Fronts of a Conventional WWIII?

In the US I see Soviet agents causing alot of problems by acting as saboteurs. Blowing up power plants, water treatment facilties, power lines, bridges, and communications centers.

Leading to mass arrests of communist sympathizers.
 
Day 24
*Greco-Turkish forces liberate Macedonia and Thessaloniki, Russians in Greece are cornered while southern Bulgaria is frees
*Allied forces push into Hungary and Cezchloslovakia, linking up with resistance groups there. Push begins into Bavaria while Russian forces pull out of Denmark and Benelux for fear of bring cut off
*Serious reprisals in Warsaw (the 2nd ghetto), Ukraine, and Baltic States drive more of the people into hands of the partisans
*Soviet Caucasus breaks down into religious warfare with Chechnya, Azerbaijan, and Armenia declaring independence. Turkmenistan is not far behind
*Allies land in Vladivostok and secure area east of the Amur river which, along with Sakhalin Island, is proclaimed the Free Republic of the Okhotsk
*Afghanistan liberates itself as Russian troops pull out for the Soviet Far East, soon much of Soviet Central Asia is under siege at the hands of Mujahadeen

Day 27
*Bulgaria becomes a quagmire although Albania and much of Greece is liberated
*Russian forces hold much of Bavaria and central Germany but Benelux and Allies landed at ports retake Saar and much of the Rhine.
*Kharbarovsk is attacked and taken by Allies
*Israelis and Palestinians declare cease-fire while US and USSR attack each other, Syria eyes situation wearily but does nothing
*Pakistan re-emerges as a nation out of Islamabad but otherwise much of the region is in Indian hands
*Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan secede, biopreparat warehouses made public with horrors of biological warfare agents shown to general public

Day 30
*USSR offers cease-fire following fall of Poland, Lithuania, and western Ukraine to Allies. East and Central Germany are still in Russian hands although the locals are making the lives of these encircled soldiers miserable. General rioting has broken out from Irkutsk to Minsk and all the former Soviet republics except Khazakstan and Byelorussia will gain independence. Russia is made to recognize the new Republis of Siberia based out of Vladivostok, which will become a satellite of Japan and China (the latter will move hundreds of thousands of people there over the next 15 years). India makes peace with her new neighbors and many of the die-hard Muslims flee to Afghanistan rather than live under New Delhi. Among the nations that recover the most quickly is the Republic of Korea, which will peacefully absorb the leftovers of North Korea in 1998 and become a formidable industrial powerhouse. US casualties are horrific at 52,000 but better than much of the rest of the world, and NATO will soon grow to include much of the former Warsaw Pact. Romania remains under Russian domination initially but Ionescu steps aside shortly after the war realizing it is the only way he will likely do so alive.
*Much of the intelligensia moves to the US, Brazil, and Australia to avoid wartime reconstruction and creates a second boom in the university systems. Europe will recover over the next generation and France is generally looked down in much of the world upon for having left NATO during her time of need. High-water marks and Soviet HQs in Italy make for tourist attractions in years to come and the chance discovery of Caligula's tomb during troop movements keeps archeologists busy for a while.
*Greece and Turkey begin to set aside old hatreds somewhat, and though they do not fully trust one another the animosity is less than before
*Technology will slow down for a few years as the US military diverts funds to reconstruction instead of research but the computer age happens fairly close to OTL
 
Iran and Iraq are battling it out at this time. I wonder how your suggestion would impact the situation. Would one side throw in with NATO and the other with the Warsaw Pact?

Iran wouldn't side with either one, and that part of the world is the energy supply for much of the world. Soviets would likely task some of their forces to so south from Central Asia and the Caucasus to take the Persian Gulf, but that almost certainly will generate a nuclear response, and even if it doesn't both Iran and Iraq are gonna hate the idea, and while neither would beat the Soviets, they would make their lives truly miserable.
 
M79,

I seriously doubt there would be much anti-Soviet partisan activity in Poland or other areas of eastern Europe, at least not at this early stage of the game, since the partisans would have no weapons to use. The Soviets did a pretty quick job of putting down the Hungarian uprising back in the 50's so I doubt we'd see many partisans.
 
Sweden and Finland would most likely be involved, according to the latest research.

There were plans to make amphibious landings in southern Sweden. This was on the route to Oslo and meant also to secure the Baltic along with invading Denmark.

The Soviets would probably invade northern Finland and Sweden as an invasion route to Narvik. To crawl just along the narrow northern Norwegian border would be hard and difficult.
NATO had plans for dropping airborne troops in the northern tip of Finland (couldn´t remember the name) to lock up or hold up the Soviet advance into Lapland.

Not to mention there would be air battles almost at one, since neither the WP or NATO would care about lines drawn on a map.
 
M79's scenario strikes me as EXTREMELY unlikely. And here's why:

-Why does Pakistan randomly attack India?
-I doubt the Arabs would attack Israel on day 1. There'd be some negotiations between Arab leaders first.
-Why are these dictatorships all of a sudden exploding into revolt before the war has had any effect?
-I also don't think Belgium would fall so easily. I imagine after having made the mistake of WWII, that the French would stay in NATO, and move their armies forward, issuing general mobilisation and fortifying the Ardennes, the various rivers in the Netherlands and the Black forest region.
-I'm not 100% sure about the comparative North and South Korean militaries in the early 80s, but I assume that the North Koreans would be able to occupy the whole of South Korea (except Jeju), unless the Japanese don't declare neutrality and mobilise their army.
-I highly doubt Cuba would declare neutrality. Sure, it seems like the smartest idea, but I don't think that it was possible politically, and even if they do declare neutrality, the Americans aren't going to respect Cuban neutrality. The Cubans put up some stiff resistance, possibly even using chemical weapons on invading marines, but they'll be defeated. Same with Sandinistas etc.
-I doubt that the Turks and Greeks, without other NATO help, could defend Istanbul. The Soviets would apply massive force at such a key area. Also, M79 says that Southern Bulgaria becomes a quagmire, but if anywhere in the Balkans would become a quagmire, it would be Greece.
-I also don't understand why all the Eastern Bloc countries are suddenly flaring up with violence. In my opinion, if Eastern Europe flared up, it'd be because of a long war, and the deprivations that accompany it. Not after less than a month.
-Guerrilla warfare in Europe isn't going to be any more pervasive than it was in WWII, IMO. Western Europeans tend to be quite respecting of any authority/government, whilst that's not the same in Eastern Europe. Therefore, there's not going to be too much resistance, other than the regular army, amongst the French, Belgians, Dutch, Danes etc.
-What would the Russians be doing in Slovenia?
-Why is American ASW so efficient?
-Also, I highly doubt the Ukrainians would want independence.
 
Regarding resistance in Western Europe, it will probably initiated by the various 'Stay Behind' network in the various Nato country, after all they were created for this.
 

GarethC

Donor
Iceland, surprisingly. NATO has tubes and tracks in place, but needs troops from the US to fight them. those troops and much of their supplies need to come by sea - the annual REFORGER (redeployment of forces to Germany) exercises were all about making that massive logistics operation run smoothly.

The primary threat to those convoys comes from the SSNs of the Soviet Navy. The first line of defense against that threat is SSN patrols in the Norwegian Sea, but that iIs backed by the SOSUS line, a network of underwater microphones that run from Greenland to Iceland to the UK (the "GIUK Gap"), which provide contact information to maritime patrol aircraft based at Keflavik or the northern UK, or hunter-killer groups like the STANAVFORLANT frigate squadron or the RN CVH groups.

The bomber regiments of Soviet Naval Aviation will try to put Keflavik out of action to reduce the air threat to those SSNs transiting the Gap. There may be an attempt to take Keflavik with airborne forces or naval infantry to cut the SOSUS line. If Keflavik can be taken without too much damage to the airbase, then it may even be possible to forward-base SNA bombers there (or at least Frontal Aviation attack aircraft) to further threaten those convoys.

A successful invasion of Iceland demands a major response to neutralise that threat - USN CVBGs to interdict the air forces and a USMC counter-landing.
 
M79,

I seriously doubt there would be much anti-Soviet partisan activity in Poland or other areas of eastern Europe, at least not at this early stage of the game, since the partisans would have no weapons to use. The Soviets did a pretty quick job of putting down the Hungarian uprising back in the 50's so I doubt we'd see many partisans.

Poland had a lot of weapons hidden away "just in case" even into the late 1980s. Also remember that some of these folks were making STENs in their garages/workshops, not an AK-47 but certainly enough to make partisan activity viable. This is also the era of Solidarnosc, so the Poles were vocal about getting a better deal than their government would allow, and if the USSR is pushing its army elsewhere then they are not in Poland to reassume control.
 
M79's scenario strikes me as EXTREMELY unlikely. And here's why:

You are free to write your own scenario if you do not like mine, but I'll be happy to address your concerns:

-Why does Pakistan randomly attack India?

It is not so random, there were serious border incidents through the 1984-1988 timeframe that eventually led to the taking of 900-1000 square kilometers by India from Pakistan. (Siachen)

-I doubt the Arabs would attack Israel on day 1. There'd be some negotiations between Arab leaders first.

Israel gets a lot of help from the US, and if they wanted to attack it would be when we were occupied elsewhere

-Why are these dictatorships all of a sudden exploding into revolt before the war has had any effect?

Because there were a lot of unpopular dictatorships back by the US which has its attention diverted elsewhere, so it is less likely to help its local cronies when there are bigger concerns to deal with

-I also don't think Belgium would fall so easily. I imagine after having made the mistake of WWII, that the French would stay in NATO, and move their armies forward, issuing general mobilisation and fortifying the Ardennes, the various rivers in the Netherlands and the Black forest region.

In a conventional war situation I would expect the Soviet armor to be combined with air cavalry and paratroopers, and thus be able to avoid much of the river-based defenses. Soviet planning seems to have been to aim for the French border, taking Denmark, West Germany, and Benelux. There is also a question of how well our intel assessed their initial capabilities:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930316&slug=1690795


-I'm not 100% sure about the comparative North and South Korean militaries in the early 80s, but I assume that the North Koreans would be able to occupy the whole of South Korea (except Jeju), unless the Japanese don't declare neutrality and mobilise their army.

JSDF would probably mobilize, and yes the NKs do occupy almost the whole of the peninsula early in my scenario.

-I highly doubt Cuba would declare neutrality. Sure, it seems like the smartest idea, but I don't think that it was possible politically, and even if they do declare neutrality, the Americans aren't going to respect Cuban neutrality. The Cubans put up some stiff resistance, possibly even using chemical weapons on invading marines, but they'll be defeated. Same with Sandinistas etc.

Cuba probably would not have the resources to be a direct threat to the US in and of itself at that point. Castro does not want to give the US a reason to attack, and I'm not saying he'll cow to Washington, just stay as far away from this mess as he can. We would have our attention elsewhere, why invade Cuba when Europe is under threat?

-I doubt that the Turks and Greeks, without other NATO help, could defend Istanbul. The Soviets would apply massive force at such a key area. Also, M79 says that Southern Bulgaria becomes a quagmire, but if anywhere in the Balkans would become a quagmire, it would be Greece.

Istabul is a choke point and probably the best site for the Russians to try to enter Anatolia outside of the mountains around Armenia, which will be a hellhole for terrain and local resistance. Southern Bulgaria seemed like a good pick for defensive warfare based on terrain and would be a priority to prevent a breakout by the Allies.

I also don't understand why all the Eastern Bloc countries are suddenly flaring up with violence. In my opinion, if Eastern Europe flared up, it'd be because of a long war, and the deprivations that accompany it. Not after less than a month.

Eastern Bloc countries would *love* to get out from the Russians. It's a pool of gasoline waiting for a match, and that is a major reason I have the Russians losing the scenario.

Guerrilla warfare in Europe isn't going to be any more pervasive than it was in WWII, IMO. Western Europeans tend to be quite respecting of any authority/government, whilst that's not the same in Eastern Europe. Therefore, there's not going to be too much resistance, other than the regular army, amongst the French, Belgians, Dutch, Danes etc.

Respectfully disagree, but again feel free to write your own scenario if you like.

What would the Russians be doing in Slovenia?

Moving through to other areas mostly, it's also adjacent to the Adriatic and could be useful in a few other ways

Why is American ASW so efficient?

We still had a few systems that could detect them with reasonable effectiveness in the pre-Akula days, so I figure there are other systems we (still) don't talk about that might be able to do even better. There was also a significant shift in ASW management in the 1980s with improved coordination of resources that the Soviets might not expect, and with the Walker ring broken I'm not sure what the Soviets would know about that until it was too late. Also the USSR was shifting tactics from sea lane interdiction to SSBN protection at that point.

-Also, I highly doubt the Ukrainians would want independence.

Why do you doubt that? They tried for it twice in the last century
 
Top