Slow Drift to War Europe 1984

Jukra- you are quite correct one of the problems with a crisis like this is actually going out and building a World War 2 style fortifications would scare the hell out of the general population so a lot has to be done in a short amount of time. Also civilian contractors can help setup fortification. Another note the front line infantry units can lay wire and on the section of the line where that is considered less threatened they can also lay the minefields to but a lot has to be done in a short amount of time.
 

ferdi254

Banned
Farmer that this area was not defensible and would not be in a war of TTL was pretty much well known no barracks and no forces to get there quick. ITTL somebody might be tempted to change this.

OTL plans were for the WP to attack with a surprise element the NATO scrambling to get forces up and running and over to Europe so the WP with at least a tactical advantage. None of this is going on here so one might be tempted to defend here as the WP minus two important armies against a fully mobilised NATO with at least two more armies in the battle line is in such a serious disadvantage.

For the map reading: A German L or even B does not teanslate to a highway. For highways which would mean Autobahn A or at least a much better built up Bundesstraße B. If you have never actually been to Germany it might be not the worst idea to listen to somebody who has spent his life in that country when it comes to roads. So I know how bad the roads on the eastern part in the 80s were and how good on the western part.

Sloreck sugar into the tank is an urban myth. Yes it can kill modern cars with highly sophisticated engines but a tank or truck engine of 1984 would simply ignore it.

And any decent preemptive (or immediate response) strike of the NATO would include a couple 1000 6 and 8 inch shells destroying the meagre road network on the western 15-20 km of the GDR meaning a lot of work for pioneers before anything that needs roads can move. Impossible in OTL due to surprise perfectly possible for any halfway intelligent halfway sober and not paid by WP General ITTL.
 

ferdi254

Banned
Lets examine those 15.000 tanks in the C and D divisions of the T 34/54 generation again.

Ok let‘s buy the assumption that they plus crew can get moved into the GDR fed for four weeks (handwavium as not even the WP thought that to be possible) who is driving them? 40 year old people who have last seen such a tank 20 years ago. If you want to give them at least basic training you will need to have them run 80 or so hours. That would mean a large part of the engines will be burnt up. Handwavium the spare parts and the mechanics appear.

What do you have now? A force of T 34/54 which has some basic training is run by the most incompetent noncomms and officers in the Red Army (who else would get positions in such units) is short on AA and Arty and has just a 3:1 superiority against tanks like a Leo 1. Plus being in the area for 2-4 weeks needing food and fuel NATO should know down to company level there those troops are and should have placed minefields accordingly.

NATO could even send some Leo 2s or similar to defend against those tanks as after 6 weeks of preparation ammunition should not be an issue anymore.

Anybody in this thread who‘d rather sit in one of of 4 of those T34 than in one Leo1 (let alone a Leo2) as a passenger?
 
Last edited:
ferdi254- The German Army was well known for its inssistance to defend as much territory as if could as far east as it could and it was not willing to give up territory. Units were expected to hold and counterattacks were to go in and stabilized the lines. As for Highways i have a higher rating for Autobahns they are the US equivalent of Interstates. Below that are highways two lane with asphalt and i hardly regard the road network in that area as meager. That area has a well developed road network also the Soviet might be incline to blast parts of the road network but not all of if, you kept on talking about needing roads to move supplies and the Soviets will destroy what they have to but not all if it. After all they will need those roads to move supplies forward.

I did not have hand wave the food supply away four trains of one hundred cars each and one train of twenty-eight cars carries the quantity of food you were talking about. The was no handwave. As for training they had some when trained originally and a bit more since then but these are attrition units and the Soviet Military give it troops the level of training they feel they need and no more. Cold and brutal but it was effective during world war two. Remember the leadership of the Soviet Army lived and breath the Great Patriotic War and what worked they believed would work now. Many of the senior officers serviced during the Great Patriotic War they have kept the same attitudes their leaders during that war had. Who else would propose sending troops into clouds of radioactive debris to maintain the offensive. These people were furious that Ogarkov had the guts and the balls to say things had changed. That technology and training were the future.
 

ferdi254

Banned
Farmer the US had tried to have troops move as fast as possible into nuclear explosions in the 50s and 60s, many people died of cancer because of this.

For the Lüchow salient there was never a plan to defend this IOTL. No troops in there and none had orders to go there.
 
Last edited:

ferdi254

Banned
One important point here. IOTL the plan of the WP was to have the attack troops have their own supplies at hand at charge. Then the next waves would charge each with own supplies.

The logistics of the WP troops was only intended to supply the survivors minus the looting of WP troops. The WP never intended to nor was able to supply more than 2 mio troops at any time for more than 14 days. And that included looting which would hardly take place here.

THAT WAS THE PLANNING OF THE WP.

Now you have 3.5 mio troops for 4 weeks needing to be fed and the WP can suddenly do it. Not only you have ITTL the WP could do more than worst case NATO scenarios thought ever possible but far more than the WP thought it was ever possible itself. And that was in a scenario with the GDR intact, Poland working and not whole Red Army mobilised.

And for the roads obviously you have never used than yourself so I can only repeat my comment from last time.
 
ferdi254- true but that does not change the fact that this was the plan for the Soviet Army long after those manuevers which showed the dangers of pulling such a stunt.

You seem to insist that prior to the war supplies could not be shipped from the Soviet Union to Germany while troops are being moved at the same time. If food supplies run short. Remember to all the senior officers who spent World War Two short of food through most of war. this will not phase them in the least. I have read enough history to know that what i am writing is feasible whether you like it or not.

As positioning of troops, I am writing the story and it will go the way i believe is possible. I could just as easily have written a bolt out of the blue scenario. But i wanted to do something different and i will keep on writing it just the way I have been. Period end of statement.
 

ferdi254

Banned
Farmer it was also the plan for NATO troops on the defense and it was the US army who until way into the nineties tried to hide from their responsibilities for those human as lab rats tests.

And as I already wrote and will repeat you can have the WP at the Rhine in 5 days but it will not stop me from commenting and you now have the WP doing things even the WP would never have thought possible.

That is not a question of what I like but a matter of fact.
 

ferdi254

Banned
Let us assume an even halfway decent planning on NATO side took place how would the first hour in such a conflict go, remember absolutely no surprise here for the WP.

All WP ships within striking reach of NATO ships (meaning all surface units in the Med and the Atlantic west of Kirkenes) will be sunk. If any subs in that area survive then only due to individual luck.

In the first two minutes the 8 roads which go into the FRG will get plastered with 8 inch shells so will need extensive repairs before they can be used by even tanks again. Within 5 minutes no bridge within 10 km of the innergerman border will be standing and those within 40 km will be destroyed by rocket artillery.

All those things would not have been possible IOTL but ITTL will unless NATO has stopped thinking at all.

Within one hour all headquarters of WP armies and divisions will be hit by cruise missiles (and even if the WP will disperse those it will hamper them seriously) and F117 will have knocked out the two roads and rail around Berlin (if not Arty within Berlin will take care of that) and the 5 roads the WP can use to move troops and supply to the northern front and the 3 roads for attacks from the southern GDR.

The WP cannot interdict the arty and has no defense against cruise missiles and F117, none at all save a lucky strike.

Then there are T34/54 with crews with meagre training commanded by the worst noncomms and officers of the Red Army attacking Leo 1s (who have been through extensive training the last weeks) in prepared defensive postions with the tactical and strategical supply gone, no proper support troops and CaC seriously damaged or reduced. This is just as senseful as the attacks of the French into German territory in 1914 and we know how that went.

How many T34 are needed to fight just one Leo 1 who is in a prepared and hull down position with 600 m of open ground before it? As a company commander with 14 tanks I might risk it but the Red Army has only 3:1. And in this scenario the lone Leo will have at least a platoon of infantry with ATR next to it and a minefield placed in front of it. So even 14:1 is not a given win.
 
ferdi254- I am not trying to stop you from posting, i am just treating your posts with the disdain they deserve. As for five days to the Rhine how dull would that be, to keep the readers interesting you must make the story interesting. You have no more idea of my story line than my friends cat.

One major problem with hitting all of the headquarters with cruise missile, the two primary types only came into service in 1983 and i seriously doubt that the quantity of cruise missile would be available. Also most of the Soviet headquarters would like as not be in bunkers and not particularly soft target. Only after the frontlines had move away from the initial starting positions will the headquarters come out of those bunkers and follow the troops. Also i believe at the time the land base cruise missiles were being built with Nuke warheads and not conventional warheads and so there would be even fewer available for use like you suggest. As for the Tomahawk i have less info on them but i seriously doubt that they existed in sufficient numbers to help much either.

You seem to miss the points of those divisions mobilized and using outdated equipment. They are to be used as concentrated sledgehammers of human and tank wave assaults or to tie up enemy units holding sections of the line that you will not be attacking on to allow the first line units to be used at the point of decision.

By the way the F-117 was also introduced in 1983, i doubt that more than a handful of F-117's were in duty at the time. Please know you data before talking it only took me a few minutes to make sure my memory was correct of what was and was not available at the time.
 
The problem with missiles, of any sort, is you don't know what the warheads are before they hit (could be conventional, chemical, or nuclear). The further behind the lines the missiles (ballistic or cruise) are going the more the pucker factor goes up. Within a very limited tactical zone its not going to be too much of an issue. Missiles going to the rear areas or even further (say anything more than 100-200 miles behind the FEBA) this becomes a real potential for a "use it or lose it" response. Sure aircraft could be carrying nukes (or chemicals) but it is very unlikely the first nukes will arrive via aircraft.
 

ferdi254

Banned
Farmer just 2 minutes with Google have at least 208 tomahawks stationed within Europe in 1984 (number in Germany not included) and if you doubt the F 117 was more than a handful both Tom Clancy and Wikipedia have it otherwise. And that does not include 8 weeks of additional hurried up readiness.

And using ad hominem attacks is just like using the Nazis in an internet discussion. Using facts would be more helpful to make a point.

And one of the major reasons the WP was worried about the cruise missiles was just the possibility of them to take out army headquarters.

208 cruise misseles mean 100 for key bridges and 108 for command centres. Plus how many in Germany plus how many due to speeding up?

And if against the FACTS you assume only 5 F117 had beed ready there were still only 5 roads to supply the northern front.

And Sloreck you are right using those CMs is a risk but the point of those was just that unless you got lucky the prewarning was just the boom at the impact. Second main reason the WP was so afraid of them.
 
Last edited:
ferdi254- You still don't get it those cruise missile were armed with Nukes since these were the weapons system designed to challenge Soviets upgrading their nuclear missiles systems. Using them would assure the immediate reaction of the Soviet Militaries nuclear weapons the in a very short very heavy nuclear attack using everything they had. Also sending in those five planes may not get you the response you want the Soviets had one of the best anti-aircraft defenses in the world. Also we are talking about one of the thickest. Once again you don't look deep enough at the situation. NATO as a whole would have a shit fit if you suggested using those cruise missiles in a first strike.
 
farmer12, ferdi254 seems to think that all of the front line defense units have batter weapons then the t-54, 55 tanks. some of these units ant tank resources can take out t-34s but may not be able to one shot a t- 54 or t-55, plus how long can even a m-60 last if the soviet sends in BTRs to soak up the antiarmor rounds in front of the tank units. sloreck even if the russains do not counterattack with nukes the warheads on these 208 cruise missiles is more then enough with the right winds to cause issues with even dug in units defending west germany.
 
terv- You hit the nail on the head, the sheer number of armored vehicle can be used to overrun a defense. Its not my idea of how to conduct and attack but it is very much a Soviet method to throw waves of troops and tanks against a position to take out a position. I remember reading of stories during World War two of German units holding out for a time against ten or fifteen to one assaults but in time the ammo runs out and so do the nerves of the troops under attack.

You also made a very good point about direction of the winds blowing east to west. I forgot all about it, then you when you mentioned it. Then i remembered a series about East German intelligence agents infiltrating the Bundeswehr and one of the Bundeswehr officers making just such a comment. Irradiating your own troops is not a good idea and is bad for moral.
 

ferdi254

Banned
I think I have made my point here mostly so I will add just a few points: Tomahawks were and are dual purpose and changing the warheads is a matter of hours not months. The prevailing wind in northern Germany is northwestern.
And it had already been calculated out the WP only enjoys 3:1 superiority in T 34/54 against Leo 1 or M 48. i can hardly see the problem with ammunition here AfAIR a Leo 1 was stuffed with more than 40 shots. There is no 10 or 15 to one here. 3:1 in tanks and 11:10 in overall troops are the facts. And once more why is 3:1 good enough to fight NATO troops while 3:1 the other way around is not good enough to fight WP troops?

And Terv according to Farmer those divisions come underequipped so where do you get the BTRs from?
 
Last edited:

ferdi254

Banned
And for those who think I have no idea what I am talking about just a short comparison of TTL to Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy (anybody claiming he got it all wrong?).

In RSR the USSR decides that due to economical reasons an attack on the NATO is needed. They set up a plan and over months systematically prepare the economy and the armies of the WP to deal a maximum blow. At the same time a nice Maskirowka is set up to keep the NATO peaceful.

In the end at the time of the attack the NATO just has 7 days to get into readiness against a maxed out ready WP including fully battle ready armies of the GDR and Poland. The WP even manages to occupy Iceland on the first day and thus has a perfect place to harass NATO convoys.

Compared to TTL the NATO is in a much worse situation and the WP in a way better. What is the outcome?

With a serious help of F117 (IOTL the whole combat wing was ready in 1984) the NATO stops the attacks of (after a few days undersupplied) WP troops. Hamburg, Hannover are not reached no breakthrough in Southern Germany happens and just one attack makes it to the Weser but gets cut off by a counterattack. Tidbit here in the final battle 2 platoons of M1s manage to fight off one C tank division.

In the end the CinC of the WP forces asks for an armistice and offers to withdraw behind the original borders.

Tom Clancy calculates the loss rate of the F117 at 1%.

So either Tom Clancy had it all wrong or I stay to my point that any WP unit getting further than 50 km into the FRG must be a combination of extreme luck on one side and stupidity on the other because that was what was needed in RSR for the one and only successful attack to make it this far.

Or why should a seriously worse off in all possible regards WP ITTL against a much better off in all regards NATO be more successful than in RSR?

With that question I rest my general case and will reduce my comments to factual corrections like the prevailing winds in Germany.
 
Last edited:
ferdi254= those cruise missiles are the backbone of the theater nuclear strike making it possible to respond to the use of the Soviet Nuclear weapons. After all the trouble they went through to get those missile into Europe they are not going to just change them to conventional warheads and give up backbone of theater nuclear strike force.
 

ferdi254

Banned
Farmer you have seen my last question.

Just to elaborate why do you think the WP will do better than in RSR?

Because of 6 months less preparations of the WP?

Because of 2 months more of preparation of the NATO?

Because of the NATO having 1 mio troops more on the battlefield?

Because the NATO troops having 2 months more of training?

Or because Tom Clancy having no idea what was going on (I‘d accept this as long as you‘d admit that both of you lack basic knowledge of the USSR economy)?

And just to get that sorted out the NATO had 15.000 nuclear warheads on the European theatre those 208 would not have made a big difference.
 
Top