Warsaw Pact invasion routes?

amphibulous

Banned
ObssesedNuker said:
In a words: yes. Seizing Norwegian territory gives the Soviet navy and land-based anti-ship aircraft an easier time to get at NATO convoys in the North Sea
Click to expand...

Back during the Cold War the Norwegians had cold feet about clarifying plans to move other NATO forces into Norway to defend it. This risked a repeat of Belgium in WW2 (where a hasty advance and then a retreat, because positions hadn't been prepared properly, led to disaster.) So the UK Ministry Of Defense "accidentally" leaked its plans for neutralizing Soviet aircraft based in Norway. The phrase "obsessive nuking" pretty much summed then up and the Norwegians became much more cooperative...
 

EternalCynic

ZDF made a movie about just a scenario:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5IKf0G65c8

tldr: Gorbachev is removed by hardliners in coup in 1989. The new Soviet leaders crush all dissent in Eastern Europe. They make threats towards West Berlin and eventually seal off the transit routes. A series of blunders and miscalculations lead to a Soviet invasion of West Germany, which is eventually repelled through technologically superior NATO ground and air forces. NATO conquers East Germany, which causes panic in Moscow. In the confusion, the Soviets launch their nukes at the West. Vlad Tepes occurs.
 

Jukra

amphibulous said:
But the quantity of forces were, by Soviet standards, tiny. So really not a problem.
Click to expand...

On the contrary. Even if Finland would give an essentially free pass through Lapland (which seems, IMHO, likely) from a standing start Sweden would have time to mobilize significant forces in Northern Sweden, size of a few divisions.

As for Norway, the terrain would be extremely difficult and most likely Soviets would not have superiority in either air or at sea due to the fact that the Soviet Union would have to use significant resources to protect her seaward flank against USN forces.
 

AdA

Sources

Batailles & Blindés N°52

DISPONIBLE (8 € frais de port compris)

n52.jpg

Tempête rouge sur l'Europe
Les plans d'invasion du Pacte de Varsovie
La perception de l’Occident par le pacte de Varsovie a ceci de singulière, qu’elle détermine les objectifs d’un éventuel conflit avec l’OTAN, pressenti comme la bataille décisive entre les deux systèmes politiques antagonistes. Qu’il soit envisagé avec ou sans emploi d’armes nucléaires, cet engagement doit voir les troupes blindées et mécanisées du pacte de Varsovie écraser les armées alliées au terme d’une campagne-éclair de quelques jours ! Selon quel plan et avec quels moyens, telle est la problématique traitée dans cette étude à l’aide, notamment, de plusieurs rapports déclassifiés de la CIA et de l’US Army, ainsi que d’archives russes, polonaises et ouest-allemandes.

http://www.batailles-blindes.com/kiosque.php
 

Qaa

As an aside, while I know there is a tl about a nuclear war during the cuban missile crisis, is there a tl about a nuclear war in the 80s?
 

SactoMan101

I think a very plausible scenario would be one described by the late Sir John Hackett in his book The Third World War: all out conventional attack, first by using Tu-22M bombers equipped with modified Kh-22 missiles fitted with a special anti-radiation seeker tuned to the frequencies of the E-3 Sentry radar to take out as many E-3's as possible and then a lot of strikes with chemical warheads carrying Sarin, Soman and VX nerve gases before the all-out ground assault.

The Soviets had considered the idea of just using TR-1 Temp (SS-12 Scaleboard) nuclear-armed missiles based in East Germany and Czechoslovakia to take out as many NATO air bases as possible in an invasion, but that would have quickly invited NATO nuclear retaliation and a quick escalation of a nuclear exchange to an all-out strategic exchange.
 

Thoresby

Soviet nuclear doctrine, like all nuclear doctrine is pretty hazy but one mad idea they never adopted was that of containable nuclear warfare. They always accepted that once one bomb goes off they are probably all going to go off and so were very cautious about developing plans which required nukes. As mad as it sounds considering they were the bad guys NATO is more likely to be the first user in the event of a Hot War than the Pact.
 
Jape

Jape

Thoresby said:
As mad as it sounds considering they were the bad guys NATO is more likely to be the first user in the event of a Hot War than the Pact.
Click to expand...

To quote an old saying "Better Red than Dead" - In such a scenario as total atomic war its ridiculous to apply morality. Everyone is a massive nuclear-tipped wanker.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The Soviet invasion routes were, as has been noted, likely to have been across the Northern German Plain and through the Fulda Gap.

The reality, of course, is that while the Soviets has a "no 1st use" policy, NATO had the exact opposite. It was more or less an article of faith that the only way to stop the invasion, at least before the rearmament efforts of the U.S. in the early 80s took hold, was the immediate use of tactical weapons to stop the initial Red Army spearheads. This would have immediately resulted in Soviet response in kind with the escalation proceeding rapidly to a general exchange, including the large scale introduction of chemical and biological weapons.

All in all, a good week for the crows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top