East/West 1985 Engagement

Soviet Far East assets (not including those arrayed against PRC) would be outmatched by our forces.

1. Seeing as the Soviets would use the forces they place in the SFE in case of a Chinese attack against any NATO incursions*, this statement is meaningless.

2. The Soviet Pacific Fleet in 1989 consisted of 122 submarines (77 of which were nuclear-powered), 77 major surface combatants (2 aviation cruisers, 11 missile cruisers, 8 destroyers, 11 frigates), and 100 small coastal combatants such as corvettes and AShM-armed fast attack boats. Backing up this naval force was over 1,200 tactical aircraft and more shore-based anti-ship and anti-air missile batteries then one should care too count. In comparison, the United States Pacific Fleet consists of 49 submarines, and 107 significant surface vessels. If you combine US carrier- and land-bassed aviation, the United States has less then 500 aircraft stationed throughout the entire Pacific Ocean. In quantitative terms, the US only has superiority in surface ships and even then it is not a remotely significant superiority.

*Again, in a NATO/Warsaw Pact conventional war, the Soviets are not going too attack China.


The Soviet Pacific fleet was strong, but no match for what the US could put into the region.

See above for a numerical comparison of Soviet and US Pacific Fleets. If the United States wishes too pull assets from the Atlantic, that's the Soviets gain.

As far the invasion is concerned, given that most Soviet forces in the Far East are dependent on a single long and highly vulnerable rail-line, the US supply to an invasion force would actually be more secure, and the US reinforcement too. Yes the Soviets may have large forces all over the Manchurian border, but these forces are essentially useless, if not a downright liability, once cut off.

The United States advance inland would be dependent on that same railroad for supply. Since the Soviet forces in the region would already be sufficient too eliminate anything short of a full-scale operation (which would suck away NATO resources needed for central europe) and could just contain a full-scale one until they are done taking Europe.

Also, US supply transports would be under constant anti-ship missile attack. What do you think happens too a cargo vessel carrying explosive ordnance when struck by an anti-ship missile?

Think of Normandy 44 if you want a comparison. The WAllies managed to bring in troops and supplies more quickly across the sea than the Germans who supposedly had all the roads and rail-lines.

Normandy is a terrible analogy. First: the Western Allies held air superiority at all times during the battle of Normandy, in the SFE this will not be true.

Second: In the era of anti-ship guided missiles, opposed amphibious assaults are just not done. A Normandy-style landing against a defended beach when the defenders have anti-ship missiles would be a catastrophe for the attacker. Anti-ship missiles can be launched from ships, small boats, mobile-ground launchers, and aircraft. Any US amphibious assault would have too be done far away from any defended beaches and thus far away from anything worthwhile... doubly so if they don't have air and/or naval supremacy.

On a additional note, the Red Army forces in the Soviet Far Eastern Strategic Direction consist of 42 motor-rifle and 7 tank divisions.
 
Last edited:

Clipper747

Banned
I will give you the unit roster. I have the locations but that would take too long too post.
NAVAL ROSTER
US-
Carriers- Carl Vinson (Nimitz Class) (with 2 squadrons F14, 2 F18,1 A6, 1 EA6, 1 E2, 1 S3) Kitty Hawk, (same as Vinson) and Midway (4 F18, 1 A6, 1 EA6, 1E2)
Cruisers-2 Ticonderoga (Class), 2 Leahy, 1 Long Beach, 1 Truxten, and 1 Belknap
Destroyers-2 CF Adams, 4 Spurance, 1 Burke (soon to be deployed when game was made, do not use in 1985 scenario), 1 Coontz
Frigates- 10 OH Perry, 4 Knox, 1 Brook
Submarines- 5 Los Angeles (SN), 4 Sturgeon (SN), 2 Permit (SN), 2 Barbel (SS)
Replenishment- 3 Combat Suppourt Ships, 2 Ammunition Ships, 3 Oilers, (Plus ships for food and parts not included in game)
Amphibious Assault-1 Wasp (with squadron of harriers), 1 Raleigh, 1 Iwo Jima, 4 Austin, 4 Newport, 1 Charleston, 1 Tarawa, 1 Blue Ridge, and 1 Whidbey Island
Other- Several Convoy units and 2 Special Convoy units representing the marines equiptment (Not Ampibious Assault ships but would off-load in a friendly port)


Im taking a short break before i give you US land based air
then il give you allied units and then Soviet
This is what you want right?





Yes thanks! I'll be able to use this in the scenario.

Too bad I don't have access to the written material that pertained to the actual doctrine itself. It would've given a fascinating insight into what might have been had war broken out in Europe.
This front in the Soviet Pacific theater was unknown to me until a few days ago. One never stops learning and I thought I was well versed in the Cold War and the potential scenarios.
I came of age in the early mid 1980s and I recall the palpable fear everyone had in '83/'84 to nuclear war.


Sunil thanks for your assessment of the scenario.
 
@ObsessedNuker: You're attacking a complete strawman version of what I posted. The analogy to Normandy was simply in terms of being able to bring in more supplies - none of the other stuff. I even mentioned that Soviet airpower would be a problem for a US attack on Siberia, so I fail to see why you think you've made an amazing revelation by talking about Soviet air power. As for advancing inland, I don't think I even mentioned that... there's no where for the US to go, it's not like they're going to take Moscow from the East or something. Anyway, I'm done with you.


@Clipper747:

Glad to be of some help. I think the most likely outcome, assuming no nukes, is the US takes Vladivostok (or maybe lands nearby, and beseiges it, making it useless as a base), the Trans-Siberian railway gets cut, and Soviet armies on the Manchurian border are immobilized, probably wither on the vine.

It may also allow/encourage the Chinese to correct their border with Siberia, and maybe the status of Mongolia.

Despite the US taking heavy losses - probably much higher than expected - there is no real advantage to the US however, because the war will be won or lost in Europe.
 
US Land Based Air (Based in SK Japan and Phillipines, except B52 operates from Guam)

6 P3(RCN)
4 F16 (FB)
2 F18 (FB)
3 F15 (INT)
3 F4 (INT)
3 F4G (EW)
1 B52 (BMB)
1 F111 (FB)
1 A6 (ATK)
 
@ObsessedNuker: You're attacking a complete strawman version of what I posted. The analogy to Normandy was simply in terms of being able to bring in more supplies - none of the other stuff.

The Soviets already support over 400,000 men in the region with their attendant equipment. Furthermore, vast quantities of Soviet munition and spare parts stockpiles are not very far away from the theater of operations... continuing to supply those forces would be a none-issue.

As for advancing inland, I don't think I even mentioned that... there's no where for the US to go, it's not like they're going to take Moscow from the East or something.

They have too advance inland too properly cut the trans-siberian railway... given that it only runs along the Pacific coast in the area around Vladivostock. There are also numerous railheads and spurs that branch from the TSR much further inland, such as Chita.

Also, that is an excellent reason on why not to invade the Soviet Far East: there is no where too go and the Soviets could hold off any potential US invasion force with their own forces already in the region. All an invasion would do is drain US resources that could be used in the theater that actually matters: Central Europe.

I also note you conveniently ignore my points about the Soviet Pacific Fleet vs the American Pacific Fleet. So not, your not done with me... unless you are conceding the arguement that is.
 
Obsessed Nuker I think some of what you say is valid points. I think US Pacific Fleet clearly wins open sea battle against Red Banner Pacic Fleet.
Fighting in the Sea of Okhotsk the soviets are probably more likely to win (I dont think certain but they definitely have the better odds)

(and if there is no China involved im not seeing the US invasion either)
 

Clipper747

Banned
China would be hit the minute war starts in Europe. There's no way the SU would leave that flank open. That effectively ties down all Soviet forces arrayed against China. Now include a US invasion force which occurs after War has broken out in Europe and the Soviets are trying to deal with the PRC.
The Soviet Pac fleet and any remaining assets on land/air would be hard pressed by ours. Japan, Guam, Okinawa, Alaska, Clark/Subic in Philippines would all be used as platforms for dealing with the Soviet Pac Coast.
At least that's my 2 cents anyway on the scenario.

mstross appreciate the info.
 
China would be hit the minute war starts in Europe. There's no way the SU would leave that flank open.

Incorrect. That flank won't be opened unless the USSR opens it. The USSR isn't run by Hitler: they are well aware of the difficulties of fighting two powerful military forces on two different borders. Attacking China does not serve any purpose in a Warsaw Pact/NATO war except to suck away resources that could be sent too beat NATO in Europe.

The Chinese are not going too attack the Soviets because they have comparative deficincies in troop quality and equipment and are well aware of it. China is going to remain neutral and the USSR is going to respect that neutrality (unless the war goes nuclear, at which point the USSR won't exist in a few days, so they'll decide 'fuck it all') because not respecting it would be detrimental too the more important war.

For both NATO and the Warsaw Pact, the (conventional-part of the) war will be won or lost in Central Europe. Any operations which aide activity there (such as attacking/defending Scandinavia and the Balkans) is useful, any operations which do not aide activity there but still requires significant resources (such as attacking China or the Soviet Far East) are detrimental. That's why the Soviets are not going too invade the Chinese.

Now if the Chinese attack the Soviets, thats rather different... but given that the PLA is still recovering the Cultural Revolution and China is still beginning its new economic growth, the US will have the devils luck getting them on board.

The Soviet Pac fleet and any remaining assets on land/air would be hard pressed by ours. Japan, Guam, Okinawa, Alaska, Clark/Subic in Philippines would all be used as platforms for dealing with the Soviet Pac Coast.

Remember my 500 available American aircraft figure from earlier? That includes all air force AND Navy aircraft throughout the entire Pacific region. If the Americans want more aircraft, they are going too have to pull them from other theaters, like Europe, but otherwise the Soviets are going too maintain a numerical superiority of 2.5:1 in fighter aircraft.
 

Clipper747

Banned
As I said my sense is that the Soviets would strike China to cover that risk and they would do so most likely with nukes. There is no love lost between them and many Soviets in '85 still have fresh memories of '69 and '70.

Regardless of what I personally believe, the Lehman Doctrine was real and it's intentions were to "invade" the Soviet Far East which(according to the Doctrine) was weaker than the West.

When I formulate an alternate reality I do so with as much "reality" and detail as possible. I pride myself with imagining the most possible "what if". I'm not one to come up with silly notions like "What if Stalin had Dune Technology", or "What if the South had A-10 Warthogs in the Civil War."
 
Last edited:
As I said my sense is that the Soviets would strike China to cover that risk and they would do so most likely with nukes. There is no love lost between them and many Soviets in '85 still have fresh memories of '69 and '70.

If the USSR is attacking China with nuclear weapons, then that means there is a general nuclear war going on and all sides are about to die in a nuclear conflagration.

The USSR is not going too launch a conventional war on China unless China is about too or already attacking the USSR. If the USSR is engaged with NATO, then they are going too focus on Europe and any military offensives against China would be very limited in nature.

Regardless of what I personally believe, the Lehman Doctrine was real and it's intentions were to "invade" the Soviet Far East which(according to the Doctrine) was weaker than the West.

The Lehman doctrine existed, but it was nothing more then a load of bluster. And you are trying too apply the assertions made by the doctrine in regards to force corrolation too how what the actual reality is... this is like assuming that because the German plan for Barbarossa said the Russians did not have significant reserves west of the Dnepr, you can make an timeline where that actually is the reality without any regards to the fact that the POD required for such a change would be well before the POD you actually set.

Finally: any potential gains from invading the Soviet Far East do not remotely justify the forces required.

When I formulate an alternate reality I do so with as much "reality" and detail as possible.

Then look at the reality: the Soviet forces in the Far East were much stronger then what the Lehman Doctrine postulates.
 
According to a Soviet Colonel a friend of mine knew, the Soviets had the logistics for a 3-week conventional war in Europe. Is that enough time to conquer the continent? I doubt it.

U.S.S.R. was a paper tiger with nothing but nukes to keep it in the game. And there was zero chance of a deliberate nuclear confrontation, regardless of the president/premier.

That said, there was the possibility of an *accidental* nuclear confrontation. We'd probably have gotten our "hair mussed" in that eventuality. :)
 

Clipper747

Banned
If the USSR is attacking China with nuclear weapons, then that means there is a general nuclear war going on and all sides are about to die in a nuclear conflagration.

The USSR is not going too launch a conventional war on China unless China is about too or already attacking the USSR. If the USSR is engaged with NATO, then they are going too focus on Europe and any military offensives against China would be very limited in nature.



The Lehman doctrine existed, but it was nothing more then a load of bluster. And you are trying too apply the assertions made by the doctrine in regards to force corrolation too how what the actual reality is... this is like assuming that because the German plan for Barbarossa said the Russians did not have significant reserves west of the Dnepr, you can make an timeline where that actually is the reality without any regards to the fact that the POD required for such a change would be well before the POD you actually set.

Finally: any potential gains from invading the Soviet Far East do not remotely justify the forces required.



Then look at the reality: the Soviet forces in the Far East were much stronger then what the Lehman Doctrine postulates.





Once the war starts all bets are off and everyone begins to settle scores worldwide.
The war becomes nuclear from the get go, the Soviets use tac nukes to support their invasion of the West, more than likely use strategic nukes against the PRC.

Our forces in the Pac aren't going to sit around and do nothing against the Soviet Far East. They would act and do everything to have the Soviets fight on two fronts, and they would do everything to ensure we fight on as many fronts worldwide as well.
Unfortunately I'm not privy to the details of the Doctrine but I doubt it was all bluster as you say.
I also doubt the omnipotence of the Soviet forces in the Far East and their ability to defend such a vast territory with any sense of cohesion. The Soviet war machine was far from perfect.

I'll work the Doctrine into my OTL/alternate reality as realistically as possible.
 
According to a Soviet Colonel a friend of mine knew, the Soviets had the logistics for a 3-week conventional war in Europe. Is that enough time to conquer the continent? I doubt it.

Actually, it was NATO who only had enough stockpiles for a 3-week of high-intensity combat... and those estimates are based on munition consumption rates that (in light of lessons learned from both Iraq Wars and the Balkans in the 90's) were actually optimistic. The Soviets had larger stockpiles, partially because their method of logistics required it.

U.S.S.R. was a paper tiger with nothing but nukes to keep it in the game.

This is horribly wrong.

And there was zero chance of a deliberate nuclear confrontation, regardless of the president/premier.

The very fact that there were nuclear confrontations (Cuban Missile Crisis and the Yom Kippur War are just two examples) proves this statement incorrect.

Once the war starts all bets are off and everyone begins to settle scores worldwide.
The war becomes nuclear from the get go, the Soviets use tac nukes to support their invasion of the West, more than likely use strategic nukes against the PRC.

Then you are talking about total nuclear war. Remember: Soviet doctrine took an all-or-nothing approach to nuclear war. If the Red Army is using tactical nukes in Central Europe, then that means they are also deploying strategic nukes against the American heartland. Everybody loses.

Actual Soviet doctrine in the 70's and 80's was 'No-First Use'. They were not going too use nuclear weapons unless the otherside does first, at which point they assumed that the war was going too go all the way. Total nuclear war ensues, everybody loses.

Our forces in the Pac aren't going to sit around and do nothing against the Soviet Far East. They would act and do everything to have the Soviets fight on two fronts,

In area's where it is worthwhile too do so. The Soviet Far East is not one of those area's.

I also doubt the omnipotence of the Soviet forces in the Far East and their ability to defend such a vast territory with any sense of cohesion.

They don't have too defend all the territory, just the important bits... of which there are quite few. There are a large number of places where the Americans can land with little resistance... their just also places which are amidst the most inhospitable and desolate on Earth. And that's before you take into account that they will have to travel hundreds and hundreds of kilometers over essentially zilch-infrastructure too reach the enemy.

I'll work the Doctrine into my OTL/alternate reality as realistically as possible.

From what I am seeing, it won't be very realistic at all.
 

Clipper747

Banned
Actual Soviet doctrine in the 70's and 80's was 'No-First Use'. They were not going too use nuclear weapons unless the otherside does first, at which point they assumed that the war was going too go all the way. Total nuclear war ensues, everybody loses.


They'd attack if they felt they were about to be hit first.




From what I am seeing, it won't be very realistic at all.


Well you are entitled to your opinion sir. As I said before I didn't formulate the Doctrine, nevertheless I'll go by what was within it's framework.
 
The main problem with this WI is that we have nothing to go off of concerning the WHY of the conflict. What is the reason behind the war? If we know the WHY, we can figure out WHAT the objectives of each side are, and the OBJECTIVES of the war are will be what dictate the conduct of each side.

AFAIK, the Lehman Doctrine was never an official policy of the U.S., just a proposal by one man. Could it have been used? Sure. But in the most common NATO-Soviet war scenarios, the main theatre of war is Eastern Europe and the Atlantic. The U.S. Pacific Fleet can sink the Soviet Pacific Fleet, but to what purpose? The Soviet Pacific Fleet is not a threat to the U.S. It would be much more practical to transfer American Pacific Fleet ships to the Atlantic to use in the sea battles there (keeping the sea lanes open for the REFORGER convoys to run from America to Europe).
 

Clipper747

Banned
The main problem with this WI is that we have nothing to go off of concerning the WHY of the conflict. What is the reason behind the war? If we know the WHY, we can figure out WHAT the objectives of each side are, and the OBJECTIVES of the war are will be what dictate the conduct of each side.

AFAIK, the Lehman Doctrine was never an official policy of the U.S., just a proposal by one man. Could it have been used? Sure. But in the most common NATO-Soviet war scenarios, the main theatre of war is Eastern Europe and the Atlantic. The U.S. Pacific Fleet can sink the Soviet Pacific Fleet, but to what purpose? The Soviet Pacific Fleet is not a threat to the U.S. It would be much more practical to transfer American Pacific Fleet ships to the Atlantic to use in the sea battles there (keeping the sea lanes open for the REFORGER convoys to run from America to Europe).



I've thought about the "why" factor for some time. Either it happens during a time of tension(this is an alternate reality) by accident and snowballs out of control. Perhaps it is a risk taken by a few in the Soviet upper echelon to roll back the inevitable progressive reforms, tension between the SU/US over Nicaragua and Honduras, Red Sea/Horn of Africa/Arab Gulf or perhaps an incident during a time of tension between the US/Communist East Japan/SU even.
 
As I said my sense is that the Soviets would strike China to cover that risk and they would do so most likely with nukes. There is no love lost between them and many Soviets in '85 still have fresh memories of '69 and '70.

Regardless of what I personally believe, the Lehman Doctrine was real and it's intentions were to "invade" the Soviet Far East which(according to the Doctrine) was weaker than the West.

When I formulate an alternate reality I do so with as much "reality" and detail as possible. I pride myself with imagining the most possible "what if". I'm not one to come up with silly notions like "What if Stalin had Dune Technology", or "What if the South had A-10 Warthogs in the Civil War."

I've always been skeptical that the us would have gone after the soviet pacific coast. Operations against Murmansk seem more likely to me if the us want's to pursue a maritime strategy. Bottling up the soviets in Murmansk would help take the pressure off Norway and make it harder for the soviets to interdict the Atlantic convoys. This seems a better way to risk several aircraft carriers than attacking the soviet pacific coast.
 
Top