Warsaw Pact attempts quick, limited war in early 70s. Results?

The Soviets would probably the ones starting the use of nuclear weapons, which was visible in their exercises and plans.
it was visible in both. both knew they would be used as each side had them. the question is at what level. tactical battlefield or city busters launch them or loose them. once you start using them on the battlefield no one is going to think either side is going to refrain from the rest. so the matter goes from fools errand to a very bleak week for mankind.

scenario 1. Soviets look to be winning, the british and French and US forces will launch..
if it looks like the west is going to win and there can be no negotiated hey .. oops .. our bad type peace, then the Soviets are going to launch.

let's say it stays conventional just for giggles. the Soviets make it to Frankfurt while the west is building up and throwing everything into a defensive line from Denmark to the alps.

this line is going to buckle a little. the second West Germany falls things are going to get ugly very quick. do we refrain from bombing enemy cities and factories with conventional ordinance? what do the soviets do when a mass of bombers cross the border, how do you know what is in the bomb bay?

do the soviets attempt to strike US soil with bombers and conventional bombs? how does the US know what is coming.


This is reason number 1 why the two sides never went head to head. no one could or can know. the closest they got was cuba and that was about 40 seconds from being very stupid. both sides while not friends, are in no way looking to sacrifice themselves.

So as I said earlier, This would be an all in act of desperation by the soviets. The whim of a General staff that has gone off the deep end.

I also have to question the Loyalty of non-ussr eastern block states, as I think the whole house of cards would come down if such a thing was attempted in reality. the memories of WWII are still quite fresh and now for a third time in 60 years Europe is in flames and this time bound to glow in the dark.

Cuba was the last time that East West was going to nuke each other into oblivion on purpose, and they chickened out there since well.. Moscow for Havana or DC for what?! the logic doesn't exist to support it.
 
Let us understand the conventional strategy of NATO. To delay in depth the advance of GSFG and allies whilst counter attack forces arrive. The Soviet follow up forces to continue the advance have to cross Poland, East Germany and the western Soviet Union. This is where the air interdiction combined with local destruction of the rail network and road bridges in Poland is basically attacking a huge traffic jam as newer reserve Soviet forces run into the back of the delayed predecessors.

What NATO has to do is retain control of the North Atlantic and win the battle for air superiority over Poland. A quick attack with GSFG alone will just isolate the GSFG faster. Behind the scenes are certain links with NVA and Polish Unions etc. Pulling in Soviet reinforcements from Czechoslovakia and Hungary leaves their own armies free from Soviet force which may not be a good thing from the Soviet point of view.

Make no mistake. GSFG was a strong and able force. Generally well equipped but weak in logistics. A classic 'cavalry' army which can run amok for a limited period and distance. Without a follow up force and supplies it will suffer irremediable attrition and does not have the flexibility to combine weakened units into new fewer large ones. IIRC a Soviet unit was considered viable in it's own right until it fell below 35% of it's original size (it was a long time ago).
 
Top