World War 3 in 1956..

Calgacus

ok, so in october/november 1956, the combination of western protests over the hungarian intervention and us support of france and britain in the suex crisis, prompts kruschev to order a renewed blockade of berlin (as in 1948).
NATO responds by flying in supplies as they had done before, but this time the soviets take action, shooting down two transports as they cross east german territory. seeing war is inevitable, kruschev orders a full scale invasion of the west. world war 3 is on....

so, what would happen next?
how would teh fighting in germany go?
what other european nations would become involved?
could NATO and the warsaw pact count on their members to support them?
with many us/british forces scattered elsewhere (cyprus/egypt/africa/korea), how would that balance of forces in europe?

the first assumption is that the use of atomic weapons would be limited or possibly non existent, as i am primarily interested in the conventional war...
 

Darkest

Banned
Blah, just typed up a huge message on this topic, got eaten...

In 1956, conventional warfare is not an option. Check this out: http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab19.asp

The United States had more than 10 times the arsenal than the Soviet Union. Besides, these were hydrogen bombs, capable of in some cases 400 times the firepower of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They could be dropped from a bomber. They could have been used.

At latest, conventional warfare during a Third World War could only be experienced (for a shortwhile) in 1951, before the invention of hydrogen bombs. However, I would say a more optimistic answer in 1948, when the US only had 110 nuclear weapons, and all small scale types. Even then, you are going to find a few areas hit with nuclear fire.

Sorry, man.
 

Calgacus

ok, well i know it is unlikely, but still possible that a ww3 could take place without much if any nuclear use. either way, i prefer a story without them. so let's say that for some unexplained reason, none of the bombs work as of 1955...
 

Darkest

Banned
Well... that would be ASB. Its definitely a scenario. I suggest posting it in the ASB forum, where you might find some better results.

I like the idea of a conventionally-fought World War 3, mind you, I wish you luck.
 

Blochead

Hmmm... End result is probably not good for the Soviet Union in the long run...

In terms of nuke deployment, the US will probably be better off in terms of bombers, as the Tu-95 will only have just started production in 1956. So the US will be able to inflict a lot more damage on the Soviet Union's mainland than vice versa. IIRC the Bear's predecessors had about half its range.

I doubt it would be a total nuclear apocalypse, but Europe and probably Asia wouldn't be looking too good, with probably a few hits in the Northern US.
 

Darkest

Banned
Oh, yeah, there won't be huge nuclear wastelands and nuclear winter, but nukes will play a big part in the war, enough to separate it from conventional warfare.
 

Ivan Druzhkov

I've a rather nice old scenario that uses some old US war plans to talk about how the course of the war would go. Since missiles would still be pretty unreliable in 1956 (think Saddam's Scuds), NATO and the Warsaw Pact would have to stick with bombers, and that would make things a little dicier. In fact, according to the Dropshot Plan the author describes, the estimate in 1949 was that the Americans could only make a grand total of two sorties against the Soviet Union before the Strategic Air Command was totally gutted by Soviet defense.

Anyway, the part I like most is the aftermath of the war. It looks a lot more like the end of WWI in Europe than the fun and games of 1946.
 

Blochead

Well, one'd have to remember the difference in technologies between 1949 and 1956, it wasn't a 'mass bombers, carpet drop and hope we avoid Triple-A'.

In any case, a bomber war in 1956 gives a fairly good advantage to the US, as the US has the H-bomb and the Soviets haven't quite finished the revamping of their air defense to deal with jet-powered strategic bombers like the B-52.

US land forces in Europe are in deep shit though...

And the effects on the Arab world if this stems from the Suez Crisis would be interesting.

I might write a little TL.
 

Darkest

Banned
Okay... fine... I abandon my staunch position. It is possible.

Still, two sorties could level two important positions to the Soviets. And, if the war continues long enough, you know there is going to be some kind of nuclear action.
 

Calgacus

there might be some kind of nuclear action, but i envisage one of two things - either a token use of atomic weapons to force a peace as in japan 1945, or some limited tactical use in germany, not increasing to major usage due to reluctance of leadership, fear of reprisal, or unwillingness to detonate on friendly soil. as has been pointed out, the main threat was from the US using the nuclear option to prevent total defeat in europe. but i have doubts over whether the americans would have been so keen to use them except in extremely severe circumstances. in britain throughout the cold war, there was an attitude of 'better red than dead', accepting that in the event of soviet advances, the atomic deterrent would not be used, for fear of devastation in the UK. france would also not be keen to go nuclear. and i think it is quite possible that in order to prevent the collapse of the NATO alliance, the US would issue a statement pledging to use atomic weapons only in the event of russian use or a direct threat to US mainland....
 

Ivan Druzhkov

What exactly would China be doing in this conflict? During the 1950s, Mao was far more of an dyed-in-the-wool Soviet communist, and his statements to Soviet representatives during this decade are filled with exhortations to take a much firmer line with the West. Furthermore, China in the 1950s had a large (if rickety) military, plenty of natural resources, and a populace that was still in favor of communism. After all, this was before the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, and Mao was running the country better than Chiang Kai-shek was.

Of course, China didn’t have much in the way of power projection, so invasions of Japan and the Pacific would be right out, though Beijing could still do some damage if the Soviets lent Mao some Scuds. Still, land campaigns into India and/or Southeast Asia could still be done, and having the Chinese rampaging through that area would be a great distraction for the SE-Asia-obsessed Americans. What's more, a reserve of allied Chinese workers and material would be a great boon to the Soviet war machine, which would need some help from China to deal with its own shortfalls.
 

dittomitto2445

Banned
the best china could have done would be to cause trouble in the koreas, india and other nations right there. But this wouldn't due much but give the usa a reason to use carriers and help level chinas cities. This could led to taiwins government to get at least some of southern china and create to mainland chinas. communist north and democratic south.
Did russia have huge sub fleets at this? If not the soviets are screwed.
This was one of the main reasons the usa didn't invade france for so long and if they can keep the flow of supplies going then they are set. The wests biggest problem is holding the soviets back until the usa can rearm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top