Latest that the Soviets could have defeated NATO in a conventional war

Perhaps 1986 at a real push. Probably more like 1983/1984, though it'd be a coin toss at that time. The 1970s is a Soviet victory, as are 1981 and 1982.
 
no offence but .. no .. no way and that is simply wishful thinking .. by 1991 the gap was just whack

latest in a non nuclear? never as it would turn nuclear

now lets just hand wave.. to some degree... in Europe .. 1975-82.. if by chance it went to involve north America or English independence .. well see nuclear..

by 1982 .. it didn't matter .. it was nukes or bust. and in 1991 .. if it was conventional.. the soviets would have had a very bad day since by 1991 no one wanted them in eastern Europe
 
Theoretically, a Soviet victory is possible right up until 1989. But in terms of it being probable... ~1983.

during the early 70's it might not be so ..

the real thing is simple. no way any war would happen with out nukes. No one could attempt to start with out using them, or finish with out them.

I don't see any way once tanks roll in either direction that someone doesn't press the button, especially the longer the fighting drags on.

If either side and in this case, if the soviets started it. great they get victories for the first weeks. they cross the rhine. they get nuked. there is simply no way this stays conventional. same the other way. Nato forces get past Smolensk and its press the button time ( if it didn't happen after the polish boarder )



now even if you hand wave away nukes. the soviet navy is toast in almost any decade, but assuredly in the 80's. air power wise, the Nato isn't that far off. numbers are not everything and in this case when push comes to shove, Nato would win out. especially in anything after 1982 or pre 72 . that window is short .. but even then, I question the ability of the soviets while on paper quite strong, but in reality made up of players that don't want the soviet yoke anyways. its not like the USA forced france to do anything or Germany or others. they were partners to the extent that they wanted to be.

quick edit.. for the record I am in no way underselling the strength of the soviet military.
they had good stuff, they were well trained for the most part, and well.. simply speaking a damn fine foe.

that said.. they had windows to try.. they never did. we had windows.. we never did.
why? no one likes to glow in the dark

Poles wanted to be free, Czechs and Hungarians wanted to be free.. im betting that it stalls, hence why those big numbers were never tried out in reality.
 
Last edited:
Probably 1985, as a lot of Late Cold War equipment had yet to be introduce in full. On the whole though I do think people over hype said equipment on the basis of the Gulf War, which really shouldn't be used to gauge the abilities of the Soviet Army.
 
Definitely any time after 1968, perhaps a tie as early as 1964. 1985 *at the very earliest* for a tie in the other direction, more likely 1987. Cross the Oder or Rhine or Kiel canal and watch the fireworks...
 
Probably 1985, as a lot of Late Cold War equipment had yet to be introduce in full. On the whole though I do think people over hype said equipment on the basis of the Gulf War, which really shouldn't be used to gauge the abilities of the Soviet Army.

I have to disagree, just the widespread introduction of GPS to NATO formations is a tremendous combat multiplier. The introduction of Synthetic Aperture Radar makes it easier to locate enemy formations, AWACS allows aviation to be deployed in defence and offence more effectively, widespread introduction of advanced armour such as Challenger, Leopard II and Abrams, wide distribution of Night Vision Equipment etc. Not just improved equipment but training standards of the US and NATO forces were pretty much at their peak by the late 1980's whereas the Soviets had a lot of the same issues the US had after Vietnam including significant use of drugs by troops including heroin and pot in addition to the normal chronic alcoholism, training was down across the board and less capability.
 

oberdada

Gone Fishin'
If we ASB away the use of nukes, I'd say they have about the same chance as Hannibal defeating Rome.

If NATO looses all of continental Europe and keeps on fighting, what can the Soviets do. Soviet Sealion?
 
Definitely any time after 1968, perhaps a tie as early as 1964. 1985 *at the very earliest* for a tie in the other direction, more likely 1987. Cross the Oder or Rhine or Kiel canal and watch the fireworks...
Usually I like to say Never Say Never but two years after the Cuban Missile Crisis give or take a couple months I don't think the Soviets could win in anyway without nukes. And I know you said no nukes but the Soviets going to take another humiliation that quick. I don't think so so you might want to roll out no nukes but you have to also rule out them winning in 64.
 

Possible, yes. Likely...

Well when the Germans simply shut down the access roads to your military bases when the crisis starts to build, you're going to be shut down pretty fucking fast. What are you going to do, garrison every single intersection from the base to the Soviet Border? So either you withdraw allll the way back to the Soviet Union, and then fight your way all across the former WP states to reach the Intergerman Border... or you have to deal with 'partisan' (read: Ex-WP government) units in your rear lines for a thousand miles. In this scenario, striking a 'bolt from the blue' from surrounded military bases with units rife with supply problems, simple desertion, and drug epidemics isn't terribly likely.
 
Last edited:

Marc

Donor
Just an observation, if you hand-wave away the use of fissionables (and by implication, the entire ABC arsenal), both sides are going to make major modifications in everything from weaponry, logistics, manpower to S & T.
In short, very different armies in a different kind of conflict with almost impossible to project outcomes.
 

Ak-84

Banned
no offence but .. no .. no way and that is simply wishful thinking .. by 1991 the gap was just whack

latest in a non nuclear? never as it would turn nuclear

now lets just hand wave.. to some degree... in Europe .. 1975-82.. if by chance it went to involve north America or English independence .. well see nuclear..

by 1982 .. it didn't matter .. it was nukes or bust. and in 1991 .. if it was conventional.. the soviets would have had a very bad day since by 1991 no one wanted them in eastern Europe
No offence but bells and whistles weapon systems don’t change the fact that NATO was defending an area with zero strategic depth with enemy forces backed up all the way to Moscow.
 
No offence but bells and whistles weapon systems don’t change the fact that NATO was defending an area with zero strategic depth with enemy forces backed up all the way to Moscow.
Maybe a translation issue

I'm saying nukes will fly.. No matter and especially after 1980

Soviets Cross over its not going to be pretty, hard part would be controlling how. Many and where


By 1980 the only option who uses what and when and at what point. If the soviets as planned use chemical weapons Nato responds with the same or nukes.. And vi's a vi's

Soviets blew any chance to invade western Europe in 1945_6


If you are too my apologies
 
1983. And thats edge.
Awhile ago I with group of friends tried to realistically simulate WW3 in 80-ies.
Main Soviet weakness is resources, and technological weakness. Also no moral high ground
In 1984 gap between NATO and WP was too wide
 
Top