The Third World War: Who Would Win?

Who would win WWIII (before it turns nuclear)?

  • NATO

    Votes: 40 44.4%
  • Warsaw Pact

    Votes: 15 16.7%
  • Depends

    Votes: 35 38.9%

  • Total voters
    90

James G

Gone Fishin'
The real problem with the Original Post is what others have pointed out: We don't know when this war is supposed to take place. And that makes a big difference. World War III plays out differently in 1955, 1975, and 1985.

Erm... but he has. It says in the unedited first post 1973.
 
Didn't realize Ace did the poll post, too.

But yeah - in 1973: No contest. The Soviets reach the Rhine, and only splitting atoms will stop them.

Now, how long does NATO have? Besides, I have pointed out prior: the war IS CERTAINLY going nuclear, but I am referring to a conventional war beforehand. So, how long does humanity have?

Let me rephrase that: how long until NATO is forced to obliterate the Soviet forces in Germany?
 
Last edited:
Now, how long does NATO have? Besides, I have pointed out prior: the war IS CERTAINLY going nuclear, but I am referring to a conventional war beforehand. So, how long does humanity have?

Let me rephrase that: how long until NATO is forced to obliterate the Soviet forces in Germany?

I think @ObsessedNuker is mainly in the right: With lucky breaks, or a NATO spoiler attack in the air (the sort of thing that not only creates at least daytime air superiority, but might knock out most of the Elbe bridges), maybe they can hold them off for a few weeks. But probably on all odds less than that. Maybe 10-14 days.

NATO's precision guided munitions and technological edge in the air simply won't be enough to fully offset superior Soviet numbers and doctrine. The Soviets also have better tanks, better artillery - and NATO doesn't have the profusion of quality anti-tank weapons it would start getting with the Dragon in 1975, let alone the other big ticket weapons systems that were deployed later. The Soviets will pay a higher price in blood and fuel and munitions expenditures than they planned, but they'll get to the Rhine.

I think the 70's are one of the worst times of the entire Cold War for the West to fight the Soviets in Central Europe. More to the point: I think there's a fairly broad consensus on that today, with the quibbles being over the details of how NATO would lose, and the casualties for both. It's striking to me, in fact, that the skepticism of NATO's chances was shared at the time, even deep into the 80s - read Carl Builder's 1989 RAND study, for example - it reads somewhat excessively pessimistic now (though many of its criticisms of US military culture were valid), but it's noteworthy what the expectations were back then.
 
Now, how long does NATO have? Besides, I have pointed out prior: the war IS CERTAINLY going nuclear, but I am referring to a conventional war beforehand. So, how long does humanity have?

Let me rephrase that: how long until NATO is forced to obliterate the Soviet forces in Germany?

At the earliest? It could be literally day 1 of the war. At the latest? We're looking at a month max. In most cases? Probably 1-2 weeks.

EDIT: Heh, ninja'd.
 
I think @ObsessedNuker is mainly in the right: With lucky breaks, or a NATO spoiler attack in the air (the sort of thing that not only creates at least daytime air superiority, but might knock out most of the Elbe bridges), maybe they can hold them off for a few weeks. But probably on all odds less than that. Maybe 10-14 days.

NATO's precision guided munitions and technological edge in the air simply won't be enough to fully offset superior Soviet numbers and doctrine. The Soviets also have better tanks, better artillery - and NATO doesn't have the profusion of quality anti-tank weapons it would start getting with the Dragon in 1975, let alone the other big ticket weapons systems that were deployed later. The Soviets will pay a higher price in blood and fuel and munitions expenditures than they planned, but they'll get to the Rhine.

I think the 70's are one of the worst times of the entire Cold War for the West to fight the Soviets in Central Europe. More to the point: I think there's a fairly broad consensus on that today, with the quibbles being over the details of how NATO would lose, and the casualties for both. It's striking to me, in fact, that the skepticism of NATO's chances was shared at the time, even deep into the 80s - read Carl Builder's 1989 RAND study, for example - it reads somewhat excessively pessimistic now (though many of its criticisms of US military culture were valid), but it's noteworthy what the expectations were back then.
This is what I mean, I did not know about air capacity and armor, so I am going to agree with this.
 
I think @ObsessedNuker is mainly in the right: With lucky breaks, or a NATO spoiler attack in the air (the sort of thing that not only creates at least daytime air superiority, but might knock out most of the Elbe bridges), maybe they can hold them off for a few weeks. But probably on all odds less than that. Maybe 10-14 days.

NATO's precision guided munitions and technological edge in the air simply won't be enough to fully offset superior Soviet numbers and doctrine. The Soviets also have better tanks, better artillery - and NATO doesn't have the profusion of quality anti-tank weapons it would start getting with the Dragon in 1975, let alone the other big ticket weapons systems that were deployed later. The Soviets will pay a higher price in blood and fuel and munitions expenditures than they planned, but they'll get to the Rhine.

I think the 70's are one of the worst times of the entire Cold War for the West to fight the Soviets in Central Europe. More to the point: I think there's a fairly broad consensus on that today, with the quibbles being over the details of how NATO would lose, and the casualties for both. It's striking to me, in fact, that the skepticism of NATO's chances was shared at the time, even deep into the 80s - read Carl Builder's 1989 RAND study, for example - it reads somewhat excessively pessimistic now (though many of its criticisms of US military culture were valid), but it's noteworthy what the expectations were back then.

Oh my......*gulps* Well, NATO is officially doomed. Time to come up with a good title for this timeline.
 
This is what I mean, I did not know about air capacity and armor, so I am going to agree with this.

The M60 (they were still A1's at that point, not A2's or A3's) was a good tank, but not a match for the T-64's* the 3rd Red Banner Army would be throwing at them. The same could be said for armored personnel carriers. And the U.S. had not begun deploying TOW missiles into Germany yet - I think it was all AGM-22's. Just don't think it would have been enough to stop 'em, and my sense is that NATO commanders of the day did not think so, either.

Think about this: after the Czechoslovak incursion of 1968, the Soviets maintained 31(!) Category 1 divisions (out of 43 total) in Eastern Europe, most of them (and all the best ones) with the Group of Soviet Forces Germany. U.S. forces in Germany (such as they were) meanwhile were well below their assigned strength (Gen. Michael Davison, commander of US 7th Army, confidentially complained** at the end of 1971 that Vietnam had "destroyed" the 7th Army, severely cutting into trained junior officers and NCO's (Quote: "The result was total chaos in morale, discipline and readiness"); that had hardly even begun to be addressed two years later). They outnumbered NATO in both tanks and artillery 2 to 1. And so on.

--
*I can't confirm whether any T-72's had been deployed yet to East Germany in October 1973. If they had any number deployed, that would only make things worse for NATO.
** That handbook gives a longer breakdown of just how bad the disparity was in Germany in the early 70's.
 
Last edited:
Oh my......*gulps* Well, NATO is officially doomed. Time to come up with a good title for this timeline.

I think a Yom Kippur crisis which goes "hot" would be very, very fascinating to read. (Has anyone done a timeline?) But I think the real action would be mostly outside Germany. The Soviets follow through on trying to deploy forces to the Arab states - what does Nixon do? What do the Israelis do? Nixon was badly distracted by Watergate at that point, and Kissinger largely managed the crisis.

And given that Kissinger and Nixon are going to be told by their commanders just how bad a war in Germany would be for NATO, I imagine they'd make every effort to force a back down by Brezhnev - or end up going nuclear very quickly.

But it would be a neat timeline to see done in some form, if not the one you had in mind.
 
I think a Yom Kippur crisis which goes "hot" would be very, very fascinating to read. (Has anyone done a timeline?) But I think the real action would be mostly outside Germany. The Soviets follow through on trying to deploy forces to the Arab states - what does Nixon do? What do the Israelis do? Nixon was badly distracted by Watergate at that point, and Kissinger largely managed the crisis.

And given that Kissinger and Nixon are going to be told by their commanders just how bad a war in Germany would be for NATO, I imagine they'd make every effort to force a back down by Brezhnev - or end up going nuclear very quickly.

But it would be a neat timeline to see done in some form, if not the one you had in mind.

I concur. So, should we add a Middle Eastern front to our little scenario? And what would the difference be between the Middle Eastern Front and the European one...at least until nuclear fire rains from the sky, that is?
 
Top