How would a non-nuclear WW3 have been fought?

What timeline would that be.
I think he's referring to Dead by Dawn, which is one of the inspirations for me making AH stuff to begin with.

Oh and if you ask me about a nn-WWIII, I personally like to think of it as a replay of WWII with some elements of WWI depending on the timeframe and circumstances of both sides involved.
 
I think he's referring to Dead by Dawn, which is one of the inspirations for me making AH stuff to begin with.

Oh and if you ask me about a nn-WWIII, I personally like to think of it as a replay of WWII with some elements of WWI depending on the timeframe and circumstances of both sides involved.
So would that be not called WW II.5 then.
 
If a non-nuclear WWIII happened in either the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s (more specifically 1983 due to Able Archer 83) I can only imagine that it would be essentially WWII all over again (in terms of casualties w/o nuclear bombs and overall scale of the conflict) except this time instead of Allies (Democracy) vs Axis (Fascism) (like in the previous conflict) it would be former allies (USA and USSR) during it out with having their own military alliances NATO (Capitalism) and Warsaw Pact (Communism) respectively. Germany would essentially be the main battleground for World War 3 as it is divided between East and West Germany and American/French/British/West German troops and Soviet/East German troops stationed there would be invading each other for full control of the country as having Germany reunified under one government by force would be a strategic advantage, whoever controls Germany well they control the gateway to the enemy's territory. You can also imagine the conflict spreading to Asia as well after all North Korea still did have ties to the Soviet Union and South Korea/Japan are also allied with the United States so when WW3 breaks out well expect North Korea to invade and try to reunify South Korea under their banner with some support from the Soviets while the American troops stationed in South Korea would counter respond. Then we have Greece and Turkey there the easternmost NATO members bordering hostile Warsaw Pact neighbors and since World War 3 does at least break out in this scenario well the USSR would invade Turkey and Greece while Bulgaria invades Greece too. Israel would also join the NATO/U.S. side since well you know. Then we have the issue of neutral nations such as Yugoslavia, Albania, Switzerland, Iraq and China despite being both communist they didn't side with the Warsaw Pact with at least 3 of the 5 nations I've mentioned having broke off ties with the Soviet Union and for the Swiss they're already neutral when WW3 breaks out I don't see them siding with either side they might even become safe havens for any war refugees from the Eastern and Western Blocs respectively. We also have other Communist Asian states such as Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia they could also join the side of the Soviet Union and fight the United States given all 3 countries history with the Vietnam War but the U.S. might also get Malaysia and Thailand on their side to counter the Vietnamese, Lao, and Cambodians. Cuba would also side with the Soviets given previous hostility towards the United States. I pretty much see World War 3 fought mostly in Europe and Asia with occasional exceptions such as Israel and Cuba.
 
So would that be not called WW II.5 then.

I would think WW2 would be more like WW1.5 than a WW3 would be a WW2.5.

Instead of the same main adversaries in both WW1 and 2. WW3 would be two former WW2 allies going at it. You'd technically have Japan and Western Germany on the same side of the US this time.
 
The Stoltenberg report is available online for anyone interested, translated to English by the Cold War International History Project/ Wilson Center Digital Archive

Bulletin No. 2 -- Fall 1992 Jul 13, 2011 By James G. Hershberg

Its a good read, also, talking about the Iraqi army there is this great source titled

The lraqi Army: Organization and Tactics (1991 Paladin Press)

For anyone that hasn't heard of these and is interested in this subject.
 
I would think WW2 would be more like WW1.5 than a WW3 would be a WW2.5.

Instead of the same main adversaries in both WW1 and 2. WW3 would be two former WW2 allies going at it. You'd technically have Japan and Western Germany on the same side of the US this time.
Well more or less this way but the death cost is gonna be pretty high even without nuclear bombs since technology here is far more advanced in the 60s, 70s, and 80s than in 1945 or 1918.
 
Has anyone ever done a (presumably ASB) TL in which nukes were never invented? I always assumed that we would have had World War Three (and possibly World War Four) by now if it weren't for the nuclear sword over everyone's heads.
 
On a side note. Do you know why you have to abandon the gun after firing one nuclear round? How does the nuclear round damage the tube?

Never heard of that actually, you have to take cover because the range is such you'll get some blast effect but it doesn't ruin the gun. (Now we could talk about "Davy Crockett" when is comes to "nuclear hand-grenade" weapons ;) )

Now oddly enough the general thinking was that an outbreak of war in the late 70s or early 80s would follow this pattern:
1) Everyone would switch on all their electronic gear, their jammers, their counter-jammers, and thier counter-counter-jammers at which point ALL the electronic and most 'assited' gear would fry.

2) The Soviet forces would be soundly defeated by the NATO troops who, (on average) would pull out their swords and bows and since they were highly trained in their use and the Soviets were not....

This was due to the vast amount of Society for Creative Anachronism groups that were throughout the US and allied military at the time. Having had a chance to talk to someone from the 'other side' in the 90s I found out it was actually a topic of discussion as they were actually aware of the "low tech war fighting training" that was going on but had little idea at the lower levels what the heck it was all about :)

Randy
 
Top