You know what, let’s say both sides try to hold off on using nukes as long as possible. This is to make things more interesting.
How would a NATO invasion of Warsaw Pact go?
- Thread starter bsmall0627
- Start date
That's what they were there for, doctrinally to take out NATO nuclear and first line bases. Of course that's also what NATO is going to target first so there's that
The main issue is that the use of nuclear weapons is actually a part of the doctrine of both sides, especially is things are going "badly" for either side.
I'm trying to see a scenario where the numerically weak NATO versus a stronger Warsaw Pact would be viable. To be clear your original scenario with a "hard-liner" in charge makes a aggressive move by NATO even less viable. For example if East Germany suddenly has a movement where they wanted to rejoin with West Germany there are enough Russian forces in-country to stop that even if West Germany decided it was going to support East Germany with their own forces. NATO being a defensive alliance means that there is no "legal" reason for other NATO nations to join in but having a hard liner in charge in Moscow it's very much going to be made clear that any such move by West Germany will be seen as NATO sponsored aggression and things will go down hill from there.
Randy
Okay to make it interesting as I've already posted I don't believe the West German army has the logistical capability to take part in operations other than home defence. Correspondingly I'm sceptical that the conscript Dutch or Belgium armies had this capability either. To even things out let's exclude non Soviet Warsaw Pact forces. That leaves from a standing start 2 2/3 British divisions, 5 2/3 US divisions & 1/3 Canadian for a total of 8 2/3 NATO divisions not trained for strategic offensive operations facing 26 Soviet Divisions. After some 7 -10 days you'll be up to 4 British, 10 US (less the missing National Guard round out brigade but possibly cancelled out by lighter forces like 9th Motorised Division being present) & 1/3 Canadian. Lets round that up to 15 NATO divisions facing 26 Soviet + reinforcements from the Baltic, Byelorussian & Kiev military districts. How do you see either of these 2 scenario's working out?
Not an issue as the Bushido spirit and elan of the NATO forces will carry them on to victory!
Really going to default back to badly, very badly for NATO.
Randy
Oh wait, I forgot an important component of such a conflict!
NATO wins because once "we" turn on all our electronics and counter-electronics and "they" turn on all theirs we all blow each other "tech" at which point NATO wins because it's got the largest number of people who know how to fight with medieval weapons and tactics. (Seriously, the biggest "Kingdom" in the Society for Creative Anachronism was the military forces in Europe for the longest time)
Randy
NATO wins because once "we" turn on all our electronics and counter-electronics and "they" turn on all theirs we all blow each other "tech" at which point NATO wins because it's got the largest number of people who know how to fight with medieval weapons and tactics. (Seriously, the biggest "Kingdom" in the Society for Creative Anachronism was the military forces in Europe for the longest time)
Randy
Derek Pullem
Donor
I'm plenty old enough to remember Gorbachev (and even Brezhnev!) but there is an ASB forum for a reason - of course if there is a non ASB reason why NATO invades tyhe Warsaw Pact then fair game. But none has been suggested.
Are the IRBM immune to interception by fighter aircraft of that era ?That's what they were there for, doctrinally to take out NATO nuclear and first line bases. Of course that's also what NATO is going to target first so there's that
The main issue is that the use of nuclear weapons is actually a part of the doctrine of both sides, especially is things are going "badly" for either side.
I'm trying to see a scenario where the numerically weak NATO versus a stronger Warsaw Pact would be viable. To be clear your original scenario with a "hard-liner" in charge makes a aggressive move by NATO even less viable. For example if East Germany suddenly has a movement where they wanted to rejoin with West Germany there are enough Russian forces in-country to stop that even if West Germany decided it was going to support East Germany with their own forces. NATO being a defensive alliance means that there is no "legal" reason for other NATO nations to join in but having a hard liner in charge in Moscow it's very much going to be made clear that any such move by West Germany will be seen as NATO sponsored aggression and things will go down hill from there.
Randy
Jumping in here — if NATO was able to halt a Soviet offensive before it reached the Rhine and fought the Soviet Army to a standstill, how much of West Germany could it liberate? Would invading the DDR, at least to reach West Berlin, have been feasible? I agree that going much beyond Berlin wouldn’t have been doable even under the best of circumstances… the numbers just weren’t there.
Nukes notwithstanding of course.
Nukes notwithstanding of course.
If I may suggest a co-ordinated rebellion of the Soviet Satellite states that includes their armed forces defecting en-masse as coherent organised bodies that facing defeat at the hands of a Soviet intervention that is promising dire retribution against the civilian population puts political pressure on NATO governments to act. Said Western governments manage to convince themselves that military intervention will force the Soviets to back off because no-one is crazy enough to want WWIII.
Yes none of this is remotely likely, no it won't end well for all concerned, yes I own Twilight 2000 1st & 2nd Editions! Is this unlikely enough to be ASB worthy? That's up to you to decide.
It includes the Reforger reinforcements from the US in the 7 - 10 days scenario. Follow on forces would be National Guard who I believe did not have pre-positioned equipment so would have to travel by sea after being mobilised. There is the 24th Mechanised Division but my understanding is that this was allocated to Central Command. It could obviously be reallocated to Europe but would have to be shipped in. I am aware during the run-up to Desert Storm that some round-out NG units (i.e. the high readiness ones) were called up. After 30 days of training they were still classed as unready for operations. Of course the same issue might well affect Soviet Cat B & C divisions. The Soviet formations though would be moving in by rail not across the Atlantic. In 1985 I believe that the one Canadian brigade allocated to reinforce Europe was still earmarked for Norway. In the late 80's it was reallocated to West Germany but this was because it was anticipated that it would take too long to arrive in Norway so again outside the 7 -10 days scenario.
In summary the US had more forces it could send but you'll likely be looking at 30 days + for them to arrive in theatre in significant numbers. Potentially the 18th Airborne Corps could be flown in but this was lighter forces not equipped to take on Soviet tank & motor rifle divisions in the more open ground of Northern/Central Europe. In this 30 day+ timeframe the Soviets would have mobilised their Cat B & C divisions giving them over 100 divisions available. Unless you have political factors making Soviet mobilisation unfeasible once Reforger is complete the balance of power shifts further in Soviets favour not less.
Fighters? Yes. We had the Patriot in theatre but it was without the updates to make it effective against IRBM's. (Didn't come till 1988)
This is different from what the OP seemed to mean which was a general NATO attack on the WP. In this case, once we've got REFORGER up and running then it was planned that we'd go on the offensive and push the WP back. The concept was to push them out of Germany entirely and to push forward into Poland but I'm not sure of anything past that.
This was a nightmare scenario for NATO nations really, especially once Reagan was elected.
NOT supporting a nation trying to free itself from the Soviets means you own populations seeing every bit of rhetoric as baseless propaganda and NATO leaders being 'afraid' of the USSR. Horrible optics to say the least.
On the other hand going in in support is pretty much guarantees to start World War III, especially if there is a hardline government in Moscow. No matter how you slice it NATO forces are going to be going directly against Russian forces along with any WP forces brought in. Which is turn means Moscow has to respond or become irrelevant.
Pretty much move on to instant sunshine for everyone at that point.
Randy
Garrison
Donor
And the why makes a huge difference to the outcome. I mean if the scenario is the Warsaw Pact rises up and the USSR has fallen into civil war with Ukraine and Byelorussia turning against Russia, okay perhaps NATO could invade, but any notion that NATO could launch some sort of pre-emptive invasion of a fully prepared Warsaw Pact and the USSR is ASB.
Plus the perception that the NATO technological superiority would be able to neutralise the Soviet 'style of war', i.e. precision attacks on command centres and non-nuclear area-effect weapons like ICM/SICM. Also the potential first-strike decapitation abilities of Gryphon, Pershing II, Trident D5 and the F-117's that had been deployed to Europe. Also there was increased security at NATO installations (obviously to prevent Soviet infiltration) and the SHAPE meeting. Basically a perfect storm of events but in the context of heightened Soviet fears (e.g. Operation RYaN).
As far as I know or can ascertain it can't.
The warhead is traveling too fast in the terminal phase and unless the F-15 can find the Missile before launch it's not capable of taking out any ballistic missile in flight.
Randy