Who would win in a 1980s air war: NATO or the Warsaw Pact?

Who would win in a 1980s air war?

  • NATO

    Votes: 222 92.1%
  • Warsaw Pact

    Votes: 19 7.9%

  • Total voters
    241

Nebogipfel

Monthly Donor
I remember WWIII novels written in the 1980s that ran the gamut from:
a) ending with Soviet conquest of West Germany (political collapse in NATO)

How many WWIII novels actually ended with an outright Soviet victory ? There was Peters' Red Army, and a French one from 1980 where I don't remember title/author.
 
How many WWIII novels actually ended with an outright Soviet victory ? There was Peters' Red Army, and a French one from 1980 where I don't remember title/author.

I only knew of Peters, but interested in the French one. I ran across several (British and Canadian) novels or books that essentially said about day 4 nuclear weapons are used and everyone dies. I used to have a couple of them but they were so depressing I traded them in at a used book store.
 
How many WWIII novels actually ended with an outright Soviet victory ? There was Peters' Red Army, and a French one from 1980 where I don't remember title/author.

TBH, I threw out all my WWIII novels after the Wall came down to make room in my then studio apartment. The novel in question was written as from a Soviet POV, particularly a Soviet general (1) within the South-Eastern Strategic Direction. As the "politically reliable" Western Strategic commander is killed, the main character's boss is transferred, and he takes him along as his second-in-command and C-o-S.

Then, the assault is stalled, and the new commander is arrested, with his C-o-S put in his place. By this time, Moscow has learned that he was the guy who suggested they try Zhukov-4. The main character then doubles and redoubles his efforts on one specific juncture point between the British & the Dutch/Belgians (or was it the Germans?). The end result is a breakthrough that NATO command feels can only be stopped by selected use of tactical nukes (inside the FRG). This causes a split in the alliance, with no agreement being reached to use them. So NATO formations in the North are unable to hold, Belgium and Holland withdraw from the conflict, France announces it will not allow NATO units to retreat to their territory, and a gradual ceasefire takes effect, leaving the USSR master of all Germany east of the Rhine.

Much of this scenario was based on political irresoluteness in the West, leadership by the main character, and the success of Soviet maskirovka and the exploitation of "useful idiots" + "false flag operations" trying to make it like it was the West that started the conflict.

1) Who argued when told of the planned attack that they should, rather than prepare, launch "Zhukov-4", a war plan for striking NATO during the winter. Its a plan calling for the troops to come straight from the barracks, and attack on a weekend. Preferably in snow. The idea assumes its in response to the GRU & KGB learning of a plan by NATO to launch their own sneak attack on the Warsaw Pact. The general's plan is rejected on the grounds of Moscow needing more time to set up a political maskirovka. But everyone in the room knew the real reason: Empty fuel and spare parts stocks due to black-marketing.

I readily admit that it has been a quarter century at least since I read that book, and I've read so many similar ones that I cannot be 100% certain that the above does not in fact represent a composite story. If so, my apologies.
 
If you are in a political situation where France has to decide whether or not to use nukes on its own, that is the US is not going to be on board with nuclear release, NATO has now fallen apart politically. Assuming the USSR gets to the English Channel and you have a post-Dunkirk scenario with the UK not invaded, but everything on the continent now occupied by the USSR/WP not the Nazis. While long term, the communist system is unsustainable, we are talking very long term and now all the resources of Western Europe are owned by the USSR which includes all the more advanced tech the USSR has being stealing when not allowed to buy or buying in limited quantities. In the early 80s the western powers have seen more than one WP nation have some sort of internal revolt against the USSR, only to have them crushed and repression reinstituted, this has been the pattern for about 40 years now. The French leaders, in addition to realizing that a Soviet victory will mean their probable deaths either in front of a wall or in the GULAG, understand that such victory will mean the end of France, French culture, and more for several generations to come. There would be no second D-Day to liberate France - once the Soviets reach the Channel they would undoubtedly make it clear that, just like Eastern Europe after WWII, this is now "theirs" and would be defended similarly. A new nuclear standoff occurs, only now the the border lines are much further west.

France surrendered in 1940 because not only the leadership, but frankly the majority of the French people saw the defeat as not being the end of France, the occupation being only temporary (they expected the UK to fold rapidly), and a chance for France to be free of German occupation and "rebuild". ITTL, that would not be the pereption. IMHO this means that the French threat to use nukes would probably not be a bluff, and if the USSR sees it they would not cross the line. Furthermore a Europe where Germany, the Low Countries, Denmark, Austria at a minimum are USSR occupied/satellites is a situation where France is going to have to be very willing to go along with the USSR. NATO will be a dead letter, so...
 
<snip>France surrendered in 1940 because not only the leadership, but frankly the majority of the French people saw the defeat as not being the end of France, the occupation being only temporary (they expected the UK to fold rapidly), and a chance for France to be free of German occupation and "rebuild". ITTL, that would not be the perception. IMHO this means that the French threat to use nukes would probably not be a bluff, and if the USSR sees it they would not cross the line.

Agreed. The problem comes with the question of just what kind of government exists in Moscow. IMO you'd need a "Soviet Bonapartist" regime to takeover and launch a 48 hour instant strike straight from the barracks to make all this work. Which makes whether or not the Soviet government/generals accepting the French threat highly problematical. Carrying all before them can lead to extreme strategic cockiness.

In WWII, Imperial Japan accomplished all of their "First Operational Phase" in half the time they expected to (three months rather than six, if you dismiss the isolated US troops in the Philippines). At that point they were supposed to just dig in, and destroy any attempted American counterattacks Tsushima-style. But between Doolittle and everything going so easily for them, their eyes quickly grew too big for their bellies and they concocted their infamous "Second Operational Phase", the outcome being (IIRC) that NONE of the objectives were attained and they lost half their carrier forces (or more) for their troubles.

After so many Soviet victories so quickly WOULD they be so prudent as to accept French nuclear deterrence? At least ITTL no nukes were released in the defense of West Germany, Denmark, Sweden (IIRC all Soviet plans called for knocking them out as well), and the Low Countries.

Furthermore a Europe where Germany, the Low Countries, Denmark, Austria at a minimum are USSR occupied/satellites is a situation where France is going to have to be very willing to go along with the USSR. (1) NATO will be a dead letter, so...(2)

1) One HUGE question is what has happened ITTL to the large, powerful, and historically VERY Pro-Soviet French Communist Party? While in the 1970s they briefly flirted with a more independent "Euro-Communism", by the 1980s the French Communists had fallen back into their normal comfortable Pro-Soviet orbit. And by the standards of European communist parties (outside of the Warsaw Pact counties of course) and who was the most Pro-Soviet, the French communists were in a class by themselves.

IIRC, the French communists never attained more than one third of the vote in any election. What would the French authorities do about such a large number of internal enemies with said enemies seeing their political masters closing up to their own borders? Do they embrace their French spirit and rally to Paris? Or do they represent a fifth column similar to the Nazi one that sabotaged Norway's defenses in 1940?

2) ??? Could you expand on this?
 

Archibald

Banned
The French communists were a bunch of idiots, all the way from Jacques Duclos to George Marchais. If you think Brezhnev was stupid, then try George Marchais. Dear God. Just hear him speak for a split minute, you just want to laugh, that guy couldn't be a threat, really
(I shall link Thierry Le Luron impersonation of Marchais: even if you don't speak or understand French, you can only laugh).
These said French communists were allies of Mitterrand in 1981 and I can tell you many people inside and outside France were very pissed-off. But this went nowhere, because by 1983 Mitterrand dropped them like a piece of dog shit and turned to moderate liberalism.
Also, the French communist never understood what was happening in May 1968. They were way out in the blue, unable to gain any tactical advantage out of the riots.

The moment when the French communist were really a threat was 1946. They had a lot of prestige because they had paid a heavy tribute to La Résistance. I would say they could have sized power by 1946, but afterwards -- forget it. What didn't helped either was when in 1957 the French communist intelligentsia (led by Jean Paul Sartre) stubbornely refused to acknowldege Khrushchev denouncing of Stalin crimes.

 
Last edited:
The French communists were a bunch of idiots, all the way from Jacques Duclos to George Marchais. If you think Brezhnev was stupid, then try George Marchais. Dear God. Just hear him speak for a split minute, you just want to laugh, that guy couldn't be a threat, really
(I shall link Thierry Le Luron impersonation of Marchais: even if you don't speak or understand French, you can only laugh).
These said French communists were allies of Mitterrand in 1981 and I can tell you many people inside and outside France were very pissed-off. But this went nowhere, because by 1983 Mitterrand dropped them like a piece of dog shit and turned to moderate liberalism.
Also, the French communist never understood what was happening in May 1968. They were way out in the blue, unable to gain any tactical advantage out of the riots.

The moment when the French communist were really a threat was 1946. They had a lot of prestige because they had paid a heavy tribute to La Résistance. I would say they could have sized power by 1946, but afterwards -- forget it. What didn't help either was when in 1957 the French communist intelligentsia (led by Jean Paul Sartre) stubbornly refused to acknowledge Khrushchev denouncing of Stalin crimes.

Everything you say makes perfect sense. All I know is what I saw on the History Channel: A very elderly French Communist who openly declared that it was the duty of every true French Communist to obey the dictates and serve the needs of the Soviet Union. I never saw such openly slavish devotion spoken by any non-Soviet communist towards the USSR. Its like this old timer knew that he was cutting the legs off the sovereignty of every other communist party in the world. He just didn't care.
 
I would imagine that a good chunk, if not the majority, of fighter vs. fighter engagements will be within visual range, while BVR attacks would be reserved for bombers. So the way the AIM-9 Sidewinder stacks up against the AA-2 Atoll and AA-8 Aphid will be a significant factor.

Certainly so. Once into a general dogfight, each side will get a number of firing opportunities depending on things like skill, initial position, confusion, numbers, weather conditions, luck, etc. Each firing opportunity requires a certain level of performance to score. If one side's missiles are much better than the other, then they will score more kills because, even if the number of firing opportunites are the same, their missiles hit while the opponent's miss. Hence, the Soviets losing 5 MiG-21's to 0 Israeli aircraft in the early 1970's because the AIM-9D could hit a plane in a dogfight and an AA-2 Atoll could not. (Had the AA-2's been AIM-9D's the score would have been about 4 or 5 to 2, as two Israeli jets were locked up and attacked by AA-2's, which proceeded to miss).
 
No, they were considerably thinner. And mostly older too. Only the Iraqis had density which came close to the Soviets, even if their equipment was still somewhat older then what the Soviets used, but the Iraqis proceeded to operate as a textbook of how not to run a air defense campaign which basically meant it didn't matter how dense their IADS was. Incompetency can render even what are otherwise the most powerful of systems impotent.

The Iraqi net was deployed to protect Baghdad and other major cities, and the Allies used F-117 for these types of high-density targets. On at least one occasion they tried conventional jets and the results were not good, (lost 2 x F-16's in one raid, I think).
 
IIRC the IDF lost 25% of their sortied tactical air forces in the October War because of two circumstances: The Egyptians (and I'm assuming the Syrians) had heavily modernized their SAMs, and no one on the other side realized to what a level they had taken things. The Israelis needed a particular ECM device for their aircraft to counter these SAMs, and apparently the US was either refusing to sell it to them or was still in the midst of deploying it to American forces. At least, until the shooting started, Nixon was made aware of this, and the arms flights began.

Losses were high at the start of the 1973 War because of SA-6. The IAF had not seen this before and did not understand its capabilities, either kinetic or electronic. Over the war new tactics and jamming equipment reduced its effectiveness, but the first week of the war was the poster child of a specific system dominating the battlefield for technical reasons. The IAF after the war made all sorts of claims to the effect that SA-6 didn't shoot down many aircraft, but the fact of the matter is that in 1982 it was clear that the IAF was obsessed with the SA-6 to the extent that their entire SEAD campaign was focused primarily on dealing with the 18 or 20 such Syrian batteries in Lebanon.
 

Nebogipfel

Monthly Donor
I only knew of Peters, but interested in the French one.

So my copy of the French novel is lost somewhere on this planet, so everything is based on 30 year old memories - IIRC, there is no Reagan buildup of forces. Soviets gain massive conventional and strategic superiority in Europe (especially after reconciliation with China). After testing NATO's reaction with various false alarms, they start an all-out attack including the use of chemical weapons. The US is unable/unwilling to send forces (I think the Atlantic is essentially blocked by the Red Fleet). NATO forces are overrun quickly, when approaching the Rhine the SU launches a nuclear attack on Aachen to successfully intimidate the remaining NATO governments. The French have started to mobilize, but so far were relatively passive due to a socialist/communist coalition. The decision is to use the Force the Frappe tactically to take out the first wave of WP and hope for the best. At the same time, massive speznaz/terrorist etc. attacks take place which massively hinder the mobilization effort. Finally the communists take over in a coup, and the Red Army enters France mainly uncontested. It ends with elements of the army regroup in central/southern France to start a resistance movement.
 
Unconvincing. I stand by my statement that the superior doctrine and C3 wins out, at least achieving air superiority though I admit that air supremacy seems unlikely over any weeks-long timescale.

The importance of C3I has risen in recent decades because of the combination of AMRAAM and stealth technology. But in the 1970's it just didn't matter that much because the BVR missiles weren't that great, both sides had C3I and were probably both under radar direction, and once the merge was reached C3I collapsed as no one knew which radar contact was on which side. In the 1970's it was all about dogfights WVR: IR missile quality, pilot skill, numbers, plane performance - probably in that order.

AA-11 was not some sort of Magical Weapon System- it simply was not that superior, no matter what cute descriptions such as "sharply" you use.

AA-11 was top dog in WVR combat in the 1980's whether you think so or not. Losses by NATO in WVR combat with SU-27 or MIG-29 with this system would have been brutal, but keep in mind NATO had over 10,000 jets, so losing 500 or a 1,000 to AA-11 over the course of the war was simply not going to be decisive.

It only seemed to be a "sharp" change because of how incredibly inferior warpac missiles had been before that!

I think I'm starting to track the objection - you think the Soviets were never ahead in any aspect of air warfare. Sorry, I can't help you on that one - AA-11 with helmet mounted sights wiped the floor with NATO jets in Top Gun WVR dog fights after the Germanys merged and East German fighters began exercising with NATO planes - late 1980's, early 1990's. That's all there is to it. The West held many advantages, and would have been dominant in an air war. But the Soviets had a number of systems - AA-11, SA-10, SA-12, MIG-31 - that were first class and would have inflicted heavy losses on NATO forces, even as NATO was winning the air war.
 

SsgtC

Banned
You pretty much lost all credibility with that comment. The -31 was designed as a bomber interceptor. It's not a dog fighter. WVR, it's dead meat for pretty much any NATO fighter. Yeah, it's fast. That's all you can really say about it.

MIG-31 - that were first class
 
NATO countries "taken over" by the USSR won't see a resistance/guerilla movement lasting long. First off, historically speaking a resistance/guerilla movement almost always needs some sort of outside assistance for weapons and also support that gives the resistance some hope that if they weaken the occupiers enough their outside ally will help them truly liberate their country. Before anyone jumps on this revolutionary situations, especially where the existing government/colonial has little public support and limited if any outside support can be an exception. During the 1939-1989 period, especially 1939-1969, the USSR had a very brutal but intelligent policy for suppressing the newly incorporated countries - they were more successful than the Nazis or Japanese in that their use of unrestricted brutality was applied in an intelligent (usually) pattern. For those under Nazi occupation or Japanese occupation it was all sticks an no carrots.

Using France as an example, you'll see senior political and military leaders either executed or sent off for re-education through labor, and their families blacklisted at best or possibly sent to labor groups. There will be a gradual replacement of bureaucrats from the top downwards with those more politically acceptable - the higher up the faster they go, with some regard for efficient functioning but not a lot. Naturally all businesses will be nationalized, labor unions consolidated in to one worker group (which of course can't negotiate or strike). Any worker stoppages, failures to meet quotas will, of course be "dealt with". The wealthy and bourgeoisie will naturally lose tons of private property, and be turfed out of homes and so forth.

All food distribution will be under the control of the government, and as far as farmers holding out ask the kulaks how well that worked and the Ukrainians what happens when all the crops are taken by the government and you only get inadequate rations. Areas that support any maquis forces will find towns burned, selected individuals shot and the rest deported - possibly all the way to Siberia.

On the other hand, those reliable French communist elements will do well. Going along with the regime, provided you don't come from a negative background (which condemns you to manual labor no university for you), means you have access to education you may not have had before. Political reliability means you and you family are relatively safe from a visit by the KGB (never completely of course), and you are at the head of the line for promotion, rations, and so forth. The reality is that the people of France (or any other "absorbed" NATO country) will see themselves in the light of how long the "occupation" of Eastern Europe has lasted. The expectation of liberation won't be potentially over the horizon, no Allied aircraft overhead attacking the occupiers, no BBC telling the occupied nations of victories in North Africa, of the enemy being defeated and pushed back on other fronts etc. Although the French love the myth of the resistance, in WWII the resistance was pretty small until well in to the war when the Germans were no longer seen as the for sure winners, but rather seen as going to lose eventually.

Immediately after the occupation there would be resistance, perhaps some of it on the "nothing to lose" basis. Once the war is over, and I am making the assumption that if the Russians/WP get this far the war will end, most of the population will decide better to keep their heads down and avoid the firing squad, GULAG, and disaster for their family.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Once French use Nukes they cannot hope for national survival. Their nation and state will be completely destroyed.

Some of the French strategies had a chance to avoid the destruction of France. By using tactical nuclear weapons only on German soil and holding the longer range nukes in reserve, the Soviets MIGHT be persuade to stop.

Now deep down, I am believer in "If one flies, they all fly".
 
And they should give a fuck why?

I'm not saying they should or shouldn't. In fact, their not in any position to give any fucks or not give any fucks, given that they (like the rest of NATO) wouldn't know the thing exists. I'm just making the factual observation that if there is a conventional war in Europe in the mid or late-80s that NATO loses and culminates in the French firing nukes on Moscow, then the likely consequence of that is that it triggers Perimetr. If that is the case, then the fate of the world essentially is in the hands of some 3 to 5 mid-ranking strategic rocket forces officers, god help us all.
 
I'm not saying they should or shouldn't. In fact, their not in any position to give any fucks or not give any fucks, given that they (like the rest of NATO) wouldn't know the thing exists. I'm just making the factual observation that if there is a conventional war in Europe in the mid or late-80s that NATO loses and culminates in the French firing nukes on Moscow, then the likely consequence of that is that it triggers Perimetr. If that is the case, then the fate of the world essentially is in the hands of some 3 to 5 mid-ranking strategic rocket forces officers, god help us all.

If the French fired the head of te USSR will know about and retaliate preimtr doesn't matter the gen sec won't be anywhere near Moscow should the 3rd world war begin if the French fired they are losing and say goodbye to the world
 
Top