How Long Could a Conventional 1980s WW3 Actually Last?

These are the likely problems I would think the WP would face

1) Colonial troops having poor morale. I don't think many Poles would be gung-ho to fight for Mother Russia.
2) Non-Russian Soviet Troops are also questionable. About the only troops the Soviets could truly count on are Great Russian, Belorussian, and Eastern Ukrainian. The others are iffy. Trusting the Balts, for one, would be totally insane.
3) Weapons of questionable quality . During the various proxy wars US supplied troops tended to kill more of their enemy than Soviet supplied troops.
4) All around problems with the Soviet Military. They had enough problems with Afghanistan, now you want them to fight Germany and France?
5) Logistical Problems. US warplanes blowing up everything in sight behind the lines, trucks breaking down behind the lines due to poor maintenance, lack of spare parts and shoddy manufacturing.
7) Problems keeping Eastern Europe down. Many if not most of the troops in Eastern Europe should be counted as occupation troops. What happens when they leave to fight a war?
 

Pax

Banned
It depends a lot on when the war happened and under what circumstances. A conflict in 1980 over Afghanistan or something would be very different from one in 1989.

Around 1980 the Warsaw Pact's strength was estimated to be around:

16 DDR divisions

24 Polish divisions

12 Czech divisions

10 Hungarian divisions

20 Romanian divisions

8 Bulgarian divisions

Totaling some 800, 000 men.

The Soviets had 46 divisions in Germany alone, and around 2-3 million in Eastern Europe and the western USSR.

Against that NATO was outnumbered in both divisions and men. The largest armies were the US and FRG at around 300, 000- 400, 000 each. Belgium and the Netherlands had around six divisions in West Germany, and the figures for Denmark, Luxembourg, and other minor powers are likely fairly insignificant, unlikely to total much more than ten divisions together. NATO was also outnumbered in the areas of tanks and artillery, but had an advantage in air power.

But it's not that simple. The two forces had different military strategies and political, economic, social, and military realities. NATO had an advantage in population as well as a more diversified economy, but in a short conflict it likely wouldn't have the ability to use these to their fullest. Plus, NATO would have to ship the bulk of their forces and equipment overseas from America, Canada, and the UK whereas the Soviets simply needed to hop on a train to the front.

Generally speaking the Soviets overwhelmingly favored a sort of "rush b" doctrine against the West. Their armies were technologically inferior and had less training than their NATO counterparts, so the Warsaw Pact attempted to make up for this through surprise and speed. A significant DDR, Polish, and GSFG unit was to advance into West Germany across the North German Plain and the Fulda Gap. Meanwhile, a large Hungarian, Czech, and Soviet force would invade Austria into northern Italy in an attempt to reach either the French border (assuming France continues to refuse integrated NATO command) or Lyon should France cooperate fully with NATO.

In all likelihood the Warsaw Pact would have decent success in the NGP, especially since the NATO units stationed there were overwhelmingly Dutch, Belgian, and some FRG units and not the strongest outfits in the NATO arsenal. Warsaw Pact forces in the Fulda Gap would face a much harder time, especially as they'd be going up against the bulk of the American, British, and Canadian forces stationed in West Germany. Austria wouldn't be able to provide much of any resistance to the Warsaw Pact, and I doubt NATO would invade the country to try and cut off Warsaw Pact troops north of Italy.

Even with this highly mobile war of movement (the fastest and most mobile in history) estimated casualties were always very high. NATO expected to lose some 500, 000 men in the first couple of weeks or so of combat, and Warsaw Pact casualties could likely run near 1, 000, 000. The amazing amounts of ammunition expected to be expended by massed Soviet artillery and tanks was expected to deplete Warsaw Pact stocks within a matter of weeks, and the same goes for NATO. What we're thus likely to see is a short period of intense border bombardment followed by incredibly heated border armor and mechanized infantry clashes, followed by a bloody Warsaw Pact breakthrough along multiple sections of the front. From here the war would assume a highly mobile character, with Warsaw Pact forces likely having devastated the advanced NATO units so badly that the bulk of the NATO forces would have been forced to retreat in mass in order to re-group for a defensive posture further west in FRG, likely near the Weser River. Warsaw Pact casualties would mount as their ammo runs out, and somewhere west of the Weser the front stalls as American forces are brought in. By now both sides have exhausted their best units, and the match becomes one of two tired boxers slugging each other hoping the other collapses first. In all likelihood NATO air supremacy would begin to carry the day and be brought to bear against the overextended Warsaw Pact lines, starting a renewed round of rapid movement eastward into the DDR itself, with the shattered Warsaw Pact units likely being unable to mount an effective defense in time. Within a week or so from here Berlin is likely re-captured by NATO forces as NATO troops fan out across the DDR and to the river Oder. At this point both sides would have run out of much of their pre-stocked ammunition and other supplies as well as almost all of their veteran units, and a ceasefire would likely be signed. Germany is reunified into a neutral country, Italy, Denmark, Norway, and possibly Czechia become neutral countries as well, and maybe, depending on how things go, Bulgaria and Romania leave the Warsaw Pact to pursue a path similar to Yugoslavia.
 
.

Around 1980 the Warsaw Pact's strength was estimated to be around:

16 DDR divisions

24 Polish divisions

12 Czech divisions

10 Hungarian divisions

20 Romanian divisions

8 Bulgarian divisions

Totaling some 800, 000 men.

How many of these would actually be worth anything? I doubt any of these troops were eager to die for Mother Russia. My guess is that most likely most of these troops would fight half-hearted at best. With luck they might be worth as much as Italian troops in WWII and it goes down from there.

.
Generally speaking the Soviets overwhelmingly favored a sort of "rush b" doctrine against the West. Their armies were technologically inferior and had less training than their NATO counterparts, so the Warsaw Pact attempted to make up for this through surprise and speed. A significant DDR, Polish, and GSFG unit was to advance into West Germany across the North German Plain and the Fulda Gap. Meanwhile, a large Hungarian, Czech, and Soviet force would invade Austria into northern Italy in an attempt to reach either the French border (assuming France continues to refuse integrated NATO command) or Lyon should France cooperate fully with NATO.

How fast can you go if (Which seems likely considering how the Soviets did things) a lot of the vehicles are broke down due to sloppy manufacture, poor maintenance and lack of spare parts?
 
Last edited:
It depends a lot on when the war happened and under what circumstances. A conflict in 1980 over Afghanistan or something would be very different from one in 1989.

Around 1980 the Warsaw Pact's strength was estimated to be around:

16 DDR divisions

24 Polish divisions

12 Czech divisions

10 Hungarian divisions

20 Romanian divisions

8 Bulgarian divisions

Totaling some 800, 000 men.

The Soviets had 46 divisions in Germany alone, and around 2-3 million in Eastern Europe and the western USSR.

Against that NATO was outnumbered in both divisions and men. The largest armies were the US and FRG at around 300, 000- 400, 000 each. Belgium and the Netherlands had around six divisions in West Germany, and the figures for Denmark, Luxembourg, and other minor powers are likely fairly insignificant, unlikely to total much more than ten divisions together. NATO was also outnumbered in the areas of tanks and artillery, but had an advantage in air power.

But it's not that simple. The two forces had different military strategies and political, economic, social, and military realities. NATO had an advantage in population as well as a more diversified economy, but in a short conflict it likely wouldn't have the ability to use these to their fullest. Plus, NATO would have to ship the bulk of their forces and equipment overseas from America, Canada, and the UK whereas the Soviets simply needed to hop on a train to the front.

Generally speaking the Soviets overwhelmingly favored a sort of "rush b" doctrine against the West. Their armies were technologically inferior and had less training than their NATO counterparts, so the Warsaw Pact attempted to make up for this through surprise and speed. A significant DDR, Polish, and GSFG unit was to advance into West Germany across the North German Plain and the Fulda Gap. Meanwhile, a large Hungarian, Czech, and Soviet force would invade Austria into northern Italy in an attempt to reach either the French border (assuming France continues to refuse integrated NATO command) or Lyon should France cooperate fully with NATO.

In all likelihood the Warsaw Pact would have decent success in the NGP, especially since the NATO units stationed there were overwhelmingly Dutch, Belgian, and some FRG units and not the strongest outfits in the NATO arsenal. Warsaw Pact forces in the Fulda Gap would face a much harder time, especially as they'd be going up against the bulk of the American, British, and Canadian forces stationed in West Germany. Austria wouldn't be able to provide much of any resistance to the Warsaw Pact, and I doubt NATO would invade the country to try and cut off Warsaw Pact troops north of Italy.

Even with this highly mobile war of movement (the fastest and most mobile in history) estimated casualties were always very high. NATO expected to lose some 500, 000 men in the first couple of weeks or so of combat, and Warsaw Pact casualties could likely run near 1, 000, 000. The amazing amounts of ammunition expected to be expended by massed Soviet artillery and tanks was expected to deplete Warsaw Pact stocks within a matter of weeks, and the same goes for NATO. What we're thus likely to see is a short period of intense border bombardment followed by incredibly heated border armor and mechanized infantry clashes, followed by a bloody Warsaw Pact breakthrough along multiple sections of the front. From here the war would assume a highly mobile character, with Warsaw Pact forces likely having devastated the advanced NATO units so badly that the bulk of the NATO forces would have been forced to retreat in mass in order to re-group for a defensive posture further west in FRG, likely near the Weser River. Warsaw Pact casualties would mount as their ammo runs out, and somewhere west of the Weser the front stalls as American forces are brought in. By now both sides have exhausted their best units, and the match becomes one of two tired boxers slugging each other hoping the other collapses first. In all likelihood NATO air supremacy would begin to carry the day and be brought to bear against the overextended Warsaw Pact lines, starting a renewed round of rapid movement eastward into the DDR itself, with the shattered Warsaw Pact units likely being unable to mount an effective defense in time. Within a week or so from here Berlin is likely re-captured by NATO forces as NATO troops fan out across the DDR and to the river Oder. At this point both sides would have run out of much of their pre-stocked ammunition and other supplies as well as almost all of their veteran units, and a ceasefire would likely be signed. Germany is reunified into a neutral country, Italy, Denmark, Norway, and possibly Czechia become neutral countries as well, and maybe, depending on how things go, Bulgaria and Romania leave the Warsaw Pact to pursue a path similar to Yugoslavia.
With a year of prep time I can see the U.S. (And other western nations) potentially raising a lot more forces.

Granted producing heavy equipment could be a problem, but I can see a WarPac offensive getting bogged down dealing with large numbers of additional NATO infantry who are well equipped with serviceable anti tank weapons, who are also defending large numbers of prepared obstacles, mine fields etc.

Any breakthroughs by the WarPac could be countered by the pre existing NATO armoured and mechanized forces.

Yes I realize this is probably to simple but I'm thinking the defenders may well have the advantage in this setting.
 

Pax

Banned
How many of these would actually be worth anything? I doubt any of these troops were eager to die for Mother Russia. My guess is that most likely most of these troops would fight half-hearted at best. With luck they might be worth as much as Italian troops in WWII and it goes down from there.

Non-Soviet Warsaw Pact forces weren't as good as their Soviet counterparts, but they never were meant to be. For the most part they were meant as supplementary forces for the Soviet bulldogs. In this role they'd be able to perform well enough, especially tier one divisions (which were about 50-60% of their total divisions pre-mobilization). I think that, especially given the rapidity of the conflict and it's immense destruction, they wouldn't get much of an opportunity in the war itself to really desert their Soviet allies. Now, post-war that is a very strong possibility, especially for countries like Romania or Bulgaria, but not during the war.
 
Non-Soviet Warsaw Pact forces weren't as good as their Soviet counterparts, but they never were meant to be. For the most part they were meant as supplementary forces for the Soviet bulldogs. In this role they'd be able to perform well enough, especially tier one divisions (which were about 50-60% of their total divisions pre-mobilization). I think that, especially given the rapidity of the conflict and it's immense destruction, they wouldn't get much of an opportunity in the war itself to really desert their Soviet allies. Now, post-war that is a very strong possibility, especially for countries like Romania or Bulgaria, but not during the war.

Why? Why would they even fight? What would they have to fight for that is worth dying over? Why would they be willing to fight and die for Mother Russia when they aren't Russian?
 

Ian_W

Banned
There's also the question of how many divisions you can put per 50km of front, and still use them effectively.

The battlefront of the West German border isnt that wide.
 

SsgtC

Banned
At this point both sides would have run out of much of their pre-stocked ammunition and other supplies as well as almost all of their veteran units, and a ceasefire would likely be signed. Germany is reunified into a neutral country, Italy, Denmark, Norway, and possibly Czechia become neutral countries as well, and maybe, depending on how things go, Bulgaria and Romania leave the Warsaw Pact to pursue a path similar to Yugoslavia
You had me until here. There is no way Germany, Denmark, Norway and Italy go nuetral here. They just fought one of the most savage wars in modern history and are only still free of Soviet domination because of the NATO alliance. If anything, NATO emerges as a far tighter alliance with virtually no chance of anyone willingly breaking free. I also don't see Czechoslovakia going nuetral. I highly doubt Moscow would ok that. They're going to need every bit of territory they can get their hands on to try and recover.
 
Last edited:

Pax

Banned
Why? Why would they even fight? What would they have to fight for that is worth dying over? Why would they be willing to fight and die for Mother Russia when they aren't Russian?

You have to remember that Germany wasn't too nice to countries like Poland, Romania, or Czechoslovakia during the last war, and that's a fact many in all those armies would be all to happy to sack vengeance upon. The Poles may not have the stomach against American divisions (they weren't expected to anyways, but I know things change in wars) but against German ones?

And it's not like NATO's all in either. France is not part of NATO's integrated command. Portugal and Spain are going through some post-regime turmoil. Britain is a shadow of it's WW2 self. The Low Countries have no armies to speak of. Canada's forces were miniscule.
 

Pax

Banned
You had me until here. There is no way Germany, Denmark, Norway and Italy go nuetral here. They just fought one of the most savage wars in modern history and are only still free of Soviet domination because of the NATO alliance. If anything, NATO emerges as a far tighter alliance with virtually no chance of anyone willingly breaking free. I also don't see Czechoslovakia going nuetral. I highly don't Moscow would ok that. They're going to need every bit of territory they can get their hands on to try and recover.

To be honest I was just thinking up an interesting scenario. I don't know what would have happened because all would have come down to how much either side managed to stay together. By the end of the fight NATO would be severely crippled and the Warsaw Pact in a state of collapse. It's possible that Italy, for example, decides it wants nothing to do with anymore American wars and feels confidant enough to leave the fold once the USSR starts imploding a couple of years down the line. But I still believe a unified, neutral Germany is going to happen. There's no way the Soviets would settle for allowing NATO forces on Poland's or the USSR's border, and there's no way NATO gives up Germany just like that.
 
You have to remember that Germany wasn't too nice to countries like Poland, Romania, or Czechoslovakia during the last war, and that's a fact many in all those armies would be all to happy to sack vengeance upon. The Poles may not have the stomach against American divisions (they weren't expected to anyways, but I know things change in wars) but against German ones?

It was no longer 1947, the kids that are actually fighting the war would have been born at least a decade or two after the war. There is no evidence that generation had undying hatred for Germans. Certainly not to the extent of risking death. Also what grudge would they have against France, GB, Denmark etc.?
 

SsgtC

Banned
To be honest I was just thinking up an interesting scenario. I don't know what would have happened because all would have come down to how much either side managed to stay together. By the end of the fight NATO would be severely crippled and the Warsaw Pact in a state of collapse. It's possible that Italy, for example, decides it wants nothing to do with anymore American wars and feels confidant enough to leave the fold once the USSR starts imploding a couple of years down the line. But I still believe a unified, neutral Germany is going to happen. There's no way the Soviets would settle for allowing NATO forces on Poland's or the USSR's border, and there's no way NATO gives up Germany just like that.
Here's the thing though, militarily, NATO is hurt. Politically, they're stronger than ever. They've just crushed the Warsaw Pact and have their forces solidly on foreign soil. They won't give that political power up. The way you have the war end, militarily the USSR lost. Politically, they won a stunning victory. Breaking the NATO alliance apart like that can be seen as nothing else. No, if NATO defeats the USSR to the point that NATO troops are on the ground in WARPAC territory, NATO will end up growing even tighter.

One thing I think that pretty much ensures Germany staying within NATO is France. There are some long memories there of France fighting 3 major wars with Germany before NATO. I think they'd see NATO as vital to keeping Germany in check.

Edit: One other thing. In 1985, there are still a handful of WWII Vets on active duty in the world's militaries. You can be damn sure that those men won't be willing to throw away what was accomplished.
 
Last edited:

SsgtC

Banned
It was no longer 1947, the kids that are actually fighting the war would have been born at least a decade or two after the war. There is no evidence that generation had undying hatred for Germans. Certainly not to the extent of risking death. Also what grudge would they have against France, GB, Denmark etc.?
Actually, I could see a bigger grudge against the UK and US here. They could be seen as having sold their countries down the river into the Soviet camp during WWII. Their countries being used basically as bribes to keep the USSR on their side during the war probably won't sit to well with them
 
Actually, I could see a bigger grudge against the UK and US here. They could be seen as having sold their countries down the river into the Soviet camp during WWII. Their countries being used basically as bribes to keep the USSR on their side during the war probably won't sit to well with them

They have a much bigger grudge against the Russians. The Americans aren't occupying Poland and Romania, the Russians are.
 

SsgtC

Banned
They have a much bigger grudge against the Russians. The Americans aren't occupying Poland and Romania, the Russians are.
Oh I agree on that. Was just saying that if they were going to have a grudge on any NATO powers, it would be the UK and US
 
Why? Why would they even fight? What would they have to fight for that is worth dying over? Why would they be willing to fight and die for Mother Russia when they aren't Russian?
Why? Why would the Italian soldiers even fight? What would they have to fight for in the USSR is worth dying over? Why would they be willing to fight and die for the Third Reich when they aren't German?

Unwilling allies, occupied countries, even slaves have fought for their masters in war for millennia.
 
As I recall USNG was not expected to field competent divisions with out 6 months of retraining. I think that was borne out by GW1991. Little or no new weapons would be added for months because it would take that long to retool factories for old weapons. I could see whole-sale upgrading of old equipment and most emphasis on munitions production provisions and fuel stocks. New weapons would require retraining and restocking parts & building up ammo stock piles.

Lots of ATGM [TOW/HOT/MILAN] deployed on all kinds of APC & ICV, while sales of Stinger missile should sky rocket. But the WARPAC can be expected to take similar steps.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/111xx/doc11144/79doc644.pdf


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War_tank_formations
 
Last edited:

Toraach

Banned
Oh I agree on that. Was just saying that if they were going to have a grudge on any NATO powers, it would be the UK and US
For a common polish soldier in 80s no grudges against Americans but the were associated with good things like coca cola and movies when Germans were not loved just as people but not ww2 grudges and political stuff. Overall polish troops had poor morale and not reasons to fight at all. And soviets were the most despised by them.
 
Why? Why would the Italian soldiers even fight? What would they have to fight for in the USSR is worth dying over? Why would they be willing to fight and die for the Third Reich when they aren't German?

Unwilling allies, occupied countries, even slaves have fought for their masters in war for millennia.

They fought like crap too. Nobody is impressed by the Italian Military's fighting record in WWII. Half hearted fighting doesn't win you wars.
 
Top