Cold War Gone Hot: How far can the USSR push into Germany before the nukes fly?

Yep in the 60´s after a strike with a couple of hundred nuclear weapons, which is not what the OP was asking for. No nukes and 1983. And yes, the WP had extensive Bridge building Equipment but concentrating tat near the Elbe would give the routes for attack away. So you need to go over without bridges first, clear the west bank, than start building bridges (while at the same time somehow improving the abysmal road network of the GDR in the area, fend off any counter attacks, push Nato artillery units far enough away from the crossing site, establish a well working AA System at the site (and btw, make usre that not a large part of your mobile bridges has been blown up by arty and air attacks) then get troops and supply over, reorganize and then push through the (themselves reorganized) NATO defenses. And all this in 24 hours and in this time cover more than 80km of ground. Possible if the NATO troops simply waive red flags to greet the WP or if they are annihilated in nuclear strikes. Not in 83 without nukes.

Well, the nukes still fly....just not yet.
 
IMHO there were several red lines for NATO and nukes.
1. Soviet use of nukes - all bets are off
2. Soviet chemicals - if this is after NATO has eliminated its chemical weaponry, the US policy is WMD=WMD, so this could very well set off tac nukes.
3. The situation on the ground has turned to shit - for whatever reason the WP has shattered NATO defenses, reinforcements/supplies aren't going to get to Europe in time and/or adequate numbers, and it is only a matter of time before the WP are washing their socks in the Channel (assuming no WP on French soil so the issue of French nukes is separate).

Just my 2 cents. A lot of this depends on the circumstances at the time, who is in power where etc.
 
What if WARPAC forces push into West Germany at a slower pace, not achieving a decisive breakthrough, but still advancing steadily? The USSR might opt not to use nukes, since that would only lead to NATO retaliation against WARPAC logistical hubs and frontline forces. On the flip-side of the coin, NATO may decide to refrain from nukes if WARPAC doesn't achieve breakthrough. They can trade space for time while they execute REFORGER and prep the theater for a counterattack.

Basically, you need a situation where both sides believe they can accomplishing their objectives without nukes, and that glassing Germany will only keep them from achieving those goals.

Is there any scenario in which WARPAC doesn't start off the war with nukes? I'm not that knowledgeable on the Soviets' nuclear policy
 
IMHO there were several red lines for NATO and nukes.
1. Soviet use of nukes - all bets are off
2. Soviet chemicals - if this is after NATO has eliminated its chemical weaponry, the US policy is WMD=WMD, so this could very well set off tac nukes.
3. The situation on the ground has turned to shit - for whatever reason the WP has shattered NATO defenses, reinforcements/supplies aren't going to get to Europe in time and/or adequate numbers, and it is only a matter of time before the WP are washing their socks in the Channel (assuming no WP on French soil so the issue of French nukes is separate).

Just my 2 cents. A lot of this depends on the circumstances at the time, who is in power where etc.

Able Archer 83. In other words: November, 1983. :/
 
Basically, you need a situation where both sides believe they can accomplishing their objectives without nukes, and that glassing Germany will only keep them from achieving those goals.

As I stated above this would require someone utterly insane being in charge of the Soviet Union and starting a conventional war under the delusion that they can win quickly and before NATO can fully respond.

Otherwise a "rational" actor committed to winning WWIII would go nuclear from the start and hope that they catch NATO wrong-footed.
 
There was hardly anything to win for the WP in a war against the NATO and the only way one can get WP to attack is to make them really believe NATO would attack anyway so they start with a preemptive attack. But what would a conventional attack into the FRG do, to prevent a nuclear attack? Nothing. So my best guess is as well, either nothing happens, or nukes fly.
 

Ak-84

Banned
1983 in the time span of 36 hours? Best case for the PACT is their lead spearheads reaching somewhere along a line running north-south from Bremen through Frankfurt am Main. Worst case, probably only a few dozen kilometers.



On paper, the GSFG was organized and trained relentlessly to be able to attack with only minimal mobilization, since they were expected to be able to parry a surprise NATO offensive or at least be able to put up enough of a fight that the rest of the army had time to get into gear. The catch is twofold: first, that training steadily slipped during the 80’s. And secondly, save for a handful of VDV formations, the same couldn’t be said for the rest of the Soviet army. So while in theory, the Soviets could try to surprise NATO by using the GSFG to immediately force a decisive battle in the border region, that isn’t an option their likely to take and are less able to do so the longer the 80’s wear on in any case. They’d much rather have the forces available to run a deeply-echelons attack ready to go at the outset in case the attempt to force a decisive battle in the border regions to fail. And that certainly isn’t a short-warning proposition...
So what if they take a leaf out of the 1973 Egyptian playbook and advance only 20-30 km and stop? They might avoid nuclear war and cause all sorts of political ramifications in W Europe.
 

GarethC

Donor
There was hardly anything to win for the WP in a war against the NATO and the only way one can get WP to attack is to make them really believe NATO would attack anyway so they start with a preemptive attack. But what would a conventional attack into the FRG do, to prevent a nuclear attack? Nothing. So my best guess is as well, either nothing happens, or nukes fly.

If you are Andropov and his circle and you are absolutely convinced that Able Archer is the cover for a nuclear first-strike on the Soviet Union being masterminded by a small coterie within the Reagan administration, then a conventional spoiling attack might frame the narrative of the conflict in a way that the capitalist running-dog exploiters of the masses may find diffiult to propagandize into a SIOP execution that will destroy the Soviet Union in general and your familiy in particular. Better to ruin GSFG and the nations on central European plain than to see the Rodina devastated by countervalue ICBMs. But this only applies if Andropov actually believes that doing-nothing means instant sunshine over Kutuzovsky Prospekt.

Then, if you are winning, you stop short of the Rhine, because the French only have one game plan and that is to make Moscow, Kiev, Leningrad, and Minsk glow in the dark, which is a silly price to end up paying if the whole point of the conventional engagment is to avoid it. Instead, you offer a cease-fire in place with an eventual withdrawal back to the ante bellum border, after you've shot every prominent politician, judge, policeman, intelligence operative, military officer, industrialist, and academic, and blown up or stolen every telephone exchange, sewer works, radio station, power plant, and automotive or white goods factory in the FRG.
 
If you are Andropov and his circle and you are absolutely convinced that Able Archer is the cover for a nuclear first-strike on the Soviet Union being masterminded by a small coterie within the Reagan administration, then a conventional spoiling attack might frame the narrative of the conflict in a way that the capitalist running-dog exploiters of the masses may find diffiult to propagandize into a SIOP execution that will destroy the Soviet Union in general and your familiy in particular. Better to ruin GSFG and the nations on central European plain than to see the Rodina devastated by countervalue ICBMs. But this only applies if Andropov actually believes that doing-nothing means instant sunshine over Kutuzovsky Prospekt.

Then, if you are winning, you stop short of the Rhine, because the French only have one game plan and that is to make Moscow, Kiev, Leningrad, and Minsk glow in the dark, which is a silly price to end up paying if the whole point of the conventional engagment is to avoid it. Instead, you offer a cease-fire in place with an eventual withdrawal back to the ante bellum border, after you've shot every prominent politician, judge, policeman, intelligence operative, military officer, industrialist, and academic, and blown up or stolen every telephone exchange, sewer works, radio station, power plant, and automotive or white goods factory in the FRG.

Excellent..... :evilsmile: Mwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
 

BlondieBC

Banned
So, I am taking a look at possibly making an Able Archer 83 timeline, and I just realised. NATO in that time period was EXTREMELY different from the NATO of my previous attempt at such a timeline that had the war break out in the Yom Kippur War. And since there is no way the Soviets could reach the Rhine on this one, compared to ten years prior, how far can they push into Germany in.....say, 36 hours?

Since the Soviets use Chemical Weapons, how are can the Soviets advance in 12-36 hours?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I am confused. Are you asking HOW can the Soviets advance in 12 -36 hours or how are the Soviets advancing in 12 -36 hours?

:confused:

I intended to ask how far the soviets advanced in 12-36 hours. How many kilometers. IMO, the once the nukes fly, the rapid advancement stops.
 
Top