what if the cold war had turned hot?

This is the biggest crap I have encoutered on the internet so far.
Really.. I espacially joined this forum, on christmas day just for that.
You joined this forum, on christmas day, to dig up a two year old thread, to respond to a post made a page back, to object to a snatch of conversation, and are angered and disgusted at the person who made this.
You sir, need to re-evaluate your life, and the decisions that brought you here.
 
I was going to rant about an absolutely terrible thread necro, but it seems Park beat me to it.
 
You sir..

you should be glad someone wastes some time to make a worthfull contribution to the discussion.
Time is not an excuse.

The statement Soviet tanks are not really made for killing other tanks but only to serve as a weapon platform to survive in fall out an radiation contaminated areas is ridiculous!

really.. it's just crap and should be rectified immediately!
 
in case the thread lives , in late 1940s Turkey was supposed to slowly retreat to protect the port of Iskenderun as some sort of a beachhead for the Allied counter attack . We were to be kind of alone for 6 months. By late 1970 and 1980s the balance was such that if we survived for a week and naturally we would be unassisted , that would be a feat of arms that history would never forget .

though the notion was that we had the keep the airfields open for 48 hours and nothing else . In case we could not , Iran was given enough capacity for 3000 tactical jets .
 
T
..., but the West had better quality, better soldiers and superior technology.

With this at mind, some guy has lunched massive offensive in summer of 41' against Russia. The result was....
To the westerners is hard to understand that, USSR has his own tactical and operational doctrine. And their military hardware is built to support that.

Why do You think that western soldier was/are better? There is no single evidence that common western soldier is better than common Russian soldier.
 
Why are people "rectifying" and asking questions about posts that are two years old. Newsflash, people: THOSE PEOPLE DON'T COME HERE ANYMORE!
 
ı guess it is because poster A was googling something when he came across the thread and saw poster B say something . Something so against that the ideas poster A has held for his entire working life and he has to correct it by all means . It doesn't stop poster C to notice something as well . Considering they have watched Westerners in action they have a right to be sceptical about things afterall .
 
I was a US army border guard defending the Fulda Gap in 1976. Our equipment was in sorry repair and lacking spare parts and I was absolutely convinced that if the Sovs and their WP "allies" came across that nothing would stop them. During Vietnam all the $ went that way, afterwards USAREUR was in a sorry state. Then on another forum I had a chat with a guy that was in the East German army, and he said much the same thing about the Sov army. Problem was that the Sovs had such a numerical advantage in everything that their junk would likely defeat our junk. Years later Reagan passed a spare parts bill that got the equipment repaired and then got them the Abrams.

Before the Abrams we had the M60A2 which was too tall. The firing systems were supposedly not superior to the Sovs, so again in '76 and '77 we would get crushed. I was outa there in '77 when my 2 year enlistment was up. After Vietnam they had those. My main reason for getting out is that I considered we could not win a conventional war with the Sovs and really it absolutely must have gone nuclear, so why was I there? Plus the European NATO members didn't commit enough for their own defense so screw em. The hypothesis of this thread concerning a conventional war with the Sovs, at least when I was there, is very far fetched. For one thing the US put tactical nuclear missiles into the hands of the West Germans, well the US kinda shared them, but the Germans could have launched supposedly. This was to scare the Sovs not to attack when NATO was so weak according to my understanding, and perhaps it contributed to the fact that the Sovs never invaded.

I don't recall when the Abrams was widely distributed and the Leopard as well, but that was when even a Sov attack would likely have failed. F-16 too...

If you're building a game, don't forget the Reforger Divisions, heavy divisions, which flew in from the US and met up with prepositioned equipment.
 
Some points I want to state about cold war gone hot:
In the west it is always assumed that WP would attack NATO. When the Czechoslovakian archives were opened they showed that there were three moments in Soviet history when the military recommended "attack now or never" or the cold war will be lost militarily or economically. (IIRC it was in the late 50's(?), sometime during Vietnam war and in the early 80's)
Everytime the attack plan would have been to nuke anything in Western Europe and too use the (tank) forces only to clean up the survivors by marching asap to Spain.

During the whole cold war the Soviets were afraid of a Nato invasion. It's fun to see all the fictional scenarios when WP attacks NATO but I have never seen a Nato attacking WP scenario.

Comparing technology is quite difficult as the military strategies were different.
E.G. At the end of the war Nato airplanes were superior to WP planes. On the other hand WP BVR AA missiles were way ahead of US ones.
 
It's fun to see all the fictional scenarios when WP attacks NATO but I have never seen a Nato attacking WP scenario.

That's because the forces arrayed by Nato were defensively postured while the Group of Soviet Forces in East Germany were organized, equiped, trained and postioned for offensive operations.
 
probably only because elsewhere they didn't have the slightest chance to get any "decisive results" if it ever came to war .
 
No one will know what would have happened in case the Cold War would have turned hot, but this one's for sure: r16 would boast how the Turkish military held off the Soviet onslaught.

However, we all know that this didn't happen, and instead, r16 boasts how the Turkish military would have held off the Soviet assault in case the Cold War would have turned hot.
 
From what I can tell, NATO would not have stood a chance. We were badly outnumbered by WP troops, and we would have had difficulty transporting divisions from the USA to the front lines in Germany. I also think that politics would have worked against us, since the liberal democracies of the west would have been far more willing to talk surrender than the rulers of the USSR, especially after what they went through in WW2.

I don't know if this helps you any, but I recall watching a documentary about the Cold War where some former Soviet officer said the only real victory they had over NATO was making them think the Red Army was much more powerful than what it really was. He also went on to say that they found it kind of funny that NATO feared them so much when in reality Soviet officers believed they didn't stand a chance in a conventional war due to poor maintenance of equipment, poor morale, and sub-par training.
 
No one will know what would have happened in case the Cold War would have turned hot, but this one's for sure: r16 would boast how the Turkish military held off the Soviet onslaught.

However, we all know that this didn't happen, and instead, r16 boasts how the Turkish military would have held off the Soviet assault in case the Cold War would have turned hot.

Actually, I think he means to say the exact opposite...
 
me being in the Starfleet we would been done with the SU before lunch , and leveled US of A , to a nice single entity of glass , by dinner . Only because ı would give an evil laugh for every anti-matter bomb ı dropped .

if you don't believe am in the Starfleet well...

if ı survive that long maybe ı will write a typical r16 piece .
 
That's because the forces arrayed by Nato were defensively postured while the Group of Soviet Forces in East Germany were organized, equiped, trained and postioned for offensive operations.

But surely NATO had some sort of non-nuclear first strike plan? It would seem foolish of them not to, since everyone knows you can't win a purely defensive war.
 
Top Bottom