WW3 in the 70s?

In any „conventional“ war the problem is that either the Warpac wins and NATO will use tactical nukes to stop them as both the UK and France will be unhappy with the Soviets on the Rhine and the channel.
Or NATO stalls the Warpac and then they are pretty much inclined to use tactical nukes against troop concentrations in their way.

And once the first nukes fly, the assumption that not all fly is that „winnable war“ myth. They will fly.

Rickshaw Australia in the 70s had some 15 million inhabitants. And those widely spaced. 15 million is way too few to keep a technological modern country up and running.
 
And why on earth would these weapons be targeted against NATO bases?
I was talking about the ability of Warsaw Pact to destroy NATO airbases before the introduction of SS 20
And the WP had analogous weapons. From FROG and Scud, through R-12 and R-14, et cetera. In the early seventies a new generation of short/medium range missiles were entering service, e.g. Scaleboard, Scamp/Scapegoat.
 
Most of which were dedicated to striking the US or Europe. Approximate 30% would have been unreliable. There would not have been many worth dedicating to strike Australia.
As I pointed out there were a vast number of weapons, many based in the Pacific and Australia had strategic targets. The idea that the country would have been untouched is nonsensical.
 
What would you suggest ?
Specifically interested in Warsaw Pact air operations and planning of offensives
Start with Kagan and Higham's The Military History of the Soviet Union. From a high level perspective Glantz's The Military Strategy of the Soviet Union should be an adequate place to bein that element, with Dick Combs' Inside the Soviet Alternate Universe: The Cold War's End and the Soviet Union's Fall Reappraised as a supplement. Though it specifically deals with the fall of teh USSR it gives a good insight into the Soviet system. Douglass's Soviet Military Strategy in Europe covers specifically European strategy.
Politically the '70s is the Brezhnev era, so Bill Tompson's The Soviet Union Under Brezhnev is required.

On the more specifically military aspects there are troves of books:
Zhemchuzhin's Soviet Aircraft and Rockets by N.A.
Tritten's Soviet Naval Forces And Nuclear Warfare: Weapons, Employment, And Policy covers naval technology (including shore based Naval Aviation). Supplemented by Polmar's Soviet Naval Developments
Gordon and Komissaro: Soviet Air Defence Aviation 1945-1991 to cover PVO Strany
Sokolovskii's Soviet military strategy series is also useful, though it's a RAND publication and dates from the mid-sixties.
Epstein's Measuring Military Power: The Soviet Air Threat to Europe

That's a start, I'm sure others will chime in with other recommendations.
 
As I pointed out there were a vast number of weapons, many based in the Pacific and Australia had strategic targets. The idea that the country would have been untouched is nonsensical.
Why? I have given my reasons as to Australia would be untouched - a combination of circumstance and resources - the fUSSR would lack the resources and the distance for weapons to strike would be too great. We were basically self-sufficient in most things, except electronics. We would be much better off than the US or Europe.
 
The last sentence Rickshaw is about as obvious as it gets. The USA and Europe will be ruins in the dark so even if Australia got hit a couple time it would be better off.

Necessity may be the mother of invention but a 70s technological civilization needs engineers, raw materials and all the machinery to turn the raw materials into goods. None of those will turn up.
 
The Soviets had become heavy dependant on imported American wheat to feed the population.
In a ww3 food would start to run out fast in the soviet union.
I suspect both sides would refrain from the use of nukes.
Soviets could collapse if the conflict goes on for an extended period due to food shortages if not famine.
It would be a very nasty business.

Uhm...what? The Soviets imported (against common sense) huge amounts of wheat in order to build up an massivly oversized milk and meat industry. This was "prestige" food and was supposed to overtake the americans in amount of meat consumed (I don't recall if this was succesful).

But this is a far cry from going to famine without. It would just mean more Bread and less steak. The Soviets (and their allies in Europe) were never in real danger of food shortages this late.
 
Yes, but a lot of the normal transport infrastructure would be retasked to support the military and would be unavailable/too damaged to move many civilian requirements. Add war damage to simple excess wear and tear and you're looking at a reduced ability to move food and other things to where it needs to be

Regarding Australia, I think a few nuclear weapons would be thrown their way but that the level of damage would be much less than seen in Europe or North America. They might well be knocked back a decade or two technologically but would still be much better off than many other parts of the world.
 

Capbeetle61

Banned
The United States Armed Forces were arguably at their nadir during the 1970s.

Saying this, I believe that this is one of several instances during World War III where the Soviets actually could have won the war.
 
The WP would probably make initial gains but eventually be stalled by the inherent advantages to NATO. I've always said that you need three things to properly beat Russia; geography, technology, and patience. NATO has all three; the US and Britain are isolated from Europe by channels and oceans, let alone the European armies in NATO in the 1970s. I'm not an expert in the armies of the nations in the 1970s but I doubt the USSR would be able to pass the Rhine, let alone into France before the nukes start flying.
 
Start with Kagan and Higham's The Military History of the Soviet Union. From a high level perspective Glantz's The Military Strategy of the Soviet Union should be an adequate place to bein that element, with Dick Combs' Inside the Soviet Alternate Universe: The Cold War's End and the Soviet Union's Fall Reappraised as a supplement. Though it specifically deals with the fall of teh USSR it gives a good insight into the Soviet system. Douglass's Soviet Military Strategy in Europe covers specifically European strategy.
Politically the '70s is the Brezhnev era, so Bill Tompson's The Soviet Union Under Brezhnev is required.

On the more specifically military aspects there are troves of books:
Zhemchuzhin's Soviet Aircraft and Rockets by N.A.
Tritten's Soviet Naval Forces And Nuclear Warfare: Weapons, Employment, And Policy covers naval technology (including shore based Naval Aviation). Supplemented by Polmar's Soviet Naval Developments
Gordon and Komissaro: Soviet Air Defence Aviation 1945-1991 to cover PVO Strany
Sokolovskii's Soviet military strategy series is also useful, though it's a RAND publication and dates from the mid-sixties.
Epstein's Measuring Military Power: The Soviet Air Threat to Europe

That's a start, I'm sure others will chime in with other recommendations.
Thanks , I’ve read only Epstein and Gordons book so far out of the ones you mentioned
 
I'm not an expert in the armies of the nations in the 1970s but I doubt the USSR would be able to pass the Rhine, let alone into France before the nukes start flying.
As far as I know the Soviets no longer considered crossing the Rhine after France got its nuclear deterrent in the late 60s. They probably won't bother crossing the Alps to get at Italy either.

The Soviets would most likely limit their objectives to routing NATO and taking Germany, Denmark and Norway out, maybe Greece too. That would severely reduce NATO's ability to win in the medium term, as the alliance couldn't produce military equipment fast enough.
 
As far as I know the Soviets no longer considered crossing the Rhine after France got its nuclear deterrent in the late 60s. They probably won't bother crossing the Alps to get at Italy either.

The Soviets would most likely limit their objectives to routing NATO and taking Germany, Denmark and Norway out, maybe Greece too. That would severely reduce NATO's ability to win in the medium term, as the alliance couldn't produce military equipment fast enough.
Combined with preventing cross-Atlantic resupply.
 
The last sentence Rickshaw is about as obvious as it gets. The USA and Europe will be ruins in the dark so even if Australia got hit a couple time it would be better off.

Necessity may be the mother of invention but a 70s technological civilization needs engineers, raw materials and all the machinery to turn the raw materials into goods. None of those will turn up.
None are necessary. We produced our own engineers, raw materials and most machinery. Things would be a little tougher for about a decade or so but eventually we'd survive...
 
Survival, yes, technological civilization, no. 15 million people spaced out over a continent simply do not cut it.
 
Don't judge the 70's by today's standard. In the 70's there were no PC's, Mobile phones, etc. Mayby 95% of electronics was still transitor based. To maintain this technological civilization is still a hard task, but much easier than today's civilisation. Also much of the day to day stuff can be repaired as oposed to todays practice of replacement. As long as you have an Lathe and stock (steel, brass etc), you can make any part and/or machine. Also the informatition/knowlede how to do everything is stored on paper/ in books and not as digital files that go Phoefff.. when the EMP hits
 
Top