WW3 in the late 80s: How long does the munition last?

Anchises

Banned
I am currently writing a little something and I have a couple of questions, regarding NATO and WP military capacities and plans, in the late 80s/early 90s.

following scenario to work with:

Its 1991 and WW3 breaks out. Both sides refrain from using NBC weapons.

ITTL Gorbachev never came to power and the hardliners took over. The Soviet economy also works a little better, so the military had to endure no serious material or training deficiencies. Think of a world where both sides still escalate tensions after Able Archer. The U.S. military and NATO as a whole have seriously raised military spending as a reaction. The Gulf War is (not yet) happening.

1) Which time of the year would the WP prefer for an attack?

2) How long until munition, spare parts etc. run out? I have seen a documentary where it was mentioned that both sides would blow through their depots in astonishing speed.

3) How long until material shortages would seriously hamper offensives?/Would we see crippling munition shortages similar to WW1?

4) Could NATO and WP industries be quickly shifted to war production and reach production levels, that guarantee sufficient munition, spare parts, replacement vehicles etc. ?

5) Is it a realistic scenario that the war could degenerate into high-tech static warfare? Basically WW1 with laser guided bombs and Leopard 2s?

6) How bad would the damage for Western Germany be, if the Soviet offensive is stopped relatively early?
 

Deleted member 9338

1) Which time of the year would the WP prefer for an attack? - Summer

2) How long until munition, spare parts etc. run out? I have seen a documentary where it was mentioned that both sides would blow through their depots in astonishing speed. - 4 to 6 weeks

3) How long until material shortages would seriously hamper offensives?/Would we see crippling munition shortages similar to WW1? - 3 to 4 weeks

4) Could NATO and WP industries be quickly shifted to war production and reach production levels, that guarantee sufficient munition, spare parts, replacement vehicles etc. ? - No

5) Is it a realistic scenario that the war could degenerate into high-tech static warfare? Basically WW1 with laser guided bombs and Leopard 2s? - No

6) How bad would the damage for Western Germany be, if the Soviet offensive is stopped relatively early? - Devastating
 
Longer than the war does :)

And part of both sides Doctrine was using ncb's. It's written in stone pretty much.

If the soviets go west its going to get ugly.

If there is no initial usage of nukes then things stalemate pretty quick

Especially in 91. Window of opportunity has passed by 91.. Then the soviets get couped for being idiots and peace is declared before something gets glassed
 
I would say that the soviets would attack in a holiday, with most of NATO military on leave. Christmas could be a good time to attack, though I don't know to which degree a less mobilized NATO compensates for the weather. In any case, the war wouldn't last long enough for industry to shift to war production and reservist be sent to the frontline: if the war lasts too much then REFORGER would cut short any possibility the soviets had of reaching the Rhine without nukes. Also, the longer the war lasts more probably China enters it on NATO side.
Probably it would go as this: the Soviets attack with as little warning as possible in a holiday with a massive BC assault together with their mechanized wave. Maybe a tacnuke or two (or two dozens) are exchanged between WARPACT and NATO troops in Germany and Turkey (i'm thinking of the Thrace area). After 2-3 weeks either the Soviets reach the Rhine and ask for an armistice or the war stalemates and ask for an armistice.
 
I would say that the soviets would attack in a holiday, with most of NATO military on leave. Christmas could be a good time to attack, though I don't know to which degree a less mobilized NATO compensates for the weather. In any case, the war wouldn't last long enough for industry to shift to war production and reservist be sent to the frontline: if the war lasts too much then REFORGER would cut short any possibility the soviets had of reaching the Rhine without nukes. Also, the longer the war lasts more probably China enters it on NATO side.
Probably it would go as this: the Soviets attack with as little warning as possible in a holiday with a massive BC assault together with their mechanized wave. Maybe a tacnuke or two (or two dozens) are exchanged between WARPACT and NATO troops in Germany and Turkey (i'm thinking of the Thrace area). After 2-3 weeks either the Soviets reach the Rhine and ask for an armistice or the war stalemates and ask for an armistice.
Expect lots of chemical weapons too.
 
Expect lots of chemical weapons too.
I said that already in my post (the "massive Biological Chemical assault" bit).
Regarding the plausibility of OP's request of a non-NBC conflict:
It was Soviet doctrine to launch the nukes with the first assault to disrupt as much as possible NATO (and to avoid losing them in a counterforce NATO strike). The less agressive plans called for a nuclear assault on military targets in the BeNeLux, Germany and Italy, avoiding nuclear powers to diminish the possibility of a nculear response (don't see how though, as British and American military bases would be nuked in Germany). At much you could get a Chemical and Biological assauot only, but tacnukes would be used rather sooner than later (specially if the Soviet attack breaks NATO lines, or if the Soviets are really desperate to avoid the REFORGER convoys from reaching Europe). Maybe you could keep the nuclear war contained to the sea and Germany (with the WARPACT troops going to the Bosphorus would get a nuke or two if they are not contained) at best, but if an armistice is not reached then someone would notice that nuking Baku would limit WARPACT autonomy. And that would open a whole can of worms.

Germany would be really fucked in any event.
 
I said that already in my post (the "massive Biological Chemical assault" bit).
Regarding the plausibility of OP's request of a non-NBC conflict:
It was Soviet doctrine to launch the nukes with the first assault to disrupt as much as possible NATO (and to avoid losing them in a counterforce NATO strike). The less agressive plans called for a nuclear assault on military targets in the BeNeLux, Germany and Italy, avoiding nuclear powers to diminish the possibility of a nculear response (don't see how though, as British and American military bases would be nuked in Germany). At much you could get a Chemical and Biological assauot only, but tacnukes would be used rather sooner than later (specially if the Soviet attack breaks NATO lines, or if the Soviets are really desperate to avoid the REFORGER convoys from reaching Europe). Maybe you could keep the nuclear war contained to the sea and Germany (with the WARPACT troops going to the Bosphorus would get a nuke or two if they are not contained) at best, but if an armistice is not reached then someone would notice that nuking Baku would limit WARPAC
I could see a CW only plan, with nuclear weapons held back. But sooner or later whichever side is losing will use them tactically and then it starts.
 
Top