to the Black sea, Turkey signed a treaty that prohibits carriers from transiting the Black Sea. A US or French carrier going through would be majorly upsetting and risking a NATO split, while a Soviet carrier would risk sinking in the Bosporus.
HOWEVER, the treaty might not apply to the Soviet Kiev class (A "Tactical Aviation Carrying Cruiser")*, some of the UK Harrier Carriers (AKA "Through-Deck Cruisers") and the US's Amphibious Assault ships.
Imagine a battle between Harriers and Forgers.

*Then again, it would take several miracles for a Kiev to make it through the Bosporus against Turkish opposition.
 

asnys

Orville_third said:
In regards to the Black sea, Turkey signed a treaty that prohibits carriers from transiting the Black Sea. A US or French carrier going through would be majorly upsetting and risking a NATO split, while a Soviet carrier would risk sinking in the Bosporus.
HOWEVER, the treaty might not apply to the Soviet Kiev class (A "Tactical Aviation Carrying Cruiser")*, some of the UK Harrier Carriers (AKA "Through-Deck Cruisers") and the US's Amphibious Assault ships.
Imagine a battle between Harriers and Forgers.

*Then again, it would take several miracles for a Kiev to make it through the Bosporus against Turkish opposition.
Click to expand...

It's the middle of WW3 and Turkey is part of NATO. I don't think the letter of the treaty will have much impact.
 

Alex1guy

Asnys said:
It's the middle of WW3 and Turkey is part of NATO. I don't think the letter of the treaty will have much impact.
Click to expand...

Yeah I have a feeling that with the Turks fighting for their lives, such a treaty would become staggeringly irrelevant if putting a US Carrier though would help the war effort. Although the possibility of such actions escalating the conflict would be the overriding concern.

Fun timeline though, conventional WWIII is interesting.
 

MUC

Is the Soviets are stuck in W. Germany, they may decide to play their "political card": Raze a medium sized German city with bombs, missiles & artillery and see if the W. Germans decide to surrender. They have already lost half of their country anyway.
Making the Soviets get stuck in W. Germany simply raises the odds of limited nuclear weapons deployment in the tactical level at first, which means W. Germany is turned into the moon surface.

Better Red than dead.


"Red Army" demonstrated such a scenario.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top