Red Sea Lion WW3

ar-pharazon

Banned
Assuming a soviet invasion in 1985. And the Soviets take say Denmark and maybe most of Norway-would these make good staging grounds for an airborne invasion?
 
Check my signature.

Googled it, couldn’t find the forum. Do you have a link?

Wouldn't Britain use tactical nuclear weapons against a Soviet invasion? Invading Britain seems like crossing the nuclear line to me.

It doesn’t cross any that are explicitly stated AFAIK (to the contrary the French usage doctrine in case of the WP crossing the Rhine is extremely public), and of the main invasion into Germany has been blunted and it is seen as a last desperate measure it’s possible they wouldn’t.

Assuming a soviet invasion in 1985. And the Soviets take say Denmark and maybe most of Norway-would these make good staging grounds for an airborne invasion?

Well, they’re within helicopter range of Britain (Norway is), so minimally acceptable with 1980s tech I guess. Not a successful one, though. The Soviets could get a force ashore and supply it for a while but they couldn’t take over Britain.
 
The issue with an Airborne invasion of the UK is that the UK a month into any conventional WW3 is likely to have a staggering amount of airpower scattered among its air bases - principally from the US so any such attempt is likely to suffer staggering losses both in the initial waves and subsequent supporting airlifts.
 

Deleted member 9338

For those there in Europe at the time it did not feel that way. We were trained that nucs were very much an option.

In 1985 it would have been possible for both sides to fight without tactical nuclear weapons coming into play.
 
Top