So what can be done to ensure that the US forces don't lose conventionally easily ITTL's 60's? I'm mighty curious.

That was the point, enough US Troops on the Front that NATO won't worry about the US 'giving up'.

They were a tripwire, to slow the incoming Pact Forces till SAC and USN nuclear assets make everything east of the Oder River a smoking ruin.
That was the 'Win' for WWIII, since MAD was not yet in play, it was 'Massive Retaliation' and the new SIOP didn't really change that.
 
That was the point, enough US Troops on the Front that NATO won't worry about the US 'giving up'.

They were a tripwire, to slow the incoming Pact Forces till SAC and USN nuclear assets make everything east of the Oder River a smoking ruin.
That was the 'Win' for WWIII, since MAD was not yet in play, it was 'Massive Retaliation' and the new SIOP didn't really change that.
I already figured that out, along with the tripwire thing; though regarding the Cuban Missile War TL, I find it odd that the US didn't bother to send troops to Europe to kick out the Soviets after the nuclear exchange, despite "winning" said exchange. Perhaps they're too busy with maintaining order in the home territories to do that I guess.
 
I already figured that out, along with the tripwire thing; though regarding the Cuban Missile War TL, I find it odd that the US didn't bother to send troops to Europe to kick out the Soviets after the nuclear exchange, despite "winning" said exchange. Perhaps they're too busy with maintaining order in the home territories to do that I guess.

The REFORGER Exercises, on getting troops to Europe, didn't start til the mid-point of the Vietnam War
 
The REFORGER Exercises, on getting troops to Europe, didn't start til the mid-point of the Vietnam War
IIRC, the US had this mentality of winning a WWIII with just nukes and everything else takes the back seat to the point of almost being non-existant up till the late 60's OTL; talk about a "mad" doctrine.
 
Top