The main point we have to pay attention to here is under which circumstances the war starts.
If the Soviet Union decided to go war, then it would have done this with full preparation probably and after trying to secure enough diversion and confusion in NATO.
For those of you who Red Storm RIsing, you would recall that one of the main reasons the Soviets lost the Battle of Germany there, was that NATO managed to disrupt all their commando raids they had planned and later on pounded the airfields of the Warsaw Pact plus destroyed numerous bridges before hostilities even started.
In order for the WP troops to succeed, they must be ready to attack in force and with a clear element of surprise.
I have read "The Third World War", an old book indeed, but a good one I must say. There the Soviets attacked with a very clear edge, surprise. And it worked miracles for them.
"Red Army" another novel covering a potential World War III in Europe also gives the Soviets the edge of surprise and that works too for them there. In that book the Soviets also play another card: They demonstrate to the Germans how combat may turn to be if they don't surrender by annihilating a West German town. And it works.
What the Soviets need to do in order to succeed is to carry out the attack, as long as NATO does not have top technology in place that is superior to Soviet technology. That would mean the mid-late 70s. Not the 80s.
Intelligence is another factor that has to be stressed out here. The Keyhole 11 series of satellites that came online in the mid/late 70s allowed the US to have a real time idea of what was going on in the USSR. This capability further evolved in the 80s and finally allowed the US to monitor Soviet movements pretty well.
This meant that any effort of moving troops from the Soviet Union or WP countries towards West Germany would have been spotted and the alarm would have gone off in NATO.
A poster here adressed the issue of where else the WP troops could stage an attack. Indeed striking against Greece or Turkey was not a necessity for the WP. Neutralizing them would only give the Soviets the capability of projecting power into the Med, but NATO had the assets to stop that (submarines and the 6th Fleet).
Attacking Italy however was something the Soviets did indeed plan. The Soviet Union posessed huge amounts of transport aircraft and very good airborne troops. They did have 7 airborne divisions and the means to airlift them portion by portion somewhere into Western Europe.
In the book "Red Army" they do airlift some units somewhere around Frakfurt if I am not mistaken to secure bridges.
One of the most horrifying scenarios for NATO planners was the Soviets airlifting divisions through Austrian airspace into Northern Italy.
Capturing Norway as a whole was not necessary, but capturing Iceland for short period of time is something they could have indeed pulled off using the element of surprise.
In my opinion the best plan would have been an attack against NATO around 1974 or 1975. They should have combined it with an Arab attack on Israel (not the actual Yom Kippur War). The US would have still been recovering from its Vietnam wounds and the Watergate scandal.
The Soviets would have to employ very sneaky tactics and be ready to attack at full scale without NATO noticing it.
1. The backup formations would have to be ready to load into the trains and the trains should be rolling westwards as soon as the battle woud begin.
2. A decapitation stike against airfields in West Germany would have to be carried out as first strike.
3. High valued targets like command facilities, airfields and higher ranking military officers would have to be targeted by special forces acting covert in West Germany.
4. The initial attack would have to be accompanied by a barrage of short and intermediate range ballistic missiles targetted at NATO facilities. They should be armed with conventional warheads. However Soviet doctrine also dictated the use of chemical warheads (especially against airfields). Whether or not this would risk nuclear escalation should not be forgotten. Missiles should also be used at a small degree against major urban centers in Western Germany (like Hannover) this would lead to major civilian traffic westwards, which would interfere with military traffic.
5. The Soviets would have to make it perfectly clear to the West German government that they would not use nukes on German soil, as long as NATO did not do so either. Once the Germans realized that, there is fair chance (epsecially under Willy Brandt, not so under Helmut Schmidt) that they would not allow NATO use of nukes. After all they could threaten laying their arms down, which would have been a disaster for NATO. At the same time the Soviets should make it clear to the French, that they were not interested in their country. This could as well lead to some cracks in NATO cohesion.
6. Idea for covert operations: Trojan horses would work very well. Attacks on major NATO airfields that functioned as civilian airports as well were and still are feasible. Just load up a big jet with a couple hundred of special forces, land it on the strip and let them run out of the jet firing at the base. Use enough anti-tank weapons and you can even hit hardened targets as well. A lot of bases in Western Germany dual functioned as civilian airports.
In Italy one can use large freighters or RO-RO-ships to actually capture an entire harbor.
7. Prepositioning submarines would be handy The Soviet Union had the capability of doing this. SOSUS would indeed track most of the subs as they went past the GIUK gap, but the Soviets could always say they were conducting trials. Inflatable or wooden replicas of subs positioned on their mooring positions in the Kola Yards would work miracles.
Submarine launched cruise missiles against major US bases on the East Coast could cripple the carrier force.
I wish someone could write an ATL now with all that ideas...
