Wasn't it French policy to unconditionally let loose their nuclear arsenal if the Soviets entered French territory?
Looks more like everyone loses.
Last edited:
Warsaw Pact invasion routes?
- Thread starter Top hats daily
- Start date
Wasn't it French policy to unconditionally let loose their nuclear arsenal if the Soviets entered French territory?
Looks more like everyone loses.
Dayton Kitchens
Banned
Note in the World War 3 The Movie that you can see now on YouTube, it is told documentary style with people (including Soviet generals) apparently being interviewed after the war.
So though at the very end both sides launch nuclear weapons it is obvious that the world pretty much survives the war even with millions of fatalities.
I like the "different take" on the war because the all important "Battle of the Atlantic" actually occurrs at the very beginning of the war with a huge one day conflict basically deciding everything at sea. The Soviets wipe out one quarter of the U.S. convoys to Europe while in response the U.S. and British naval forces annihilate the Soviet naval forces.
If one wants to suggest how the world survives the nuclear conflict, one might suggest that the half hazard Soviet command and control referred to results in the U.S. taking our the vast majority of the Soviet nuclear forces on the ground.
In this kind of scenario the west (and the Soviets) might actually survive.
So though at the very end both sides launch nuclear weapons it is obvious that the world pretty much survives the war even with millions of fatalities.
I like the "different take" on the war because the all important "Battle of the Atlantic" actually occurrs at the very beginning of the war with a huge one day conflict basically deciding everything at sea. The Soviets wipe out one quarter of the U.S. convoys to Europe while in response the U.S. and British naval forces annihilate the Soviet naval forces.
If one wants to suggest how the world survives the nuclear conflict, one might suggest that the half hazard Soviet command and control referred to results in the U.S. taking our the vast majority of the Soviet nuclear forces on the ground.
In this kind of scenario the west (and the Soviets) might actually survive.
Nah, they'd be dead as well. The only winners would be the cockroaches.
No there plan was to drop one or two nukes on Red Army units on the Rhine and if the Red Army didn't stop then they'd fire everything off.
Kongzilla
Banned
Is there a way to keep this purely conventional, apart from small scale nuclear strikes against Airfields and what not.
I also doubt the WP would open up a front in Scandinavia, it seems like Norway might be a little bit iffy about getting involved in another World War. I wonder how many neutral nations would edge closer to one side or the other during the months leading up to the Conflict.
I also doubt the WP would open up a front in Scandinavia, it seems like Norway might be a little bit iffy about getting involved in another World War. I wonder how many neutral nations would edge closer to one side or the other during the months leading up to the Conflict.
Last edited:
In the very short term there would be no reason. If you accept a war that lasts more than 10 days a lightning strike that takes Norway is hugely helpful to the Soviets. The addition of Norwegian airfields allows the Red Banner Fleet sub force a more or less uncontested trip all the way to the North Sea. It would greatly reduce the effectiveness of the SOSUS line between Iceland and the UK and would effectively take the Iceland airbases out of the war as a reasonable launching point for ASW as well as AEW and AWACS. It would exponentially increase the challenges faced by the USN in its efforts to strike at the Kola Peninsula, as well as putting the far northern portions of the UK within range of tactical non-nuclear strike by aircraft like the Su-24 and the MiG-27.
Dayton Kitchens
Banned
The Soviets attacking Norway actually makes a load of sense.
Because it allows the real strength of the Soviet military (the army) to help compensate for the weakness of the Soviet military (the navy).
As long as the Soviets hold northern Norway and can base combat aircraft there then it basically keeps the U.S. Navy from driving straight to the Kola peninsula and pummeling Soviet territory.
Because it allows the real strength of the Soviet military (the army) to help compensate for the weakness of the Soviet military (the navy).
As long as the Soviets hold northern Norway and can base combat aircraft there then it basically keeps the U.S. Navy from driving straight to the Kola peninsula and pummeling Soviet territory.
They would have to capture at least central Norway for it to be any kind of launching base.
I think a capture of Svalbard would actually be of more benefit. Not like the West Allies would defend it.
Dayton Kitchens
Banned
At the very least you could base Forgers further south and use them as well as large, long range SAMs to disrupt NATO aircraft movements.
Not to mention, you could use Forgers and a SAM umbrella to provide cover to move Soviet surface surface striking grounps south along the coast where they could launch quick cruise missile strikes against U.S. forces moving to attack the Kola.
Kongzilla
Banned
Could the Norwegians stop them, Would the Swedes provide volunteers like during the Winter War. Finland probably wouldn't because they are bordering the SU and would be overrun in a couple of days. But if there is a one week warning period how fast could the Scandinavian countries build up their forces.
I also don't think the Best troops would be used for the invasion since they will all be fighting in Germany.
I also don't think the Best troops would be used for the invasion since they will all be fighting in Germany.
UrbanRedneck
Banned
Do you think 3rd columnists or communists on the western side or Soviet agents could have caused many poblems? Ex. giving out codes. Sabotage of key facilities.
Well, its not like Red Stor Rising the game were Norway always stop Soviets at Narvik(IRL Soviets would say: Hey, screw the neutrals, lets go into Sweden and around the defenders at Narvik)
That depends whether the USSR attacks a resisting Finland or comes to terms with a compliant Finland.
In any scenario where the deterioration of the East-West relations toward war takes several weeks, the Soviets would be leaning heavily on the Finns to become a de facto part of the WP. They would use the Finno-Soviet FCMA Treaty as the leverage, saying for example that if war breaks out between WP and NATO, NATO will likely use Finland as an invasion route towards North-Western USSR, via Norway or through the Baltic. Therefore, per the treaty, Finland would have to at the very least mobilize to protect its own territorial integrity. And Finland would have to negotiate with the Soviets for possible Soviet help to defend itself.
As the Soviet military planners were of the opinion that Finland will not be able to protect itself from NATO incursions by itself, the USSR would start pressuring the Finns to allow it usage of Finnish airspace, territorial waters and territory, probably in this order. NATO aircraft would menace Kola, Soviet Karelia, Leningrad and beyond by flying directly over Finnish airspace: trying to stop that would be the first order of business. So demand access to, and then control of, the Finnish military and civilian radar network. Allow overflight by Soviet aircraft, then the permission to land in Finnish airfields, then to use some of them as bases.
If these demands would yield concrete results, the Soviets would forge on with more issues on their agenda. Demand to allow the Red Navy to enter Finnish territorial waters and then to use Finnish navy bases for support. And finally, demand to allow the Soviet army to enter Finnish Lapland to counter a projected NATO attack from Norway towards Kola.
How the Finns deal with these demands politically would seal the fate of Finland in an actual war. If the Finnish government caves in to Soviet demands early, the USSR would not need to "overrun" Finland at all, it would just take control of those parts of the Finnish defence it deems expedient peacefully and the Finnish Defence Forces would have to comply. And in this case, NATO would write Finland off and consider it WP for all intents and purposes.
If the Finnish government stalls and/or resists these Soviet demands, the situation would get hairy. Sooner or later, as war creeps closer, and Finns keep rebuffing demands, the Soviets would have to act aggressively. Say, the Finns would have to decide whether to fire upon Soviet aircraft entering daily into Finnish airspace or to look away. And what do with Soviet naval units encroaching into Finnish waters. And sooner or later, Soviet divisions would cross into Lapland to attack towards Norway and Sweden.
In the 70s - early 80s there was, AFAIK, some talk among the Finnish military planners that Lapland would be abandoned in such a scenario: Finland had no way to protect it from a Soviet and/or NATO attack while also trying to defend southern Finland.
Apart from the needs of air defence, Southern Finland would be of secondary importance to the USSR, as long as it looks like Finland is trying to maintain neutrality also towards the west. So an actual Soviet attack to take over Helsinki and the rest of southern Finland would be pretty down in the list of Soviet needs in the Finnish direction, in the initial days and even weeks.
It would of course be of help for a possible amphibious attack against Sweden if Soviet forces control southern Finland, but as such an attack could be based out of the Baltic states more easily and the Red Navy could neutralize the Finnish fleet southern Finland could be bypassed. Unless, of course, there are clear indications that Sweden has gone fully NATO and an imminent attack towards Finland over the Baltic is expected in turn. But that, I think, would be considered pretty unlikely.
Last edited:
Probably in whatever afterlife there might be, yeah. Or those interviews occurred in Brazil and Indonesia.
Well yeah the world would survive, that is a given. That the United States, Soviet Union, and nations of Europe would survive in a 25,000 warhead exchange is laughable
One of the most flawed parts of the documentary. The very nature of the Soviet approach to naval warfare most certainly means it would certainly not be decided in one day.
The Soviet system of command and control over their Strategic Rocket Forces and missile submarines was consistently reliable throughout the Cold War, thank-you-very-much.
Only in the minds of the more paranoid right-wingers in the West. Now Soviet spetznatz infiltrated into Germany on the other hand...
**kinda going off on a tangent***
A lot of the discussion going on here was the topic of many a book and game in the 80s. One of the first to discuss a general war in Europe was a two book set by General Sir John Hackett. War in Scandinavia? He covers it. War in central Europe? The main focus of the book. The war is mostly non-nuclear (two are eventually used, on what is pretty much the last day of the war).
One of my favorite series of board war games is GDW's "Third World War" 4-game set, in which the maps from all 4 can be fitted together, and you could game out WW3 from northern Norway to the Persian Gulf...
A lot of the discussion going on here was the topic of many a book and game in the 80s. One of the first to discuss a general war in Europe was a two book set by General Sir John Hackett. War in Scandinavia? He covers it. War in central Europe? The main focus of the book. The war is mostly non-nuclear (two are eventually used, on what is pretty much the last day of the war).
One of my favorite series of board war games is GDW's "Third World War" 4-game set, in which the maps from all 4 can be fitted together, and you could game out WW3 from northern Norway to the Persian Gulf...
Dayton Kitchens
Banned
The Soviet system of command and control over their Strategic Rocket Forces and missile submarines was consistently reliable throughout the Cold War, thank-you-very-much.
Prove it.
The Soviets didn't even have anything remotely equivalent to the "nuclear football" until the late 1980s (according to sources later published in Military History Quarterly).
Dayton Kitchens
Banned
Look up The Third World War: The Untold Story on YouTube and you can get a couple of nice videos made about the "war".
Note, while old version gives a death toll of "90 million" killed (YIKES) I've done death toll estimates for years regarding World War Three (largely nonnuclear) scenarios and I figured the Sir John Hackett scenario kills around 6 million people give or take.
The Tom Clancy "Red Storm Rising" scenario (no nuclear weapons, no chemical weapons, no spillover conflicts) probably results in about 3 million killed give or take.