Possible Weapon Innovations and Inventions from a 1980's Conventional WWIII?

[KuboCaskett]

For my TL which will feature events set after a WWIII in the first half of the 1980's (that stayed mostly conventional mind you so the total nuclear exchange is off the table), one thing that needs to be addressed are the possible innovations and inventions that spawned from the conflict so they can give an idea of how different the world's militaries in the post-WWIII world are.

To give people an idea about this, take a look at World Wars 1 and 2. WW1 led to the submachine gun design, the tank, combat airplanes, and combat submarines (though they were used in the Russo-Japanese War); even though the conflict technically did arguably stifled technological development than helped it but I digress. WW2 led to the assault rifle, specialized tank designs, jet fighters, missiles, and the atomic bomb. They were all generally driven by the demands of the belligerent powers to gain an advantage over their opponents in combat given the circumstances.

So anyone can give me an idea of any new stuff that can come from this conflict, any help can be appreciated.

 

[riggerrob]

Most of the progress since the Korean War has been electronic.

 

[KuboCaskett]

Most of the progress since the Korean War has been electronic.

You know that reminds of me of how some people consider the entirety of the cold war to be "WWIII", especially with the arms race effecting the research and testing of various military hardware including missiles and nuclear weapons. Though the main difference between a cold war staying cold and one going hot in terms of hardware is that the latter would speed up technological r&d, so I think I get the picture.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

Even a conventional WWIII would not last long enough to speed up R&D,

 

[Fred the duck]

Maybe some way to affect conventional missile's guiding systems with radio waves?
BTW I know nothing about mechanics or such so if this is impossible please tell me

 

[KuboCaskett]

Even a conventional WWIII would not last long enough to speed up R&D,

Come to think of it, I have a feeling that post-WWIII weaponry wouldn't be that much different than those just before the war broke out; barring some weird experiments both sides come up with that would later influence development in the years down the line.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

Even a conventional WWIII would not last long enough to speed up R&D,

I was interrupted from finishing here. There are very few scenarios where conventional war lasts longer than a couple of months as after that everyone runs out of ammo. So, there's not much you can do for R&D. However, the one interesting that would happen is people would quickly find out what does and does not work. So, there would be some changes afterwards just depending upon what deficiences were discovered during combat.

Finally, the arms race going on by this time was pretty prolific. The electronic revolution was pushing forward on both sides, which is what really revolutionized warfare during the 80s. The Cold War was tense enough it didnt need an actual war to drive innovation in weapons and communications.

 

[KuboCaskett]

I was interrupted from finishing here. There are very few scenarios where conventional war lasts longer than a couple of months as after that everyone runs out of ammo. So, there's not much you can do for R&D. However, the one interesting that would happen is people would quickly find out what does and does not work. So, there would be some changes afterwards just depending upon what deficiences were discovered during combat.

Finally, the arms race going on by this time was pretty prolific. The electronic revolution was pushing forward on both sides, which is what really revolutionized warfare during the 80s. The Cold War was tense enough it didnt need an actual war to drive innovation in weapons and communications.

I made this thread since the feature of the hardware development is very neglected when it comes to discussing the possibility of a late-20th century war between NATO and the WP (excluding those that go totally nuclear for obvious reasons). Though you might be right on how the new stuff wouldn't necessarily come out in the early stages of the war; it would be oddly similar to how weapons development went in WWI, with both sides realizing the need to defeat each other outside of WMDs.

Although it would be amusing to see stuff like 5 gen fighters and tanks with very low profile turrets (or those that have unmanned turrets and/or stealthy exteriors) being used by the time WWIII ends.

 

[Sheliak Lawyer]

As has been previously said any major developments would have been electronic.

What progress really would have been made though is tactics-both sides had wargamed and planned and studied. If NATO and the Warsaw Pact went head to head...well regardless of the outcome tacticians handbooks, and the textbooks at major war colleges would have been substantially revised.

 

[GDIS Pathe]

a war between the war pact and NATO was expected to last what 2 to 6 weeks IIRC not really enough time for any major tech advancement electronic and tactical but even the war ended you can expect to see tons of new designs incorporating lessons from WW3 as well as either substantially revised or simply modified battle plans and tactics depending on who won.

 

[Riain]

Some new stuff has appeared in short wars such as PGW1 or Falklands, although much of this was already proposed before the war. If WW3 broke out many proposals, deferred and cancelled programmes would be produced at breakneck speed.

 

[asnys]

There are very few scenarios where conventional war lasts longer than a couple of months as after that everyone runs out of ammo.

You know, I see this all over the place, but I'm not sure I believe it. Oh, no, we're running low on ammo! So's the other guy. Why is that a reason to stop? It reminds me a lot of all the people who said WW1 would be over by Christmas.

Of course, I'm also one of those killjoys who thinks it would inevitably end in nuclear fire, but that's a separate issue...

 

[James G]

You know, I see this all over the place, but I'm not sure I believe it. Oh, no, we're running low on ammo! So's the other guy. Why is that a reason to stop? It reminds me a lot of all the people who said WW1 would be over by Christmas.

Of course, I'm also one of those killjoys who thinks it would inevitably end in nuclear fire, but that's a separate issue...

Cold War thinking was that if we in NATO have f-all ammo stocks then the Soviets would have too because... well... they have to, right?
After the Wall came down there was all that ammo found in East Germany, enough for fighting for a very long time indeed. That was what the Soviets left behind too: they took far more home to Mother Russia. The thinking on hitting supply lines in Poland (yes, you, jimmygreen2002) would have done nada to cut Soviet ammo supply as it was all forward based.
This is classic stupid thinking on the part of one side thinking that if they do something dumb one way - having war stocks far away across an ocean - the other side must be just as dumb.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

You know, I see this all over the place, but I'm not sure I believe it. Oh, no, we're running low on ammo! So's the other guy. Why is that a reason to stop? It reminds me a lot of all the people who said WW1 would be over by Christmas.

Of course, I'm also one of those killjoys who thinks it would inevitably end in nuclear fire, but that's a separate issue...

WWI was fought with bullets, artillery shells, and lightly trained, disposable people. All three can be produced in mass fairly quickly and relatively cheaply. Try building an M1 Abrams tank, or teaching someone to fly a helicopter gunship. And then consider the cost of sensors, communications, and munitions versus "dumb" bullets and shells or landline radios. Further, WWI had a wealth non-belligerent subsidize participants for the first three years - the USA, which wont be the case in this era. So while your contrarian sentiment might be correct, you need to at least account for the inherent differences.

 

[asnys]

WWI was fought with bullets, artillery shells, and lightly trained, disposable people. All three can be produced in mass fairly quickly and relatively cheaply. Try building an M1 Abrams tank, or teaching someone to fly a helicopter gunship. And then consider the cost of sensors, communications, and munitions versus "dumb" bullets and shells or landline radios. Further, WWI had a wealth non-belligerent subsidize participants for the first three years - the USA, which wont be the case in this era. So while your contrarian sentiment might be correct, you need to at least account for the inherent differences.

Sure, it's obviously going to be different. But just because we're running out of tanks and men, doesn't mean the war is going to stop. It more likely means the character of the war is going to change, towards something that looks less like the wars planned by modern, professional militaries with all that fancy gear, and more towards the WW1/2 model of masses of lightly-trained, disposable soldiers with lower-tech, mass-produced gear.

And that's assuming the Soviets are running out of men and bombs at the same rate we are. Which they may not be.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

People forget how long the buildup took in WWII. Congress voted to expand the military in 1940 but those Essex carriers didnt start the fight until 1943. THREE YEARS! The B-29 started work in 1939 but didnt enter service until 1944. FIVE YEARS from concept to deployment! This stuff takes time to design, test and then produce.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

Sure, it's obviously going to be different. But just because we're running out of tanks and men, doesn't mean the war is going to stop. It more likely means the character of the war is going to change, towards something that looks less like the wars planned by modern, professional militaries with all that fancy gear, and more towards the WW1/2 model of masses of lightly-trained, disposable soldiers with lower-tech, mass-produced gear.

And that's assuming the Soviets are running out of men and bombs at the same rate we are. Which they may not be.

It's also assuming that either side's economy could sustain a war effort and keep the people content enough to endure the sacrifices. But, yes, it is possible the fighting will continue in a very different form than originally envisioned.

 

[creighton]

You could see innovations in logistics, which is unsexy, but necessary to the war efforts. Maybe I'm too far in the Tom Clancy-esq school of thinking here, but they're going to expend troops and munitions at an incredible rate, and getting forces and supplies quickly to new areas will become very important as the war goes on.

 

[KuboCaskett]

You could see innovations in logistics, which is unsexy, but necessary to the war efforts. Maybe I'm too far in the Tom Clancy-esq school of thinking here, but they're going to expend troops and munitions at an incredible rate, and getting forces and supplies quickly to new areas will become very important as the war goes on.

I see, logistics can make a difference between victory or defeat, especially in this case; my good guess is that helicopters and cargo planes are going to be used a lot and some attempts to make machines that combine the two in terms of function.

 

[Father Maryland]

I wonder if there would have been some innovations of necessity in terms of treatment and clean up of Chemical and Biological weapons. Less some sort of universal high tech save the day solution to shit tons of anthrax and more "Lets maybe save a couple of the poor bastards".