Slow Drift to War Europe 1984

[Farmer12]

slorek what you say is true, but like all true believers they will think that right is on their side. What they will not think about is all the families with loved ones fighting in Europe. That will make them look like traitors and cause most Americans to turn against them only a long war will cause people to question the war. The threat of nuclear war may sway the population somewhat. But the Soviet Union will still be the enemy that they had heard of all their lives. That fact has been pounded into the American population for decades and i believe even today still lingers a bit.

 

[michaelbaneblade]

Damn thats a lot of front line force for NATO, if I count the French Divisions as brigades. I think I have 31 NATO divisions in place and on the border ready to defend. Thats a lot of fire power. Still the Soviets have a lot of Divisions to throw at them. Farmer12 thanks for the numbers dude. It makes it easier to imagine how much trouble NATO will be in when the Soviets come west.

 

[Farmer12]

Your right about a lot of Soviet Army divisions. The best information i have on the Soviet Army is 30 divisions base in Eastern Europe with another 65 divisions base in the western Soviet Union with another 20 divisions based in the TransCausasus and North Caucasus military districts. Remember that some of these divisions will end up fighting NATO in other battle fronts. With 17 more understrength divisions that formed the strategic reserve. There is another 50 or so more divisions from the Warsaw Pact.

That why I included the total mobilization, the Soviet Army was worried becoming worried that NATO would be up to full fighting strength if that happens then the balance of power begins to shift to NATO. The idea of throwing a million plus troops with twenty five or so thousand additional tanks seemed like a good idea to make sure the balance. Or at least that is how i believe the Soviet Army and the Politburo would look at it.

 

[sloreck]

While numbers count, other than being bullet sponges how useful are category C divisions for front line use, not rear area duties. To get any use out of the Cat C (or Cat B) divisions they still need to be supplied. Sure the Soviet soldier is not used to some of the "luxuries" that a NATO soldier has (like sleeping bags instead of greatcoats), but you still need to feed him, provide clean water, and don't forget vodka. If you don't provide enough calories it does not take long for a soldier in combat to suffer because of this - meaning fatigue, weakness, etc and/or a tendency to spend more time foraging than is militarily useful (the red army doesn't care how it pisses off civilians especially in conquered territory). (1) No clean water, well somebody with dysentery is just as out of action as with a bullet wound. Then of course you have to provide things like fuel and munitions and spare parts. with Cat C, and maybe some Cat B, you have older models of everything, sometimes 2 or more generations old, which means that parts supply is going to be a nightmare and while there may (or may not) be spare part stockpiles for 25 year old tanks somewhere, you can be sure the parts are not being made.(2) The Chinese in Korea were able to supply their forces with coolies and backpacks to a large extent because their forces were basically light infantry, the distances were relatively short, and once you crossed the Yalu supply dumps were safe. ITTL you need to support mechanized and armored forces, and every thing from the factory to the front is a legitimate target, there are no sanctuaries the only limitations being the ability of NATO to strike a given target. Add the old bugaboo of rail gauge disparity, and just keeping all those troops fed and supplied is a monumental task before NATO (and possibly some folks in Poland and elsewhere) start interfering with supply lines.

(1) In the field, the US military considers 3 MREs a day to be the base ration - this is 3750 calories. For those that high altitude or under winter/arctic conditions there are higher calorie rations. In each MRE on packaging there are exhortations to eat everything in the MRE "calories are fuel". Some data suggests that during a mission daily calorie requirements can be 4,000-4,500 calories or more in a temperate environment.
(2) Historically the USSR has had a problem with "stuff" in storage against a rainy day has a tendency to walk away. The private market for vehicle batteries, large tires (like on BTR), all manner of supplies is huge. I expect when these warehouses are opened a lot of stuff on inventory will have evaporated. Sure, perpetrators guilty or innocent will be identified and executed or otherwise punished. However this will not replace the missing inventory, and to the extent this missing goods are no longer being made this is a huge issue.

 

[Ludwig von Stieglitz]

While numbers count, other than being bullet sponges how useful are category C divisions for front line use, not rear area duties. To get any use out of the Cat C (or Cat B) divisions they still need to be supplied. Sure the Soviet soldier is not used to some of the "luxuries" that a NATO soldier has (like sleeping bags instead of greatcoats), but you still need to feed him, provide clean water, and don't forget vodka. If you don't provide enough calories it does not take long for a soldier in combat to suffer because of this - meaning fatigue, weakness, etc and/or a tendency to spend more time foraging than is militarily useful (the red army doesn't care how it pisses off civilians especially in conquered territory). (1) No clean water, well somebody with dysentery is just as out of action as with a bullet wound. Then of course you have to provide things like fuel and munitions and spare parts. with Cat C, and maybe some Cat B, you have older models of everything, sometimes 2 or more generations old, which means that parts supply is going to be a nightmare and while there may (or may not) be spare part stockpiles for 25 year old tanks somewhere, you can be sure the parts are not being made.(2) The Chinese in Korea were able to supply their forces with coolies and backpacks to a large extent because their forces were basically light infantry, the distances were relatively short, and once you crossed the Yalu supply dumps were safe. ITTL you need to support mechanized and armored forces, and every thing from the factory to the front is a legitimate target, there are no sanctuaries the only limitations being the ability of NATO to strike a given target. Add the old bugaboo of rail gauge disparity, and just keeping all those troops fed and supplied is a monumental task before NATO (and possibly some folks in Poland and elsewhere) start interfering with supply lines.

(1) In the field, the US military considers 3 MREs a day to be the base ration - this is 3750 calories. For those that high altitude or under winter/arctic conditions there are higher calorie rations. In each MRE on packaging there are exhortations to eat everything in the MRE "calories are fuel". Some data suggests that during a mission daily calorie requirements can be 4,000-4,500 calories or more in a temperate environment.
(2) Historically the USSR has had a problem with "stuff" in storage against a rainy day has a tendency to walk away. The private market for vehicle batteries, large tires (like on BTR), all manner of supplies is huge. I expect when these warehouses are opened a lot of stuff on inventory will have evaporated. Sure, perpetrators guilty or innocent will be identified and executed or otherwise punished. However this will not replace the missing inventory, and to the extent this missing goods are no longer being made this is a huge issue.

I totally agree. Also, historically soviet divisions had an unusual tooth-to-nail ratio, meaning poor emphasis on their supply train. This as soviet war planning relies heavily on achieving a quick breakthrough, which was not possible mid-80s, as Nato doctrine shifted to enveloping soviet forces instead of rigidly confronting them.
I have an ide ago how this story is ending: the Soviets attack, they are stalled, nuclear weapons, boom

 

[Farmer12]

Slorek- I agree with everything you stay but I believe that Stalin said this, **Quantity has a Quality all its own.** The Soviet Army is not up to Western Standards in anyway, but what they planned on doing was throwing a mass of men at the NATO lines and pounding their way through. When it looked like the West might be able to put a large enough force together to stop the first mass of troops. They simply mobilized more troops. Then you hit everything on the NATO frontlines and concentrate on a few areas and attack on narrow fronts. They figure that in one or more locations they will break threw the lines. The they send their Operations Manoeurver Groups through the gaps. It may not work but it could work. All the time the ground war keeping on going and going on. The fighting will eat up men and material in massive numbers. That is until something gives.

 

[sloreck]

Stalin also famously asked about the Pope how many divisions he had. I completely understand the concept - but IMHO I think the Soviets are seriously underestimating the logistic issues they are going to have even before NATO works hard to screw up their resupply. They designed many weapons to be able to use NATO ammunition in a pinch, but their ammo was such that it would not fit NATO weapons. Their fuel openings were NATO standard size to be able to use NATO refueling hoses etc. While smart thinking, it shows that there was some realization that they would need to scavenge supply from NATO. The standard thinking is you need a factor of 3:1 at the Schwerpunkt, if you are going to have this at several places, as well as OMGs primed and ready to go behind each attack point, means a ton of troops. Even before you attack you need to feed and water them, you might be willing to scrimp some on food once they are fighting but you don't want them deteriorating before you step off - this all adds up to a lot of borscht and vodka. No matter what you need food and water (socialist thinking does not change human metabolism), POL, and ammo. As troops are expended, you need to bring up replacements.

If the only war you can win is a short war, you are setting yourself up for failure.

 

[Farmer12]

Ludwig von Stieglitz- You could be right, we will see how it goes.

 

[Farmer12]

slorek your quite right and I am familiar with the concept, the SciFi writer David Weber wrote the book The Short Victorious War. Although the Peeps were better supplied. Much of the force the Soviet Union is currently being mobilized could charitably be called third line troops eight and ten to one would be necessary. The theory is if nothing else the NATO will run out of ammo before the Soviets run out of troops.

 

[sloreck]

Problem for the Soviets is that these "third line"/Cat C (or D) units could be fairly useful in defense, their offensive capability is pretty minimal. A lot of logistic effort to get them to the front, and then they are basically bullet sponges. You also run the risk that these family men will see they are sheep to the slaughter, morale will plummet and that has consequences. Being sacrificed to keep the enemy out of the Rodina is one thing, driving to the English Channel is another.

 

[Jack Brisco]

Yup, will add my bit about logistics. In the military, wasn't a logistics officer by trade. But as I moved up in my career, especially as a systems acquisition manager, I spent more and more time on logistical and support issues. If you can't support or fix a system - any kind of system - you won't be able to use it long. Had some very interesting adventures dealing with the logistics of supporting systems. Nothing like seeing a message going out from your two-star to a two-star at a USAF logistics center basically saying, "WTF? I need you to do whatever it takes to fix this problem."

 

[Ludwig von Stieglitz]

Slorek- I agree with everything you stay but I believe that Stalin said this, **Quantity has a Quality all its own.** The Soviet Army is not up to Western Standards in anyway, but what they planned on doing was throwing a mass of men at the NATO lines and pounding their way through. When it looked like the West might be able to put a large enough force together to stop the first mass of troops. They simply mobilized more troops. Then you hit everything on the NATO frontlines and concentrate on a few areas and attack on narrow fronts. They figure that in one or more locations they will break threw the lines. The they send their Operations Manoeurver Groups through the gaps. It may not work but it could work. All the time the ground war keeping on going and going on. The fighting will eat up men and material in massive numbers. That is until something gives.

This may work as long as NATO adopts static defense; had this TL been set in 1979, I would say that the Soviets would have had a good chance

 

[Farmer12]

slorek- true these have minimal combat value but the Soviet Union has for a very long time utilized combats units exactly in this manner. True these units may be of limited value. But for the Soviet Army if they are tying up combat units in less critical sections of the front then they have done their job.

As for morale before the war breaks out the Commissars will emphasize the NATO aggression and appeal to the troops patriotism of the troops. They will point out that the West started this crisis by assassinating Honecker and attempting to reunite Germany. They will point out that a united Germany had invaded Rodina twice this century alone. So a reunited Germany will be the threat they are fighting against. A fight that if they won will ensure that these men grandchildren and great granchildren will not have to face an aggressive reunite Germany. The Commissars will say they are fighting a communist equivalent of a Holy War. True s time goes on that story will wear thin, the Soviet Army will work on the theory that if they can hold these troops together for a month then victory will be theirs.

 

[Farmer12]

Jack Brisco- You right about keeping people supplied and the Soviet Army has a very poor logistic system. They have a lot of teeth not so much tail. Equipment will breakdown and parts will not be where they are needed. The Soviet Union starves its troops even in peacetime. I remember ready about how one infantry unit that had more contacts with civilians in a nearby city. i forget why but the men in the unit looked healthier and gained weight.

We can talk all about the problems this causes but the leadership of the Soviet military will just say that is the way it is and always has been. The fact that it could cause them to lose well no one wants to be a defeatist. They will just say attack attack attack. Little details like logistics will just have to take care of themselves. The way i figure it the Soviet logistics train will concentrate on ammo and fuel maybe spare parts with some food if and when they get the chance to bring it up to the front. The senior officers will point out that they fought on short rations during the Great Patriotic War and they still won. The Soviet military leadership never got out of its World War 2 mindset.

 

[Farmer12]

Ludwig von Stieglitz- I agree in 79 they would have a good chance of winning. In 1984 well some chance if things go their way. The Soviet Army will attack and attack they will gain ground by sheer numbers but win it that is questionable. But telling the truth in the Soviet Union was a dangerous thing especially if it is bad news.

 

[Farmer12]

5pm Boston Ma. Tip O’Neil personally went to talk to Ted Kennedy in a meeting with just the two of them present Tip told Ted to keep your mouth shut because he was not helping the cause of peace with his ill-considered response to the bombings. When Kennedy protested stating he had done nothing wrong and that he would be speaking at the protest tomorrow since to do otherwise was to bend over for the war-mongers of America lead by Ronald Reagan. Tip pointed out that your comments about the dockworkers were not well received. People have taken your comments as an attack on the dock workers with you higher morale purpose comment about the Peace Movement.

Kennedy reaction was that he had not attacked the dockworkers. He also stated that he and the Peace Movement was protecting America from Reagans march to war which was a reasoned reaction to a situation that if not prevented will mean the death of the world. When Tip pointed out that a great many people of America did not have the same view. Ted response was direct and to the point, they don’t understand what is at stake. We are talking the end of the world as we know that at best. If we survive at all we, humanity would be reduced to the stone age.

Tip realized that Ted could not be reason with, he was on a crusade to save the world and nothing would stop him. Tip left the meeting considering his options, but one thing was for sure he could not attack Ted since he was a hero to the peace movement.

Since the failure to block Reagans requests for money to pay for the expenses of the mobilization. He had been harder and harder to be reasoned with. So far Ronald Reagan had made no mistakes or at least none that anyone had discovered so far. Except for the sending of various National Guard units over to undertrained and not fully equipped. The not fully equipped part did present a problem since Reagan could and would point out that any deficiencies in equipment could be placed at the feet of the previously democratically controlled House and Senate. They were the ones who appropriated the money so if the current state of the military was inadequate then it was their fault.


But the House defense committee could argue that Reagan should allow the various Guard units more training time before being sent over to Europe. That meeting would be held next Monday and they had a good number of people including some retired military officers. They could point out that to send out improperly trained units to Europe would mean unacceptably high casualties. But if the situation in Boston got out of control, then the meeting on Monday would not attract the attention necessary to derail Reagan’s rush to war.

Tip was just as opposed to the march to war as Ted was but their methods differed. Ted was engaging in more and more confrontational actions. Organizing protests, he supported the sit ins in universities, not to mention encourage acts of civil disobedience to resist Reagan move toward war. Blocking entrance to military to military bases and factories where military equipment and supplies were produced. Encouraging workers to leave the production lines to shut off the flow of supplies to the American military. That left the families of men and women currently serving overseas wondering just one whose side the Democratic party was. But he was not the only member of the House and Senate who engaged in these actions.

The Republicans were hammering in the message that a large percentage of the Democratic party leadership as well as the just plain everyday party members did not care about the soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen serving abroad. Tip was making efforts to both support the boys overseas, while trying to prevent World War III. It was a balancing act, he needed to show that what he was concerned about was going on while at the same time not alienating the general population. As time went on Ted had become harder and harder to be reasoned with. Ted was certain he was saving the world from certain death. That meant that Ted was not going to stop, he was opposed the everything that Reagan and done so far. So he would do what he had to stop Reagan and his mad rush to war. Ted was going all out for the cause of peace. Ted was not making any friends on the other side of the fence. Ted was alienating people the hardline supporters of Reagan was to be expected. But he was also alienating the people in the middle. Now enemies of the peace movement were using his comments to attack the Peace Movement as whole.

Tip knew a weakened peace movement something he wanted to prevent. Since it was in the interest of the Reagan administration for it to be weak. That allowed Reagan to have freedom of action to do as he felt. As of now he had few constraints to his diplomatic and military maneuvers. The whole situation was a disaster in the making. To Tip anything that might cause the people of America to doubt Reagan’s judgement was a good thing. But the way to that situation was to convince the people that Reagan had made mistakes and endangered the lived of American boys and girls. That did not mean sabotaging the military industrial complex or slowing down the movement of troops and equipment. That only antagonized people. Tip left the meeting wondering just on whose side god was in this whole mess.


Outside he had a car waiting for him and the driver had the radio on and the news was on it had a sound clip of Reagan speaking and he called the bombers so-called peace activists who talked of peace but they were actually butchers who killed just for the sake of killing. Now while Reagan had not made any comments about the peace movement in general the comment about be so-called peace activists sounded to him like Reagan was trying to make those murderers, representative of the peace movement. That lie if the American people bought into it would turn the people against the Peace Movement. He considered his next move, he had to be careful his own constituency was furious about the attacks people they knew had been killed or injured. Not that he blamed them, he was furious about the bombing and the murders, he knew some of the people who had died. People who had trusted him and had voted for him in the past. No, those bastards had to pay and a quick death was too good for them. But they also needed to avoid Armagedden to.

 

[Ludwig von Stieglitz]

Ludwig von Stieglitz- I agree in 79 they would have a good chance of winning. In 1984 well some chance if things go their way. The Soviet Army will attack and attack they will gain ground by sheer numbers but win it that is questionable. But telling the truth in the Soviet Union was a dangerous thing especially if it is bad news.

true...but again I need to emphasize2how unhappy those reserve troops will be about being thrown to the front meat shields. Also, while you can brainwash idealistic young men, you usually can't do the same with seasoned adults who have been through the brutal soviet conscription system in the past.
Once again i foresee an unusually high rate of "tragic accidents" among political officers, if not outright mass desertions

 

[Unknown]

Tip should be lucky that Ted Kennedy isn't president; one need only look at Soviet Domination by @James G to see how that might turn out (BTW, Farmer12, go to alternate-timelines.proboards.com and read that TL sometime)...

 

[Farmer12]

Ludwig von Stieglitz- True but the older man have families and the KGB has Gulags. Your also right that the older men have experienced with being conscripted before. So they know just how ruthless the system can be. Besides the goal is to keep the troop in line long enough to win. What the Soviet Union is doing is what it has done in the past, you don't have to like their methods but its worked in the past. So remember when in doubt do a Stalin and scare the shit out of anyone who complains and will keep them a line hopefully just long enough to succeeds. You see what i am doing it looking at the Soviet Unions past methods and following them.

 

[Farmer12]

Unknown- I will take a look