How long would REFORGER take?

But WP plans showed heavy use of Chem on Day One, and after Nixon pulled the 'B' from US NBC, it was a WMD is a WMD is a WMD.

FWIW, I was stationed with a US Army combat engineer battalion in the early 80's. We trained a heck of a lot more for chemical warfare thrown at us than we did for nukes as I recall. I'm really glad we never had to fight in central Europe. The idea of my unit rushing to the Fulda Gap to try and get mines put in before the Soviet tanks showed up did not sound like it was gonna be a fun time at all.
 
FWIW, I was stationed with a US Army combat engineer battalion in the early 80's. We trained a heck of a lot more for chemical warfare thrown at us than we did for nukes as I recall. I'm really glad we never had to fight in central Europe. The idea of my unit rushing to the Fulda Gap to try and get mines put in before the Soviet tanks showed up did not sound like it was gonna be a fun time at all.
Pretty sure trying to defend the Baltic’s with half a dozen planes and a couple of battalions and no natural obstacle is even less fun for modern NATO.

Speaking of which, the REFORGER stocks are long gone. What exactly does exit to stop the Russians if they decide that a Vistula sightseeing trip sounds nice? Prayer and incense?
 
Airpower and logistics, I would imagine.

Yup, this. The Baltics would fall quickly in any scenario due to the geography but Poland, backed by the Bundeswehr heavy units, French rapid-deployment troops, the 82nd Airborne, and the NATO Response Force would hold its own until the main US and British armoured formations arrived.

That said, the Cold War era REFORGER plans were a lot more solid. It was what, 10 days, for the III Corps and the reinforcements for V & VII Corps to arrive?
 
Yeah, the build-up to retake the Baltic’s given the lack of pre-planning would mean the timeframe would be more akin to something like Desert Shield/Storm then Reforger, but there’s little doubt it’d happen. In a way, that battalion the US have in the Baltic’s proper is more analogous to the Berlin garrison, which is likewise guaranteed to be hosed in any pre-‘89 WW3 scenario. Their there to ensure American commitment by forcing the Russians to have American blood on their hands. Getting butchered is basically their job in the event of a real invasion... and hence serves to help act as a deterrent to one.
 
NATO did study a 1973 scenario, whereby the Soviet’s made a sudden limited incursion.
Not sure how seriously it was taken.

My memory is it was the "Nightmare Scenario". Of course that was back when intelligence agencies were telling us the Red Army soldier was three meters tall, trained to Spetznatz standards everyone of them, and their weapons all worked perfectly every time.

When I fired a AK47 the first time and it instantly jammed I decided much of what I'd been told was BS. In 1985 I was with a group receiving a briefing on Soviet made equipment from a US Army intel unit. Close examination and effort to use the stuff in US Army training exercises revealed it to be poorly made junk. The designs looked good on paper, and the intel people told us sometimes they did see well made items, but most of what they had was badly made.
 
As a Desert Shield participant my take is the REFORGER plans and exercises prepped us very well for reinforcing Central Command & the build up of the US 8th Army, the MEF, the air forces in SWA, ect... One of the field artillery brigades @ FT Sill. a corps artillery group, had just the previous winter executed a full embarkation and water transport exercise enroute to a corps support firing exercise. Then they did it over again for the return to Ft Sill. From experience I can say that would have been immensely helpful for those guys when they deployed to SWA in 1990. The experience of multiple REFORGER exercises would have tricked through the US Army over the decades and made the movement to SWA much easier than it might have been.
 
The only force in central Europe capable of fighting at the division level is the Polish army. The Germans are combat-ineffective and would have difficulty scraping together two brigades in a month. The French and British could respond, but their heavy forces are pathetically small. Light forces like the 82nd Airborne and possibly the Stryker cavalry will have no way to survive under Russia's massive artillery and ground EW advantage (both of which require only a few well-trained people to be effective), and Russian air defenses and naval forces in Kaliningrad and the Baltic will give at least a week of practical air superiority over the front. Although the Russians don't use them anymore, the battalion tactical groups that fought in the major battles in Donbass had more artillery than a US armored brigade and the more modern brigade tactical groups include at least three battalions of artillery (SP, towed, and rockets) in addition to three battalions of ground combat troops.
 

Zen9

Banned
If you want to stop the Soviet or modern Russian Army. Then all you need is large supplies dumps of food booze and prostitutes. Maybe some valuable goods as well.
 
Okay, here are a few interrelated questions I have:

Lets say that the Soviets decide they want to go West in.....1984.

The source I'm using here is the (in)famous TankNet NATO OOB, among others.

The Marines, in all likelihood, would not have deployed troops to Germany in any circumstance. FMFPAC's ground forces included an two amphibious MEBs, two prepositioned MEBs associated with the ships at Guam, 1st Marines in California, and 3rd Marines Division in Okinawa. FMFLANT's ground forces included an amphibious MEB with a Norway mission, a prepositioned MEB associated with the ships at Diego Garcia, 2nd Marines in North Carolina. The Marine Reserve included the 4th Marines and an amphibious MEB. The active forces had an ideal structure with three MEFs (two in the Pacific and one in the Atlantic), three Marine Divisions, and nine MEBs. Three MEBs, one per MEF, would be at high readiness (4 days to embarkation), three a medium readiness, and three at low readiness (no peacetime staffing). If a full MEF is being deployed, the high readiness MEB acts as the lead echelon and is then absorbed by the arriving MEF.

1) Am I wrong to read this quote as the entirety of the Atlantic Marines likely end up deployed to Norway?

2) How and where would Spanish and Portuguese forces have been deployed? Their Navy obviously fights in the Med or in the Atlantic, but their Armies and Air Forces deploy to...the Central Front? To a lesser extent the same for the Italian Air Force and Army. Of course, they'll have a role fighting the Yugoslav Forces in Slovenia, but that won't take the entirety of their Army. Do they go to Greece or the Central Front?

3) On a less deployment related note, I've always wondered that when push came to shove how much the US would prioritize Germany over Korea and the Middle East. I've always thought the Central Front would have eaten divisions wholesale and that a unit like the 24th Mechanized ends up fighting in Karlsruhe rather than Korea or Kuwait 8 times out of 10.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Kind of related so I'll bring it up by 1982 83 how were stocks of AIM9P and L sidewinder? I've heard most of them at that time armed mostly UK USA aircraft with other western friendly nations making do with earlier models of AIM9 ? Inc NOn NATO allies ?
 
Kind of related so I'll bring it up by 1982 83 how were stocks of AIM9P and L sidewinder? I've heard most of them at that time armed mostly UK USA aircraft with other western friendly nations making do with earlier models of AIM9 ? Inc NOn NATO allies ?
About AIM-9s look at my answer (#23 in this thread) about the effect of the Falklands on availability of air to air weapons during that time. The Carter years were very tough on readiness (I've semi-jokingly said there should be a ribbon for 'I survived the Carter era') weapons were short even for first line deployable units. ANd there was no secret stash of WRM (War Readiness Material) That had been worked down to support ongoing commitments. there were still IOUs in the system for weapons sent to Israel in 1973/74. Then came the support of the Brits for the Falklands. They got a fair amount of the inventory that had been built to replenish our supplies.

A problem with the newer 'all aspect' AIM-9L (the only one we had in 1982) is that besides a shortage of missiles ther was a shortage of argon replenishment equipment. This didn't hurt us much at our home station but the deployable kit was backordered and if we deployed to Nellis we had to depend on them for recharges. When we deployed to George AFB for Gallant Eagle 82 our weapons troops made a daily run to China Lake NAS. It was 2 hours up several hours to recharge the bottles and 2 hours back. On some busy flying days we had two crews making the run. I don't remember the 9P being around yet. I think it was a developed version of the AIM-9J that we had before and with the AIM-9L
 

Khanzeer

Banned
^^^ thanks but did other nonNATO allies non central front allies like greece turkey had P, J and L models in 1982-83?
 
^^^ thanks but did other nonNATO allies non central front allies like greece turkey had P, J and L models in 1982-83?

I can't say for sure, but I doubt it. In early 1982 the British frontline Sidewinder variant was the 9G, and the USN flew 100 9L to Ascension Island for the Task Force to pick up and Sea Harriers to use. Similarly Israel used the 9L over the Beeka Valley in 1982, and by then (as now) they were early adopters of new tech.

Basically countries buy batches of platforms and weapons with a mixture of capability, funds and life of type requirements rather than when a shiny new missile begins production over in the USA. In any case the 9L went into production in 1977 and there was likely no production capacity over and above US orders for several years.
 
I can't say for sure, but I doubt it. In early 1982 the British frontline Sidewinder variant was the 9G, and the USN flew 100 9L to Ascension Island for the Task Force to pick up and Sea Harriers to use. Similarly Israel used the 9L over the Beeka Valley in 1982, and by then (as now) they were early adopters of new tech.

Basically countries buy batches of platforms and weapons with a mixture of capability, funds and life of type requirements rather than when a shiny new missile begins production over in the USA. In any case the 9L went into production in 1977 and there was likely no production capacity over and above US orders for several years.

SIPRI is your friend.

http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/trade_register.php

You'll note that most of the F-16 purchasers in 82 got the 9L starting then.
 
Top