Warsaw Pact invasion routes?

Well, for a start, Iran wasn't still under the Shah in OTL's 1985. ;)



Well, in IOTL, Soviet personnel quality and maintnence standards had been declined too the point where a NATO victory in the conventional phase of the war becomes not just possible, but likely.

It will be murderously bloody though, even if they find the pixie dust to keep it conventional.



600-900 million world wide inside of six months, depending on the details. ;)

In terms of the conventional conflict, I actually would go with Hackett's numbers given the aforementioned problems the Warsaw Pact was suffering by then.

For the 79-83 time frame, I would say 1.5 times more with somewhat greater NATO casualties and somewhat lesser Warsaw Pact casualties. '83-'87 time frame I would say twice as many total dead, although how I would distribute them I am unsure.



So something they had no expectation of happening at all. Especially since even once the intel is apparent, much of NATO can't actually do all that much until the individual member states agree.

.

What I should've said was "actionable intel". That is NATO learns of Soviet intentions sufficiently for comprehensive action to be taken by the alliance.

So you would go:

Hackett scenario in the 1989-1991 timeframe. 7.5 million killed total in a brief war.

Hackett scenario in the 1979-1983 time frame. 11-12 million killed in a brief war.

Hackett scenario in the 1983-1987 time frame. 15 million killed in a brief war.

And by the way, regarding the Shah of Iran, in his "sequel" which basically updated the original, Hackett accounted for the Shah of Iran falling from power, Egypt continuing to be allied to the United States, and Jimmy Carter not being elected for a second term. He made oblique reference to both Reagan (not named outright) and Thatcher (called by a different name) in "The Third World War: The Untold Story".
 
What would the invasion routes be to take the Bosphorus? Would it be a land invasion from Bulgaria through Greece and Turkish Europe, the Black Sea fleet conducting an amphibious operation or some combination?
 
Both, in all likelihood: a ground attack out of Thrace, and an amphib attack by the Soviet Black Sea Fleet. The ground attack with Bulgarians and probably the Soviet 19th Army, and the amphib by the Black Sea Fleet Marine Brigade.
 
Both, in all likelihood: a ground attack out of Thrace, and an amphib attack by the Soviet Black Sea Fleet. The ground attack with Bulgarians and probably the Soviet 19th Army, and the amphib by the Black Sea Fleet Marine Brigade.

In "The War That Never Was" by Michael A. Palmer, most of the effort to take the Bosphorous was by a Soviet led land attack.

Most of the Soviet Black Sea fleet was annihilated in battle with the U.S., Israeli, British and other allied navies in the Eastern Med in the first few days of the war.
 

Kongzilla

Banned
Even if the Red Navy gets wiped out coudn't they enact a heavy toll on NATO forces. I mean even a single Tactical nuclear weapons could damage at least a dozen ships.
 
Even if the Red Navy gets wiped out coudn't they enact a heavy toll on NATO forces. I mean even a single Tactical nuclear weapons could damage at least a dozen ships.

"The War That Never Was" was like "The Third World War: The Untold Story", and "Red Storm Rising" fought without nuclear weapons.

Tactical nuclear weapons would be of limited used against large naval forces as modern naval forces tend to have several miles between their ships and would have even more if nuclear war threatened.
 
Yes, and the only complaint that I had with that book was that there was so much attention devoted to the peripheries, and not much about the Central Front.
 
Yes, and the only complaint that I had with that book was that there was so much attention devoted to the peripheries, and not much about the Central Front.

This was deliberate from what I had read. Because

1) Michael A. Palmer is largely a naval warfare expert.

2) He believed that the land war on the central front (West Germany) had been focused on by many authors already.

Personally, I found some of the conflicts in "The War That Never Was" very interesting. Including a U.S. carrier battle group engaging the Vietnamese.

Most interesting was the fact that in "The War That Never Was" is that the Libyans of all people turn out to be serious fighters. Destroying a U.S. surface action group early on and then giving U.S. land forces all kinds of fits, including making life tough for the elite 82nd Airborne.
 
Any conventional war between NATO and the Pact would've involved naval action all over. Taking out Cam Ranh Bay would've been a Day one or Two action for Com7thFleet.
 
Any conventional war between NATO and the Pact would've involved naval action all over. Taking out Cam Ranh Bay would've been a Day one or Two action for Com7thFleet.

Which it was in "The War That Never Was".

Same with U.S. naval action against Soviet forces in the Indian Ocean and the Carribean.

Something interesting though. Hacketts "The Third World War: The Untold Story" has the U.S. launching a major bombing campaign of Cuba that causes massive casualities..

Both "Red Storm Rising" & "The War That Never Was" have Castro quietly staying out of the war and the U.S. taking little or no action against Cuba.
 
Personally, I think if the Warsaw Pact invaded Western Europe, the most likely scenario would be what the late Sir John Hackett described in his two books on a fictional World War III.

That's why the Russians would have used Tu-22 and Tu-22M bombers carrying modified Raduga Kh-22 missiles fitted with a special anti-radiation seeker designed specifically to home in on E-3 Sentry radar emissions. That way, the Russians will try to knock out as many E-3's as possible before the main invasion starts.

During the invasion, the Warsaw Pact will extensively use bombs and rockets with nerve gas warheads (Sarin, Soman and VX) in order to slow down or neutralize Allied infantry, which may make it easier for Warsaw Pact troops to advance. But the question is how long can the Warsaw Pact air forces keep air superiority, because if they lose such superiority all Warsaw Pact armored vehicles becomes sitting duck targets for A-10's and antitank helicopters.
 
The Pact don't need air superiority to win, they just need to keep the airspace contested and deny NATO air superiority. Remember Warsaw Pact doctrine didn't require air superiority to achieve victory, NATO's did.
 

Kongzilla

Banned
But with that in mind, wouldn't it be easier for the NATO to gain/re-gain air superiority because they were focused on it. I'm not exactly sure on the doctrines and weapons capabilities and the vehicles etc. Does anyone have any links to websites that have this information. Google hates me.
 
Without air superiority or near air superiority then a modern armored force can't win.

Because if one side has air superiority they can make it impossible for enemy armor to concentrate and allow their own concentrated armor to obliterate the enemy forces that are dispersed to avoid air attack.
 
"Red Army" by Ralph Peters also describes a conventional WWIII, with the Soviets reaching the Rhine. A very good read IMHO.
 
But with that in mind, wouldn't it be easier for the NATO to gain/re-gain air superiority because they were focused on it. I'm not exactly sure on the doctrines and weapons capabilities and the vehicles etc. Does anyone have any links to websites that have this information. Google hates me.

In terms of achieving air superiority NATO had a much better chance. While the Soviets had a lot of aircraft they tended to be older and crappier than the NATO airfleet at any given point. However the Soviets had a much more sophisticated and complex SAM network which as the Yom Kippur War demonstrated could deny air superiority and protect ground forces from attack. It was only Egyptian stupidity that saved the IAF's bacon.

Without air superiority or near air superiority then a modern armored force can't win.

Because if one side has air superiority they can make it impossible for enemy armor to concentrate and allow their own concentrated armor to obliterate the enemy forces that are dispersed to avoid air attack.

Not quite correct. Modern armoured forces can't win in the face of enemy air superiority, however air denial is good enough. If you use enough SAM's and short range interceptors to make the front-line a no go zone for hostile aircraft then the fact that you can't send your own planes up doesn't matter so much. It's still not ideal, air superiority is a great thing to have, but the Soviets reckoned and I think they were right that with enough SAM's and interceptors they could minimise if not eliminate NATO air support making it a purely ground vs. ground fight. Which they reckoned they'd win. Obviously we don't know for sure but Yom Kippur convinces me that providing the Soviets play it smart and don't advance out from under their SAM umbrella they could let the NATO airforces batter themselves to death against the SAM umbrella, or alternatively spend all their time attacking the SAM umbrella while Soviet tanks advanced to the Rhine. However the need to maintain the SAM umbrella would seriously slow down the pace of the Soviet advance, which is why I doubt the "Seven Days to the Rhine" thing. More like a fortnight or maybe a month.
 
"Red Army" by Ralph Peters also describes a conventional WWIII, with the Soviets reaching the Rhine. A very good read IMHO.

Ralph Peters also deliberately "hand waved away" NATO air forces to achieve his scenario's goal.

Ralph Peters admitted that his scenario was not necessarily realistic but was designed as a "wake up call" for what he saw as apathetic European NATO nations.
 
Top