Warsaw Pact invades NATO in winter of 1985?

What would happen if the Warsaw Pact launched a surprise attack in the middle of winter in 1985, gambling that NATO would not expect them to attack in winter? Since the winter of that year was unusually cold, how would that affect logistics, since diesel fuel freezes in winter? Were NATO conventional forces strong enough to keep the Reds to the east of the Weser without resorting to nukes, what is the state of SOUTAG forces like the Italians, Greeks, Turks, and the Spanish Navy at this period?
 
pic128065.jpg


1375759.jpg
 
Battlefield Nukes fly, followed shortly after Strategic.

Why?
all Warsaw Pact plans included Chemical Attacks in the first strike, and per US Policy, a WMD is a WMD is a WMD. So ADMs are blown in front of Pact forces, 8" shells are fired and the Lance missiles fly. As soon as that happens, the USN attack subs get the word to whack each Soviet Boomer they had been ordered to trail at all times, and to use the vertical launch Tomahawks at Soviet Ports

WWIII, nobody wins that in the '80s
 
Sir Johns book 'and protest letter' is excellent (it ran on the assumption that NATO rearmed from 1979 - 85) and it does end in a limited nuclear exchange

Harold Coyles also excellent Team Yankee written later than Sir Johns book explores the exploites of a company tank/infantry 'team' set in Sir Johns WW3 'universe'.

So this question has been extensively answered by both one of the men in charge of NATO around this time and a Tank company commander in the US Army at the time.

I had a second hand copy of Sir Johns book which I read so many times in the 90s and noughties that it literally disintergrated.
 
Battlefield Nukes fly, followed shortly after Strategic.

Why?
all Warsaw Pact plans included Chemical Attacks in the first strike, and per US Policy, a WMD is a WMD is a WMD. So ADMs are blown in front of Pact forces, 8" shells are fired and the Lance missiles fly. As soon as that happens, the USN attack subs get the word to whack each Soviet Boomer they had been ordered to trail at all times, and to use the vertical launch Tomahawks at Soviet Ports

WWIII, nobody wins that in the '80s

The U.S. response to a chemical attack would have been to respond with chemical weapons of its own. The U.S. didn't take them out of its arsenal until the early 90s and the CWC wasn't ratified until 1993.
 
The U.S. response to a chemical attack would have been to respond with chemical weapons of its own. The U.S. didn't take them out of its arsenal until the early 90s and the CWC wasn't ratified until 1993.
No, there never was a policy of Chemical for Chemical, Nuke for Nuke only.

There was two plans, Conventional and full on NBC, though the US only had N and C after Nixon shutdown the B in November, 1969
 
The U.S. response to a chemical attack would have been to respond with chemical weapons of its own. The U.S. didn't take them out of its arsenal until the early 90s and the CWC wasn't ratified until 1993.

There was this small matter called 'The British Armed forces' who did not posses any Chemical weapon ability from 1956 when CDE Nancekuke was mothballed. For them a Chemical weapon was a Biological weapon was a Nuclear weapon and so because they had none of the first 2 they would respond with a nuclear weapon in retaliation to any NBC attack.

And had repeatidly made this clear by leaking the results of cabinate war games
 
Yes maybe in the early 70s! But weren't the L60s basically sorted by the 80s?

Granted still underpowered

I believe the final production variant had an entirely new engine, and these must have been available in 1985

But I'm no expert on this at all, just going on the stories I've heard.
 
Yes same. I once read an account on ARRSE about LEO 1 powerpacks lasting half as long as the later L60s

Although I understand that the Leo 1 powerpack could be replaced very quickly
 
No, there never was a policy of Chemical for Chemical, Nuke for Nuke only.

There was two plans, Conventional and full on NBC, though the US only had N and C after Nixon shutdown the B in November, 1969
British policy is still said to be that the answer to a chemical, biological or nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon. This makes Russian actions in Salisbury incredibly reckless, Back to the point though a bolt from the blue attack is going to be answered with nuclear weapons whether the Soviets use N.B.C. weapons or not. There's no other way to resist the attack. Nato is at peacetime manning levels in Europe, the reserves aren't mobilised and this has to be dine in the chaos of war before the Soviets reach the Rhine, there are no convoys ready to reinforce Europe and there's no time. Nukes are the only faint hope.
 
It's 50/50 who wins the conventional war, assuming things stay conventional long enough for that to be decided. But as already pointed out, who wins the conventional war doesn't really matter because nukes.
 
It's 50/50 who wins the conventional war, assuming things stay conventional long enough for that to be decided. But as already pointed out, who wins the conventional war doesn't really matter because nukes.

And since we've discovered that EVERY Soviet plan for an attack on NATO called for a massive nuclear attack, both in Europe and upon the USA, at the START of hostilities...
 
And since we've discovered that EVERY Soviet plan for an attack on NATO called for a massive nuclear attack,

Erm… that is incorrect. While there are many Soviet plans that called for massive nuclear attacks from the go, there were also many that were devoid of any nuclear use at all or had the use of nukes as optionals. Soviet nuclear doctrine until the late-80's focused on using nuclear weapons to safeguard their conventional superiority, so even many of the nuclear use plans usually envisioned as pre-empting or retaliating against NATO nuclear use.

All known Soviet warplans and exercises were setup with variations on two premises:
1. NATO managed to launch an assault with a reasonable element of surprise that establishes NATO conventional superiority and/or launched a nuclear first strike, so after NATO attack there is no other choice than to deploy nukes to break NATO momentum.
2. NATO preparations were discovered before they managed to commence with the attack, so a conventional assault is launched in a pre-emptive strike. Usage of nuclear weapons in that case depended on how the war further developed.

The nightmare scenario (for NATO) was that the Soviets would decide one day for some reason to launch an aggressive war, using one of the pre-emptive strike plans as a quick template. In other words, the fear was that of a sudden change in Soviet intentions, since Soviet capabilities supported a potential offensive war until the late-80s.

Following that was also the more reasonable and somewhat less implausible fear of the Soviets miscalculating during a crisis and ordering the implementation of a pre-emptive strike plan out of the mistaken belief that NATO was about to hit them first.
 
And since we've discovered that EVERY Soviet plan for an attack on NATO called for a massive nuclear attack, both in Europe and upon the USA, at the START of hostilities...
That is simply not true. No one has seen such war plans.
Hypothetical Polish and Czechoslovak plans have been leaked while Soviet generals have talked. Yet no Soviet war plans have ever been seen.
 
And since we've discovered that EVERY Soviet plan for an attack on NATO called for a massive nuclear attack, both in Europe and upon the USA, at the START of hostilities...

Untrue, US intelligence indicated that Soviet wished to avoid an nuclear opening salvos since the late 60s.
 
I personally think that a nuclear war is so boring in AH terms that people are trying in every possible way to outinvent nuclear weapons. No, nukes were not like gas in WWII, a niche capability at best, but an integral part of the NATO and WP defense establishment, where most of the money and most of the interest went. Conventional capabilities were a sidekick.

Especially as a First Strike is the only way in which you can in any possible way "win" a nuclear war. Of course we can think of a historical counter-example, the battle fleets of the First World War and how marginally they were used instead of the widely expected immediate deathmatch.

Even a conventional war in Europe might well include use of nuclear weapons at sea from the outset, both by US forces trying to sink Soviet boomers and Soviet Fleet defending the SSBN bastions against USN/RN submarines, and then by Soviet forces trying to attack US CVBG's.
 
Top