Challenge: NATO attacks WP

67th Tigers

Banned
For starters, see:

http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/nato/warsawpact.html

and:

http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/nato/oob1989.html

For earlier cold war period one has to practically just switch equipment, overall structure was roughly similar.

What you can't see from OOB is that Soviet logistical machinery was much weaker than NATO one, and also you can't see that much of the Soviet training was practically drills, and that NATO artillery was simply superior to Soviet one due to better, more flexible command and control.

i.e.

Warpac
5 Russian Corps on the Western Front
8 Russian Corps to reinforce the Western Front
3 Polish Corps
3 Bulgarian
2 Czechslovakian Corps
2 German Corps
1 Romanian Corps
1 Hungarian Corps

Total 23 Army Corps

NATO
5 US Corps
6 German Corps
1 British Corps
1 Dutch Corps
1 Belgian Corps
4 Greek Corps
3 Italian Corps

Total 21 Corps

The NATO Corps are more powerful formations than the WP, some of which were not considered combat worthy
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Nope, wrong again. They were designed to exploit the gaps forced by other WP units and exploit them in order to demoralize their enemy and destroy the supply lines.

Nope. Lots of people thought that's what they were for, but they were wrong. All due to Donnelly's paranoid fantasies in the early 1980's. For a start, logistically an OMG simply can't move that far away from it's startline....

It's the local counterattack grouping, plain and simple. Even 1 (UK) Corps had an "OMG" in the form of 3rd Armoured Division, which was lightened up precisely to operate in the same manner as an OMG. AirLandBattle envisioned every heavy US and German Division able to act as an OMG....
 
While I have a hard time imagining NATO would (or could) be the true aggressor in a war with the WP, I can imagive several situations which might lead to NATO initiating hostilities with offensive action featuring an invasion of one or more WP states. Each of the situations imagine a war breaking out in the late 1970's thru early 1980s. They are not based upon the actual leadership styles in the NATO and WP states, but possible ones. Also, as others have said, the NATO force structure and logistic setup was not developed with offensive warfare in mind. Something might have to happen to make this change as well:

(1) Preventive War. Put several conservative, strongly anti-commie, nervous nellies in charge of key nations (say the US, UK, and BRD), mix in an aggressive loud-mouthed Soviet leadership, a spurt of really obnoxious DDR espionage activities in the BDR, WP military manuevers, and some sort of diplomatic or economic threats being made by the WP which could be interpreted as the lead up to an invasion of the BRD. It might not be out of the question that NATO might attempt a first strike or conventional invasion, either limited in focus to take out the DDR or the big one.

(2) Military Response to WP internal revolutions. Given another type of NATO leadership (more aggressive, mainly), together with initially "successful" revolutions in one or more WP states such as in Hungary 1956, NATO might militarily intervene, essentially daring the Soviets to stop them. I suspect this is the most likely way NATO might "invade" the WP.

One final comment: This thread has brought the revisionists out in full force. Oooh, the poor Warsaw Pact planning only for defense in depth up against evil US imperialists and their economic war machine. Quite likely NATO would have done OK against the WP if invaded, but this would have been because of individually more sophisticated equipment (especially after 1980), more realistic training in the actual theatre of action (west Germany), and better motivation, not because the USSR was preparing only for a defensive war itself.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
One final comment: This thread has brought the revisionists out in full force. Oooh, the poor Warsaw Pact planning only for defense in depth up against evil US imperialists and their economic war machine.

What's funny is, there is already a thread on revisionism.
 
(2) Military Response to WP internal revolutions. Given another type of NATO leadership (more aggressive, mainly), together with initially "successful" revolutions in one or more WP states such as in Hungary 1956, NATO might militarily intervene, essentially daring the Soviets to stop them. I suspect this is the most likely way NATO might "invade" the WP.

How about Hungary without Suez and more gung-ho US president? US support for Hungary followed by Soviet onslaught upon NATO, followed by massive counterattack?

One final comment: This thread has brought the revisionists out in full force. Oooh, the poor Warsaw Pact planning only for defense in depth up against evil US imperialists and their economic war machine.

Umm, not really. What many are trying to explain are the internal thinking of WP leadership. No country has ever attacked any other country for the purpose of just attacking it. Even Hitler seemed to think his Lebensraum project was *defensive* project to strengthen Germany against immediate threat of Jews and other ogres. (The preceding comment should not be taken as any endorsement for Neo-Nazis)

Soviet military doctrine included preventive counter-attack on strategic warning due to their Barbarossa experience. I tried to write (and I intend to continue) how this could be reached in an ATL timeline about war in 1983. In effect, this would be an attack, of course.

Quite likely NATO would have done OK against the WP if invaded, but this would have been because of individually more sophisticated equipment (especially after 1980), more realistic training in the actual theatre of action (west Germany), and better motivation, not because the USSR was preparing only for a defensive war itself.

Yes, but one has to remember that NATO was superior already during early 1960's with conventional weaponry. Amount of even early AT-missiles, for example, was just massive. For example, over 30 000 SS.10 AT-missiles were manufactured before end of 1962, with most of the missiles going for NATO forces. It's successor, SS.11 reached amount of 180 000. At same time 140 000 ENTAC's and 170 000 Cobra missiles were manufactured.

To cut the long story short, even in early 1960's a Soviet onslaught would have been met by an inventory of hundreds of thousands of AT-missiles.

And this is only covering one, small aspect of the overall engagement, in field of AT-forces not including other AT weapons, not including other aspects of ground engagement, air engagement or the battle at sea...
 

Nikephoros

Banned
The one trouble I have with putting NATO as the aggressor in a potential conflict is this:

NATO assumed that any attack on the WP would be impossible to suceed with. The example of Barbarossa still rang in the minds of military planners.
 
NATO did not have conventional inferiority after about 1954. NATO armies were always more powerful than their WP counterparts largely due to superior training, superior logistics and superior command and control.

NATO armies begun to be qualitatively good enough to compensate for the WP's massive superiority in numbers only in the 80's. In the 50's and 60's, purely conventional war would be a total disaster for NATO, which was totally outnumbered and the WP equipment was of comparable quality.

As for the WP doctrine, it was designed to compensate for the lack of training by using the numerical superiority to rout NATO forces. Besides, WP has never counted with a purely conventional war, nukes were to be used since the first minute of the war.

Additionally, NATO air forces after late 1950's were totally superior compared to WP ones,

No. NATO airforce was superior until late 50's. Then again, WP started to lag behind after 1980.

so they would be able to eliminate WP air attacks from threatening NATO ground forces. On the other hand, after late 1960's WP ground based air defense would eliminate much of the chances NATO had for an interdiction campaign against WP forces.

An unfeasible conventional war would have ended up to a clear NATO victory. Conventional inferiority was a creation of Cold War Hawks to justify even larger defense budgets in the West.

More revisionism? :rolleyes:
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Taking Tanks (mid-1987) as an indicator:

NATO (Europe and NA forces in Europe): 22,755 (7,854 tanks in North America excluded*)

WP: 20,820 (5,700 in Russia excluded)

Ratios being 1.1 in favour of NATO before both sides reinforcements arrive and 1.2 in favour of NATO after reinforcements arrive.



* Excluding 1,200 US Tanks assigned to other theatres
 

Nikephoros

Banned
Taking Tanks (mid-1987) as an indicator:

NATO (Europe and NA forces in Europe): 22,755 (7,854 tanks in North America excluded*)

WP: 20,820 (5,700 in Russia excluded)

Ratios being 1.1 in favour of NATO before both sides reinforcements arrive and 1.2 in favour of NATO after reinforcements arrive.



* Excluding 1,200 US Tanks assigned to other theatres

Show us your sources. If you show me links to Soviet Archives and NATO Archives supporting what you have just stated then I will believe you.

EDIT: That is also in 1987, after US build-up and Soviet decline. By that timeframe, a war with the Soviets is unlikely.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Show us your sources. If you show me links to Soviet Archives and NATO Archives supporting what you have just stated then I will believe you.

Malcolm Chalmers and Lutz Unterseher, "Is There a Tank Gap?: Comparing NATO and Warsaw Pact Tank Fleets", International Security, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Summer, 1988), pp. 5-49

Believe what you want, it doesn't change the facts of the matter, NATO had more (and better) tanks deployed to, or capable of deploying to, the Central Front.
 
NATO armies begun to be qualitatively good enough to compensate for the WP's massive superiority in numbers only in the 80's. In the 50's and 60's, purely conventional war would be a total disaster for NATO, which was totally outnumbered and the WP equipment was of comparable quality.

Where are the numbers? Actually, early 1960's, before Brezhnev buildup and Western defense cuts, were the period when NATO conventional edge was at it's strongest. WP equipment was not of comparable quality to NATO equipment in most fields. It was good enough, but not as good as NATO's except in some single, unimportant fields such as infantry weaponry.

As for the WP doctrine, it was designed to compensate for the lack of training by using the numerical superiority to rout NATO forces. Besides, WP has never counted with a purely conventional war, nukes were to be used since the first minute of the war.

Exactly, but we're pondering conventional weaponry here. In field of nuclear weaponry WP tactical and operational nuclear forces did not equal NATO capabilities until 1970's. But the question again is, where are the numbers?

Where were the magical numerically superior WP forces? Usually it's thought that in order to have offensive superiority between equivalent forces one has to have 1:3 ratio. WP never even had this numerical ratio. Still we should be to believe Cold War hawks which thought WP would slice through NATO faster than American forces reached Baghdad in 2003.

No. NATO airforce was superior until late 50's. Then again, WP started to lag behind after 1980.

Why would WP air forces be superior during 1960's and 1970's? For starters, NATO was deploying it's quite formidable air defence capabilities, individual weapon systems including weapons such as Nike Hercules, HAWK and Redeye, not to mention various national specialities (Bloodhound etc.). In the air NATO had F-104 as it's backbone, quite capable fighter against MiG-21's, later on there were also a significant amount of F-4's.

More revisionism?

Not revisionism, but historical research. Personally I think most of the Cold War pundits sincerely believed in the inherent conventional superiority of the WP forces versus NATO. Historical research, even when looking at bare statistics without considering such soft aspects as better training etc. simply shows otherwise.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
Malcolm Chalmers and Lutz Unterseher, "Is There a Tank Gap?: Comparing NATO and Warsaw Pact Tank Fleets", International Security, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Summer, 1988), pp. 5-49

Believe what you want, it doesn't change the facts of the matter, NATO had more (and better) tanks deployed to, or capable of deploying to, the Central Front.

I am trying to find specific numbers. But in the meantime, I will refer you to this document: THE WARSAW PACT ARMS DATA

Challenge that document's validity if you want. I will post the numbers when I find them.

I have another document: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB154/doc136.pdf

Read it if you want. I will just say the main points:

The Soviet Defense minister in 1988, Dmitrii Iazov admits that the Warsaw Pact exceeds Nato in tank numbers. He says that the WP has 30,000 more than NATO.

I realize that NATO tanks were better quality though.
 
Last edited:

67th Tigers

Banned
I am trying to find specific numbers. But in the meantime, I will refer you to this document: THE WARSAW PACT ARMS DATA

Challenge that document's validity if you want. I will post the numbers when I find them.

I have another document: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB154/doc136.pdf

Read it if you want. I will just say the main points:

The Soviet Defense minister in 1988, Dmitrii Iazov admits that the Warsaw Pact exceeds Nato in tank numbers. He says that the WP has 30,000 more than NATO.

I realize that NATO tanks were better quality though.

Only if the rotting hulks of the Cat 3 divisions are included, and they weren't for use on the western front.

In fact, it's these Cat 3 divisions that are the source of various "we're vastly outnumbered" claims. People who argued that generally included these mobilisation formations with pre-WW2 antiques and forces from deep in Siberia as immediately available.

In fact the Posen estimates are that the ratios of WP:NATO forces will be:

D: 0.8 (NATO outnumbers WP 1.25: 1)
D+7: 1.1 (WP forces from Russia have arrived)
D+14: 0.8 (POMCUS units on station)
D+21: 0.7
D+28: 0.6
D+35 to D+63: 0.8
D+70: 0.9 (Cat 3 Divisions start arriving)
D+77: 1.0


(numbers from: Barry R. Posen, "Is NATO Decisively Outnumbered?", International Security, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Spring, 1988), pp. 186-202)
 

Nikephoros

Banned
Only if the rotting hulks of the Cat 3 divisions are included, and they weren't for use on the western front.

In fact, it's these Cat 3 divisions that are the source of various "we're vastly outnumbered" claims. People who argued that generally included these mobilisation formations with pre-WW2 antiques and forces from deep in Siberia as immediately available.

In fact the Posen estimates are that the ratios of WP:NATO forces will be:

D: 0.8 (NATO outnumbers WP 1.25: 1)
D+7: 1.1 (WP forces from Russia have arrived)
D+14: 0.8 (POMCUS units on station)
D+21: 0.7
D+28: 0.6
D+35 to D+63: 0.8
D+70: 0.9 (Cat 3 Divisions start arriving)
D+77: 1.0


(numbers from: Barry R. Posen, "Is NATO Decisively Outnumbered?", International Security, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Spring, 1988), pp. 186-202)

The number that I used came from the Soviet Minister of Defense.
 
Top