Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Imowface on March 04, 2011, 02:08:10 AM
-
THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL THREAD
Sort of got me thinking in another thread, if the cold war ever got started up, who would win and why, please try to keep things civilised in this, and this is about the military not the government.
Lets say the setting is 1965-70, Soviet troops advance into west germany, compleatly destroying all opposition at first, the reason being the legions of tanks and infantry that they have at hand, though they do suffer losses due to NATO's technological advantage, now, just by the nature of the war in europe, I would not be biased in saying that they would be quick to take over most if not all of europe, suffering very heavy losses in the end, but getting the job done and replacing what they have lost, but once europe has fallen, there would be nothing more that the Soviets could do, as at that time the Navy was no match for anything the americans could muster, so my veiw is that ( and notice I did not mention the use of nukes in this "out look" as it would just be end of the world) if a war were to break out in europe in the 60's or 70's that the USSR would drive NATO out but would be halted at the sea by the US navy
-
just to let you know the term "cold war" defined...A state of rivalry and tension between two factions, groups, or individuals that stops short of open, violent confrontation.
and it officially started in 1946...ended in 1991-1992...
but for the sake of your discussion assuming hostilities commenced...
when it was all over, these would be the survivors
(http://scienceblogs.com/clock/upload/2007/06/cockroach.jpg)
probably these folks too
(http://static.zooomr.com/images/737838_3c79180f0a.jpg)
-
I'll start of by saying that this is a very hard question. I think almost everything was about equal, therefore it would primarily depends on tactics. That is assuming no nuclear weapons would be used, if they were than I would have to agree with gyrene's conclusion.
Also I'd like to mention that since most people here live in US, you can't expect them to give a fair answer.
-
THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL THREAD
Sort of got me thinking in another thread, if the cold war ever got started up, who would win and why, please try to keep things civilised in this, and this is about the military not the government.
Lets say the setting is 1965-70, Soviet troops advance into west germany, compleatly destroying all opposition at first, the reason being the legions of tanks and infantry that they have at hand, though they do suffer losses due to NATO's technological advantage, now, just by the nature of the war in europe, I would not be biased in saying that they would be quick to take over most if not all of europe, suffering very heavy losses in the end, but getting the job done and replacing what they have lost, but once europe has fallen, there would be nothing more that the Soviets could do, as at that time the Navy was no match for anything the americans could muster, so my veiw is that ( and notice I did not mention the use of nukes in this "out look" as it would just be end of the world) if a war were to break out in europe in the 60's or 70's that the USSR would drive NATO out but would be halted at the sea by the US navy
american pilots have combat experiance against russian aircrafts from fighting them in korea&vietnam. therefore i believe the USAF would dominate the skies. b52s would carpet bomb the red army 24/7. the USAF would begin heavy bombing of factories within the soviet union. the red army would grind to a halt from lack of supplies and be decimated on the ground from lack of supplies.
plus america would have 3 world powers on its side. (Britain,france, and canada) where russia merely has a couple satalite states acting as a buffer to attempt to slow down natos advance into russia, rather than acting as real support to the red army.
m60's nocked out t55s in vietnam so i see the tank warefare being won by america with heavy losses on both sides.
the USN would launch from pearl harbor. and assault the russian coastline. opening a second front. and invading russia.
the soviet union, being pushed to the limit from failing to hold back two fronts, being carpet bombed constantly, and the russian peoples spirit being broken from the constant bombing, would finally push the big red button. launching massive amounts of nukes at both the u.s and her allies in a final attempt to save itself.
America would detect the nukes being launched. and would commence M.A.D (mutual assured destruction), launching there own nukes at russia.
the ending result would be all major superpowers in the world being all but destroyed.
-
Probably Russia never had the confidence in its military to be convinced it could win even a limited European engagement.
-
Probably Russia never had the confidence in its military to be convinced it could win even a limited European engagement.
Something tells me Russians had the same amount of confidence as the Americans, otherwise it would be completely illogical.
-
Good argument Ty, but you have ignored more modern and much larger russian tanks, like the T-10, which were specificly build for combat in europe, and you also forget that Russia had plenty of combat experience in Afghanistan, as for carpet bombing B-52's, the losses would be irreplaceable due to SAM's, as far as logistics, how far is Russia away from the rest of europe compaired to the US :) Soviets would have it easy for supply's, as opposed to the US which would have long waits for ships and large aircraft (which risk getting shot down, and ships risk getting suck by suppirior Soviet submarines), as far as combat experience and atrition, WW2 has proven that no matter how many people you kill, planes you shoot down, or tanks you destroy, we will always have 30 more to replace them, and Russia is not alone, we have China, north Korea,mongolia, cuba, and vietnam to our back on the pacific side of things, so in all out man power russia wins in europe, I am trying to come at this from both sides but I really just cant see an over extended US+Nato force taking on at most a 5.3 million man army on its home turf using wepons that were designed to be used on that said turff
-
Also I'd like to mention that since most people here live in US, you can't expect them to give a fair answer.
US wins everything! on every level! Go USA!
:lol
-
and just to clear things up, I am not adding nukes into the discussion because again, the answer is destruction of the world ( 100mt Tsar Bomba anyone? )
-
Depends.
War in Europe would be a definate Russian victory.
-
Caveat - this is conjecture on my part, not the official or unofficial perspective of my employer. It's just a set of theories I have based on my reading of well documented historical events and circumstances.
My guess is that we would have seen limited nuke use if conventional weapons (including really nasty ones like mines and cluster munitions) were insufficient to slow the advance long enough for reinforcements to arrive from the US and other mobilized NATO nations.
Basically if NATO started losing a ground war in Europe, tactical nukes or other WMD could have been used to slow the advance long enough for the Soviet supply chains to come to a halt. An army can only run forward for a few days before it needs to stop for beans bullets and gas. Tactical nuke use would have halted the war in about a week, especially if they were used only on territory that was recently taken by the Soviets, on lines of communication and supply. Make everyone fight in an NBC environment and slow resupply to a crawl due to contamination issues, and the war simply ends in a week. And no global retaliatory strike occurs because the territory being nuked was NATO to begin with. An ugly but most likely effective and "least cost" solution, in terms of loss of human life, in spite of the WMD use.
Nuke and then slime a freeway or supply chokepoint, and civilians away from the immediate kill zone still have a chance to flee. But that LOC is compromised for resupply for days, slowing the advance which saves other lives. A tradeoff.
That's one realistic and plausible scenario... There are others. But supply and realistic limits on effective combat operations in an NBC environment could be decisive no matter who uses them first, even given the overwhelming numbers of troops and weapons on the Soviet side. The bottom line is that the NATO chiefs and national leaders had the starting argument that Europe would simply not be overrun, under any circumstances. There was never a question whether or not NATO had the military power to back that up, the only question was if the various national command structures had the willpower to do what was necessary when the time came to take irrevocable decisive action.
Then again, it might not have come to that. The A-10, F-111, and various other aircraft had some very specialized weapons designed to do nothing but take out Soviet vehicles, including their best armor. Liberal use of aerial delivered mines and cluster munitions may have been able to slow the advance enough that a massive amount of airpower from the states could arrive "in time", in about 48 hrs, to finish the job with conventional weapons only. But if the advance couldn't be slowed enough, I think we'd have seen limited authorization for tac nukes or other WMD designed to slow the advance rather than halt it, in the hopes that limited use on non-soviet territory would not provoke a global retaliatory nuke strike.
Heck, why do you think many Europeans protested the presence of nukes and other WMD so vehemently? They knew damn well those weapons could have been used on NATO soil. War is hell and many civilians simply don't want to win at that cost.
Remember, it was stated numerous times that tactical WMD use was always an option in a European theater war. And we didn't really start dismantling that capability until well after the cold war ended. And lest we forget, there are still NATO nukes on NATO soil, and the old mutual defense obligations have not expired.
-
and just to clear things up, I am not adding nukes into the discussion because again, the answer is destruction of the world ( 100mt Tsar Bomba anyone? )
Not necessarily. Limited defensive use on captured/overrun NATO soil may not have triggered a global strike counterattack. We'll never know but even old school hardline Soviet Russia would have had a hard time justifying destroying the world if Soviet soil had not been attacked.
-
Not offering any ideas apart from a good read about a similar situation, try Tom Clancys "Red Storm Rising".
-
Who would win? Charlie Sheen, that's what he does. Winning!
-
Caveat - this is conjecture on my part, not the official or unofficial perspective of my employer. It's just a set of theories I have based on my reading of well documented historical events and circumstances.
My guess is that we would have seen limited nuke use if conventional weapons (including really nasty ones like mines and cluster munitions) were insufficient to slow the advance long enough for reinforcements to arrive from the US and other mobilized NATO nations.
Basically if NATO started losing a ground war in Europe, tactical nukes or other WMD could have been used to slow the advance long enough for the Soviet supply chains to come to a halt. An army can only run forward for a few days before it needs to stop for beans bullets and gas. Tactical nuke use would have halted the war in about a week, especially if they were used only on territory that was recently taken by the Soviets, on lines of communication and supply. Make everyone fight in an NBC environment and slow resupply to a crawl due to contamination issues, and the war simply ends in a week. And no global retaliatory strike occurs because the territory being nuked was NATO to begin with. An ugly but most likely effective and "least cost" solution, in terms of loss of human life, in spite of the WMD use.
Nuke and then slime a freeway or supply chokepoint, and civilians away from the immediate kill zone still have a chance to flee. But that LOC is compromised for resupply for days, slowing the advance which saves other lives. A tradeoff.
That's one realistic and plausible scenario... There are others. But supply and realistic limits on effective combat operations in an NBC environment could be decisive no matter who uses them first, even given the overwhelming numbers of troops and weapons on the Soviet side. The bottom line is that the NATO chiefs and national leaders had the starting argument that Europe would simply not be overrun, under any circumstances. There was never a question whether or not NATO had the military power to back that up, the only question was if the various national command structures had the willpower to do what was necessary when the time came to take irrevocable decisive action.
Then again, it might not have come to that. The A-10, F-111, and various other aircraft had some very specialized weapons designed to do nothing but take out Soviet vehicles, including their best armor. Liberal use of aerial delivered mines and cluster munitions may have been able to slow the advance enough that a massive amount of airpower from the states could arrive "in time", in about 48 hrs, to finish the job with conventional weapons only. But if the advance couldn't be slowed enough, I think we'd have seen limited authorization for tac nukes or other WMD designed to slow the advance rather than halt it, in the hopes that limited use on non-soviet territory would not provoke a global retaliatory nuke strike.
Heck, why do you think many Europeans protested the presence of nukes and other WMD so vehemently? They knew damn well those weapons could have been used on NATO soil. War is hell and many civilians simply don't want to win at that cost.
Remember, it was stated numerous times that tactical WMD use was always an option in a European theater war. And we didn't really start dismantling that capability until well after the cold war ended. And lest we forget, there are still NATO nukes on NATO soil, and the old mutual defense obligations have not expired.
Interesting, however it seems that you did not take into account the soviet air force and navy. In order to safely bomb the ground forces air superiority has to be established, if air superiority is not established there is no guarantee that US bombers would get to their target knowing the type of interceptors and SAM that soviets had. I don't know much about the soviet surface fleet but I assume it would not be an easy thing to destroy. I also know that the soviets had a good submarine fleet which would probably also cause a problem (I don't know how exactly it would compare to the US submarine fleet).
Another thing, why would the soviets invade europe when their primary enemy was the US? That invasion would only work as an early warning system.
Now if the soviets first started an attack on US mainland they would be faced with the same problems as I described in the previous scenario, and would most likely not succeed.
Therefore that is one of the reasons the war never happened. Neither side was guaranteed to win and loses were not worth the slight possibility of victory.
-
when it was all over, these would be the survivors
Don't forget
(http://www.gardenrant.com/.a/6a00d83451bd5e69e20133f5559374970b-800wi)
-
Good argument Ty, but you have ignored more modern and much larger russian tanks, like the T-10, which were specificly build for combat in europe, and you also forget that Russia had plenty of combat experience in Afghanistan, as for carpet bombing B-52's, the losses would be irreplaceable due to SAM's, as far as logistics, how far is Russia away from the rest of europe compaired to the US :) Soviets would have it easy for supply's, as opposed to the US which would have long waits for ships and large aircraft (which risk getting shot down, and ships risk getting suck by suppirior Soviet submarines), as far as combat experience and atrition, WW2 has proven that no matter how many people you kill, planes you shoot down, or tanks you destroy, we will always have 30 more to replace them, and Russia is not alone, we have China, north Korea,mongolia, cuba, and vietnam to our back on the pacific side of things, so in all out man power russia wins in europe, I am trying to come at this from both sides but I really just cant see an over extended US+Nato force taking on at most a 5.3 million man army on its home turf using wepons that were designed to be used on that said turff
:lol you really think russia was all that and then some during the cold war...what you seems to forget is that under nikita khrushchev the russian military machine was quantity over quality...huge mobile nuclear capable arsenal but, with conventional weapons they were lacking...the 9 year war against afghanistan that started in 1979 showed the weakness of the russian army...the chinese would have gotten better results through sheer manpower...and considering the communist regime at the time, would have been a more dangerous threat to the u.s. than russia.
those t-10s were slow open country heavy tanks...great defensive armament but not suited for offense...very vulnerable to aerial attack...which during the time period you specified the u.s. would have established air superiority, exactly the same way we did in korea and vietnam...speaking of those lovely sam missiles, they were one of the reasons for the way the b-52 was built...the effect on long range bombing in vietnam where the nva used russian/chinese built sam's proved ineffective due to the tactics and technology used to knock them out.
you need to look at actual history to get an idea of what could have happened...in korea, the superior numbers of the chinese backed prk failed to defeat the american forces sent there, and without the interdiction of china and the threat of all out war against china, north korea would have fallen...similar situation occurred in vietnam...politics got in the way of defeating north vietnam out right when the opportunity was there...another thing...if russia and its allies declared war in europe, almost every democratic country in europe, middle east and africa would have become an ally to the u.s. and britain...russia and china would have been forced to use nukes in order to win...
-
Read Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising". Aside from a few details, it'd probably go about like that.
-
I think the Russians would have taken Europe and it would have ended there. The US would not have risked the end of the world and the Russians would not have risked losing what they had gained. Although, I can see how the US/NATO might have taken over some other territories to equalize resources.
However, I don;t know how they would have handled the people. It is nearly impossible to occupy a country and have the people be productive. Sure they would have taken resources but it would have been impossible to build any kind of industry there. There would have been sabotage after sabotage and the US/NATO would have been funding the opposition. I think eventually they would have to get out but the people cost in the occupied countries would have been huge.
-
Good argument Ty, but you have ignored more modern and much larger russian tanks, like the T-10, which were specificly build for combat in europe, and you also forget that Russia had plenty of combat experience in Afghanistan, as for carpet bombing B-52's, the losses would be irreplaceable due to SAM's, as far as logistics, how far is Russia away from the rest of europe compaired to the US :) Soviets would have it easy for supply's, as opposed to the US which would have long waits for ships and large aircraft (which risk getting shot down, and ships risk getting suck by suppirior Soviet submarines), as far as combat experience and atrition, WW2 has proven that no matter how many people you kill, planes you shoot down, or tanks you destroy, we will always have 30 more to replace them, and Russia is not alone, we have China, north Korea,mongolia, cuba, and vietnam to our back on the pacific side of things, so in all out man power russia wins in europe, I am trying to come at this from both sides but I really just cant see an over extended US+Nato force taking on at most a 5.3 million man army on its home turf using wepons that were designed to be used on that said turff
you said the setting was 1965-1970. thats why i didnt include afganistan. that war happened in the 80's.
and i didnt even know the russians had the T10 lol.
but i still see america winnning the tank war with support from her allies. britain and france all had there own battletanks. vietnam and korea didnt so russia would have to supply them with her own which would take away tanks from her own army.
back then i dont think sam's could reach the b52's max altitude. all the times ive heard of them being shot down in vietnam it was because they were flying too low.
and the U.S army wouldnt be hard to supply ether. France and Britain are right there in europe. just start using some of there factories to produce american equipment and they can be supplied just as good as russia could.
and if the era's 1965-1970, vietnam wouldnt be able to directly support russia because the war in vietnam would still be going on. and china&russia have never really seen eye to eye so if it came down to it, i see china helping vietnam out before it came to any aid for russia.
i cant say anything about the submarines tho. i dont know much about submarine warfare lol.
-
and the U.S army wouldnt be hard to supply ether. France and Britain are right there in europe. just start using some of there factories to produce american equipment and they can be supplied just as good as russia could.
Do you know anything about manufacturing? You can't just retool a modern manufacturing facility in a matter of days. That is one reason that the NATO forces all have common weapon ammunition. IF you loose or your weapon gets destroyed you can pickup a brit weapon and use 5.56 in it just like you can with an M-16. Same thing with the 7.62 weapons for the soldiers.
I think it would have gone along the lines of Red Storm Rising...but who can say for sure.