The Soviets invade

An all out attack by the Warsaw Pact of NATO, not necessarily using chemical/biological weapons, without any kind of hinsight on NATOs side, could probably succeed in taking Western Germany in the early-mid 1970s. In the 1980s, with the introduction of new weapons among NATO countries, it became more difficult to achieve such a goal.
The whole thing could of course escalate and lead to an all out nuclear war.

I have another question however:

Let's say the Soviets tried attacking Western Germany and failed in achieving a breakthrough. They were stopped beyond the Fulda Gap, never made it to Frankfurt and merely managed to take Hamburg in the North + Schleswig Holstein + Denmark. In the Southern Front Greece was overrun, while Turkey decided to go neutral.
This "limited victory" scenario is very plausible if the Soviets did strike with little warning on NATOs side, they could simply outnumber NATO troops and advance withing Western Germany for the first couple of weeks, until the Americans came to the rescue.
Did NATO have the power to strike back and advance inside Eastern Europe?
Would NATO do it or stand back, concerned about the possibility of the Soviets using nukes on them?
How well could the Soviets motivate their Eastern Europe colleagues to fight against NATO, even after this first setback?
What would the correct timing be to try such an attack?

It appears to me, that disappointment and the desire to stand up against the Soviets inside the Warsaw Pact countries was mainly evident in the 80s. Surely there were times in the 60s and 70s, when Eastern Europeans stood up, but the main breach came later.

What would the Soviets have to lose by gambling like that?
If NATO did indeed try to counterattack, they may have been gambling to try it in order to cause a general uprise inside the Warsaw Pact. This would however mean they would actually have to try to capture areas of Eastern European countries.
With fresh Soviet reinforcements, maybe the Soviets stood a chance to smash such an offensive and then reattack?
In the end who would lose the most?
 
Your real problem is prior to 82' the standard NATO doctrine called for liberal use of TacNukes to stop/delay Pact spearheads, Until the US could surge enough troops across to counter-attack. Also Nato Air was far superior to the Pact by 72 as were the Navies. Any attack is far from a walkover on land as most NATO equipment was equal to the Pacts , This would include Leo I, M-60,AH-1,M-109,etc. The sad truth is all you would achieve is a Nuclear wasteland per doctrine and escalating from there.
 

Ak-84

Banned
You have been reading too many Tom Clancy novels. Besides nukes there was little way for NATO to stop the Russians, they were backed up pretty much to Moscow. W germany had very little strategic depth, the first real defendable place was the Rhine.

Having slightly better weapons in no way compansate for the inherent disadvantages faced by NATO.
 
Although I do understand NATO doctrine called for use of tactical nuclear weapons to stop the Soviets, is it certain that those weapons would be deployed in OTL.

Could Germany persuade the US not to deploy nukes in their country, as long as the Soviets didn't start using nukes.

I imagine one reason why NATO decided to use nukes to stop the Soviets before they US reinforcements arrived, was that Soviet doctrine called for chemical+biological weapons.

If however the Soviets make perfectly clear, that they won't use those weapons, maybe NATO won't use those weapons after all.

I guess what we need here is the right mix of politicians sitting in the chairs of Presidents and Prime Mininsters in NATO countries, which would not allow tactical nukes to be used, unless the Soviets started firing.
Furthermore we need the message to be delivered from the Soviets to NATO, that this is to be a non-nuclear war.


After all the walk from tactical to strategic nuclear weapons is not very far.
 

Ak-84

Banned
Strategic depth. Look at a map of the country: W Germany that is. The first real defendable obstacle is the Rhine, unfortuantly if the Soviet reach there they have taken over most of Germany. Including it industrial area. Soviets are backed up pretty much till Moscow. NATO needs US forces to deploy from the states (they had a field army in Germany and a field army plus would deploy). There is really no way to stop the Russians without use of nukes, at least to stop them from overrunning half of germany at the least, even if it was possible to stop the Russians conventionally (which it was unlikely), the sheer momentum of an armoured thrust can take it up to 80 km before being halted (the Bulge being an example). 80 KM advance; pretty damn far inside Germany.
 
Top