JonathanStrange
PrinceWithA1000Enemies
I've not read any of these alt-histories of a WWIII. Any opinions on what still hold up -- that is, still readable despite time having marched on. I might look for some to check up from the biblioteca.
Yeah I've read it... it seemed like complete fantasy, where a few heroic American soldiers are able to slaughter hordes of Russian troops. Also I'm NOT talking about a purely conventional war; both sides had massive amounts of tactical nukes and I know that the WP armies, at least, relied upon them in their battle plans. For example their tanks were not designed to fight enemy tanks, but they were designed to be able to safely go through an area that had been hit by a nuclear warfare.I'd advise you to read Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising for this - not only is it a heck of a good read, it also adresses exactly the scenario you're talking about: conventional war in Europe after an attack by the Soviet Union.
Yes..Because if the US didn't use nukes then Russia would conquer Europe. That simple.
...which is proof this isn't exactly true.The Soviets often had more actual numbers of things than the West, but the West had better quality, better soldiers and superior technology.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=283166But they would be.
It is simple. The USSR was always in a weaker position than the West, but it was close enough to be comparable. Like how China has more people than India, but they're 'comparable.' The West was stronger with the US, but without them was weaker. That's why Russia would have a massive advantage in Europe proper.
The way I see it, they weren't really outmatched or inferior, they just had different objectives. Take the air force. The NAtO air force was larger because they needed it to provide CAS for their ground forces. The WP, on the other hand, used artillery for this instead, and simply used their air force to deny air superiority to NATO. So while NATO's air force might eventually win air superiority, the fighting could easily be over by the time that happened.Their navy and airforce were outmatched, particularly their navy - submarines wouldn't be much good to them if they weren't launching nukes from them. Their ground forces had inferior equipment - most Russian equipment was worse than Western equipment, but there were some areas they excelled in, and in most they were again comparable - and morale, but had the size advantage.
Well they had 11 million troops in the Red Army at that time, and they had just finished crushing Germany in the west and Japan in the east. I don't think I'd call that weak! But they didn't have the logistical or nuclear capability to take on the western allies at that time, and besides they weren't particularly bad enemies then anyway.Winner's summing up of where the war would have ended at the times he said is actually about right, but he's wrong about the Soviets having their shot in the forties and fifties. A strong breeze could have blown Russia over in 1945; it just so happened that everyone else was susceptible to weak breezes at the time. But when confronted with force, Stalin always backed down. He wouldn't do that if he felt he could handle it.
Yes, and we had a similar incident. Anyway it doesn't matter who had better early warning capabilities, because we had no way of hitting them with a full nuclear strike without their also nuking us back to the stone age (at least after 1960 or so).And Russia's early warning capabilities were far inferior to those of the US. The USSR almost unleashed armageddon on the world in the 1980s when their early warning system revealed a sneak nuclear attack by the US on them. Luckily, the guy in charge of actually firing the retaliatory missiles didn't do it.
So, what did NATO have better quality in?Don't put words in my mouth. The Western advantage was never "HUGE." It was always there though. Nor did they have "better quality in EVERYTHING." They had better quality in a lot of things, and it was usually in what mattered. And your numbers are way off, the USSR had nowhere near that kind of an advantage.
Well they had 11 million troops in the Red Army at that time, and they had just finished crushing Germany in the west and Japan in the east. I don't think I'd call that weak! But they didn't have the logistical or nuclear capability to take on the western allies at that time, and besides they weren't particularly bad enemies then anyway.
Yeah I've read it... it seemed like complete fantasy, where a few heroic American soldiers are able to slaughter hordes of Russian troops. Also I'm NOT talking about a purely conventional war; both sides had massive amounts of tactical nukes and I know that the WP armies, at least, relied upon them in their battle plans. For example their tanks were not designed to fight enemy tanks, but they were designed to be able to safely go through an area that had been hit by a nuclear warfare.
pi-r8 said:I guess you have a different definition of a "weaker position" than I do, then. The way I see it, if the WP would have "a massive advantage in Europe proper" than that's NOT a weaker position! I would define the USSR conquering western Europe as a WP victory, regardless of what else might happen in a war.
Winner said:In the Third World War by Hackett, the explanation given for conventional nature of the war is moderately plausible - the USSR doesn't plan to fully occupy Europe, it wants to neutralize the "threat" of growing Western economic advantage over the Eastern Bloc. Politburo fears a full-scale nuclear war, therefore a decision is made not to use any nukes and rely on conventional artillery instead. The goal is to reach Rhine and soundly defeat the NATO forces before the US can send reinforcements. Then it would be the Soviets who would dictate peace terms. NATO doesn't use nukes because its forces are never defeated (though most of West Germany and the Netherlands is overrun by the Soviets) - it is suggested that tactical nukes would be used if the front collapsed.
Yeah I've read it... it seemed like complete fantasy, where a few heroic American soldiers are able to slaughter hordes of Russian troops. .
Then Austria-Hungary won WWI by conquering Serbia? If they couldn't hold it - and they couldn't if the US was serious about dislodging them - then conquering it wouldn't do them a whole lot of good, would it?I guess you have a different definition of a "weaker position" than I do, then. The way I see it, if the WP would have "a massive advantage in Europe proper" than that's NOT a weaker position! I would define the USSR conquering western Europe as a WP victory, regardless of what else might happen in a war.
It is true that they had different objectives. But their air force would have been overcome. It might have gained some time with a Pearl Harbour-style surprise attack on Western bases in Europe, but eventually carrier-based forces would wear them down. Remember, unless artillery is in a hardened position - such as North Korea's - it is always vulnerable to air attacks. So control of the air by NATO would destroy the USSR's advantage on the ground as well.The way I see it, they weren't really outmatched or inferior, they just had different objectives. Take the air force. The NAtO air force was larger because they needed it to provide CAS for their ground forces. The WP, on the other hand, used artillery for this instead, and simply used their air force to deny air superiority to NATO. So while NATO's air force might eventually win air superiority, the fighting could easily be over by the time that happened.
Actually, the navy was designed to defend shipping lanes everywhere, not just in the Atlantic. The Russians would rely on closing such bottlenecks as the Suez Canal and Malacca Strait to seriously mess with Western shipping, while concentrating on bringing resources into Russia through Arctic ports that would be difficult to close. Russia also had far greater amounts of natural resources on hand than any of its enemies, so needed shipping less.At sea, Nato's navy was much larger because they needed to defend their shipping across the atlantic. The WP didn't have that vulnerability, so their navy was just focused on attacking the NATO navy.
Their quality advantage was less on the ground than elsewhere, but it still existed. Also, let's not forget morale. The Europeans were fighting for the defence of their homelands - many Russians weren't particularly sympathetic to their leadership, let alone the myriad foreign troops in their armies. There'd be a core of die-hard communist and nationalists, but there'd also be plenty who flat out didn't care, and others who'd even use the opportunity to defect.On land, I don't see any data to support that the NATO troops would have any sort of quality advantage, and they were CERTAINLY at a quantitative disadvantage.
Germany crushed themselves, and the US crushed Japan. The USSR just picked up the pieces. That's what happens when you over-extend yourself with a massive empire at your back - it eats you.Well they had 11 million troops in the Red Army at that time, and they had just finished crushing Germany in the west and Japan in the east. I don't think I'd call that weak! But they didn't have the logistical or nuclear capability to take on the western allies at that time, and besides they weren't particularly bad enemies then anyway.
Submarines, nukes, aircraft - with a few exceptions - tanks - with a few exceptions - replacement parts, etc. The point is that what they had the quality in was more important than what the Soviets had quality in - artillery, medium-range missiles, fur hats, and hot Eastern European women.So, what did NATO have better quality in?
Those numbers look wrong, but I don't have my books on me. Regardless, I could have a 1,000:1 advantage over you on the ground, but if you controlled the sky it wouldn't really help me much. Besides which, I've never denied Russia had a quantitative edge. But 3:1 sounds like Kennedy Administration scare-mongering, not the actual data.As for numbers, just going by wikipedia here, it looks like the USSR had built about 60,000 T-55 tanks, vs. 10,000 M48 and M60 tanks for the USA. They also had about 30,000 APCs vs. 10,000 for the USA, and a I can't find the numbers for artillery but I'm sure they had an even bigger advantage in that.
Germany crushed themselves, and the US crushed Japan. The USSR just picked up the pieces.
Yes, yes, and yes.Granted the USSR just 'picked up the pieces' in Japan - but in Germany? Or is the latter sentence just in regard to Japan?
And how do you mean, 'Germany crushed themselves'? By stupidly starting a 2-front war in the first place? In that I'd concur..
But otherwise, both Germany and the Soviets fought like mad bastards on the Eastern Front, with horrendous casualties on both sides, much worse than anything seen on the Western Front. In all fairness, the Soviets paid a huge blood price for that victory, saying they 'just picked up the pieces' is totally misleading!
Well it's been a long time since I read it, maybe I'm remembering wrong. But I remember it as, in the beginning the Soviets win some victories, at a heavy cost, in order to build dramatic tension. But in the end, the heroic Americans overcome them with their fighting spirit, just like a hollywood movie.Actually... no. American ships are sunk left and right, almost completely closing the Atlantic. American equipment (Abrams tank in particular) IS depicted as superior, but I think that was a fair assessment - nevertheless, they can slow the Sovs but not stop them.
The Sovs are ultimately stopped only by a combination of fuel shortages (reasonable under the premises of the book - the war only started because the SU was looking at a fuel crisis) - and a coup d'etat by a new government expressly to AVOID nuclear war.
Well it's been a long time since I read it, maybe I'm remembering wrong. But I remember it as, in the beginning the Soviets win some victories, at a heavy cost, in order to build dramatic tension. But in the end, the heroic Americans overcome them with their fighting spirit, just like a hollywood movie.
At any rate, that book was set in the 80's, right? That would definitely be the worst possible time for the soviets to attack, since their economy was really falling apart and Reagan ramped up our defense spending so much.
First of all, I must point out that apparently the Soviet units were only equipped with supplies for about 30 days. Not sure about Nato forces, but I imagine they'd be similarly equipped. So, one way or another, the war would be finished in a month. That's what happens when you've been building up forces for 20 years and they're armed with nuclear weapons, there's just no way to replenish losses fast enough once the fighting starts, because the fighting is so destructive.Then Austria-Hungary won WWI by conquering Serbia? If they couldn't hold it - and they couldn't if the US was serious about dislodging them - then conquering it wouldn't do them a whole lot of good, would it?
It is true that they had different objectives. But their air force would have been overcome. It might have gained some time with a Pearl Harbour-style surprise attack on Western bases in Europe, but eventually carrier-based forces would wear them down. Remember, unless artillery is in a hardened position - such as North Korea's - it is always vulnerable to air attacks. So control of the air by NATO would destroy the USSR's advantage on the ground as well.
And the fighting would not "be over" until the Soviets had their arses handed to them. It's possible (re: likely) the West would decide to punish them by depriving them of their satellites and liberating some Soviet republics, though they might stop at a push for Moscow. After all, invading Russia from Europe has a tendency to not work out terribly well.
Actually, the navy was designed to defend shipping lanes everywhere, not just in the Atlantic. The Russians would rely on closing such bottlenecks as the Suez Canal and Malacca Strait to seriously mess with Western shipping, while concentrating on bringing resources into Russia through Arctic ports that would be difficult to close. Russia also had far greater amounts of natural resources on hand than any of its enemies, so needed shipping less.
It would still be incapable of successfully conducting an air campaign over the US, and without doing that it couldn't keep the US from hitting it in its own territory and on the front lines in Europe. Its navy was simply unable to take out enough carrier-based aircraft and transport ships to keep the US from re-inforcing Europe.
I've not seen any evidence at all that the ground tech of the USSR was at all behind that of NATO. Morale, maybe, since their soldiers were conscripts and most of ours were volunteers. But on the other hand, Russian soldiers have always fought extremely fiercely, even in their ridiculous war against Afghanistan. They had experienced one of the most hellish wars ever, and were determined not to let such a thing happen to their country again. They had also been inundated with anti-western propaganda their entire lives. So, I'm inclined to think that they would not have given up easily.Their quality advantage was less on the ground than elsewhere, but it still existed. Also, let's not forget morale. The Europeans were fighting for the defence of their homelands - many Russians weren't particularly sympathetic to their leadership, let alone the myriad foreign troops in their armies. There'd be a core of die-hard communist and nationalists, but there'd also be plenty who flat out didn't care, and others who'd even use the opportunity to defect.
I'd rather not get involved in an argument about WW2 history, since it's really outside the scope of this thread. But suffice to say I think you really overstate the Soviet Union's weakness at that time. What do you think of this article?Germany crushed themselves, and the US crushed Japan. The USSR just picked up the pieces. That's what happens when you over-extend yourself with a massive empire at your back - it eats you.
The Soviet Union backed down when confronted militarily by the West - sometimes by Britain alone - in the immediate post-war period. I mentioned Berlin and Northern Iran. Let's not forget the withdrawal from the indefensible position they held in Austria, the attempts by Stalin to reign in Tito and the Greek communists, Finland not being satellited, the attempt at coercing Turkey into joint control of the Dardanelles, I could go on forever.
The Soviet Union had a lot of soldiers. Lots and lots of soldiers. Their average age happened to be 15.7 years. 15.7 years! Stalin beat Hitler in large part by simply throwing troops at him. Let's not forget Zhukov's instructins on how to advance through a minefield. While they weren't barbaric hordes as were later claimed, the majority of troops had little, if any, training - during Stalingrad boys were often given a uniform, a rifle, then sent to the front - and many of the talented officers had either died during the war, defected, or disappeared in Siberia. The post-war period left Russia in a massive demographic crisis.
Then there's the matter of industry. With precious few exceptions - a few isolated parts of Germany, Czechoslovakia, parts of France, Sweden - Europe's industrial capacity was gone. Not damaged, gone. The Germans destroyed it going in, the Allies bombed it while they were there, and the Germans blew it up on the way out. In Russia, where the Russians had destroyed their own factories and crops to keep the Germans from getting them, things were even worse. Bear in mind, Stalin stripped machinery from both Germany and Manchuria to take back to Russia. That was because Russia was decimated worse than any other nation in this regard, even Germany, and also a fear that he may not control these territories for very long.
There's a story I read once about American troops capturing a fleeing SS officer on a river in a boat, and the Soviet commissar asking for the return of the boat. Russia was exhausted and frightened. On paper, it looked strong. In practice, it most certainly was not.
And no-one had the nuclear capability to take on anyone in the immediate post-war period. Even under Eisenhower it was still largely a matter of bluff on both sides, as neither were really as strong as they claimed. Until around 1954, neither side had enough operational nukes to seriously affect the other in the case of full-scale war. After all, Hiroshima's industry wasn't actually that badly damaged by the nuke, compared to what the US was hoping for. In as large a territory as Russia, wiping out their industrial capacity simply couldn't be done. And Russia's nukes were even worse. It took a great deal of work to churn out quality nuclear weapons.
And in 1945, the Soviets weren't your enemies. Not until Truman insulted Molotov and made them one. Russia took control of Eastern Europe because it could and it needed to. No-one lifted a finger to stop it, and it was (justifiably) frightened of what might happen to it if it didn't block the corridor through which millions of Germans had marched into their nation. Stalin was one of the most pragmatic practitioners foreign policy in history. He had no desire to make an enemy out of the West, but he was afraid of you. Ask yourself; why would he be afraid if Russia were up to the challenge of a new war?
Those fur hats and hot Russian women can be crucial in a war situationSubmarines, nukes, aircraft - with a few exceptions - tanks - with a few exceptions - replacement parts, etc. The point is that what they had the quality in was more important than what the Soviets had quality in - artillery, medium-range missiles, fur hats, and hot Eastern European women.
Those numbers look wrong, but I don't have my books on me. Regardless, I could have a 1,000:1 advantage over you on the ground, but if you controlled the sky it wouldn't really help me much. Besides which, I've never denied Russia had a quantitative edge. But 3:1 sounds like Kennedy Administration scare-mongering, not the actual data.
At this point, the WP can now attack England with medium-range rockets from across the channel. And since that was one of their specialties, they'd easily be able to destroy all of the air fields in England. They probably couldn't conquer England, but they could at least remove it's ability to project force into Europe.
So how is the US going to dislodge them from this position?
From memory you're about right on the supply score. I believe NATO had more supplies, but the Russians were actually trained to function with less. Interesting dichotomy.First of all, I must point out that apparently the Soviet units were only equipped with supplies for about 30 days. Not sure about Nato forces, but I imagine they'd be similarly equipped. So, one way or another, the war would be finished in a month. That's what happens when you've been building up forces for 20 years and they're armed with nuclear weapons, there's just no way to replenish losses fast enough once the fighting starts, because the fighting is so destructive.
NATO wouldn't be stupid enough to position that much of their materiel within range of Russian artillery. Come on, do you think they'd act like the Civ AI and continuously send troops into a deathtrap?So here's how I imagine a war going down. NATO positions most of it's troops, especially it's heavy tanks, in the Fulga gap. WP charges towards this position. NATO air attacks the WP troops, however the soviets have so many interceptors that NATO is too busy fighting the interceptors to be able to send in any bombers or CAS. WP artillery begins shelling the NATO troops with artillery and tactical nukes, destroying most of their heavy equipment. Probably most of the WPs initial wave of tanks and mechanized infantry would be destroyed, but they have a 2nd and 3rd wave ready to move. NATO does not.
If you think the Soviets can cross the Rhine and the Alps with ease, you don't know much about geography or logistics. Even if Russia succeeded in taking France and Italy - and Italy would probably be more directly threatened by Communist insurgents in Italy than the Soviets outside - they sure as hell wouldn't '"quickly roll over" France. West Germany knew it was a speedhump. But France wouldn't fall without one hell of a fight. And I don't see De Gaulle surrendering. He strikes me as the type who would unzip his pants and tell Brezhnev to mind his teeth rather than surrender. France knew what reaching an accomodation with an invader meant, intimately. They wouldn't do that again, they would have to be conquered.At this point, NATO is forced to retreat from the Fulga gap. This is a big problem, because there's not a lot of defensible terrain between there and the western coast of France- it's all flatland. Also, the soviet tanks are extremely fast and mobile, and they're specifically designed for nuclear warfare, so NATO would have a lot of trouble just getting away at all. Suffice to say that if they break the Fulga gap, they'd quickly roll over West Germany and France, forcing those two countries (key NATO allies) to surrender. Italy wouldn't last much longer, either.
You obviously don't know what a medium-range rocket entails. The Soviets could hit Britain with medium-range rockets from the USSR, let alone Poland or East Germany. They certainly wouldn't need to set them up in Normandy. And the US was perfectly capable of flooding Britain with planes and flying over troops and materiel in order to shore up the levies, so to speak.At this point, the WP can now attack England with medium-range rockets from across the channel. And since that was one of their specialties, they'd easily be able to destroy all of the air fields in England. They probably couldn't conquer England, but they could at least remove it's ability to project force into Europe.
They can easily base their aircraft in Britain, as I've already mentioned. You also seem to be forgetting Iceland and Scandinavia as potential sites. Not to mention the fact that Russia was certainly not capable of knocking out half as many carriers as you seem to think. They could take out some, but the US would still have control of the seas. And carrier-based aircraft, while limited, are still more than enough firebomb Dresden all over again if necessary.So how is the US going to dislodge them from this position? First of all, they have no where to base any of their aircraft any more. They would be left with only carrier based aircraft, which are somewhat limited. Not to mention that the soviets had a huge number of subs and missiles specifically designed to destroy American carriers. Since they were never tested, we'll never know how effective they could be, but having all of their carriers intact is the BEST POSSIBLE outcome for the US.
They won't need to, as they'll arrive before France falls. Secondly, D-Day nearly failed because it was done in the wrong goddamn spot - Churchill's plan of attacking through the "soft underbelly" of Europe was a better idea. Also, you're completely ignoring Turkey, Greece, and other nations bordering Russia, including a giant pink elephant I'll mention later. The US could land troops in those nations. Unless you think Russia is magic, and can simultaneously win a war on two, three, four, or more fronts?And if they wanted to send in more land troops- . D-day barely succeeded, despite the Allies having an overwhelming advantage, complete naval and air superiority, and a short hop across the channel. Is the US going to launch an amphibious invasion from all the way across the channel, against an enemy that can instantly attack any beachhead with overwhelming amounts of artillery and aircraft?
If things got that desperate, the US would launch ICBMs. You and I both know they would launch them much earlier in your doomsday scenario. But it wouldn't reach that point. The USSR could overrun Europe, but not quickly enough to secure it. The US could get supplies and men to Britain and elsewhere despite Soviet attempts to stop them. Therefore, the Soviets would never be in such a powerful position anyway.Of course the USSR would not be able to invade the US, either (I don't think this was ever even planned for). But it seems like the war would pretty much have to end here, with western Europe occupied, and Britain under siege. Unless the US decides to launch ICBMS, of course, and then everybody dies.
It was behind, but not that much. it was elsewhere that the technological advantage was comfortably in the West's favour.I've not seen any evidence at all that the ground tech of the USSR was at all behind that of NATO. Morale, maybe, since their soldiers were conscripts and most of ours were volunteers. But on the other hand, Russian soldiers have always fought extremely fiercely, even in their ridiculous war against Afghanistan. They had experienced one of the most hellish wars ever, and were determined not to let such a thing happen to their country again. They had also been inundated with anti-western propaganda their entire lives. So, I'm inclined to think that they would not have given up easily.
And? The USSR needed three months to get troops into position to treacherously invade a crippled Japan. Is that supposed to show their might? No, it shows their weakness. Stalin needed time to recover, and they were hardly fighting the creme de la creme of Japanese troops. They were fighting starving, ill-equipped troops, most of whom had never seen any action, or not in years. This was Manchuria after all, pretty far from the front line. You did notice the "on paper at least" line didn't you? That's because they were beating up on an off-guard, numerically inferior and ridiculously under-supplied enemy, after they'd just been re-equipped.I'd rather not get involved in an argument about WW2 history, since it's really outside the scope of this thread. But suffice to say I think you really overstate the Soviet Union's weakness at that time. What do you think of this article?
http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=18939&IBLOCK_ID=35&PAGE=1
to quote:
"What most people dont know is that the Red Army had another huge triumph still to come: a crushing strategic victory on a front 3000 miles long, with 1.6 million Soviets annihilating a force that, on paper at least, totaled more than a million battle-hardened Axis troops. Im talking about Operation August Storm, the Soviet invasion of Japanese-held Manchuria on August 9, 1945exactly three months after the surrender of the Nazis."
Russian tanks may have been relatively easy to repair, but Russian manufacturing policy didn't include making spare parts. Russian tank strategy called for not bothering to repair tanks. If they stopped working, hop in another one. Western strategy called for replacing the nut that had come loose. Which one do you think is cheaper and more effective?Those fur hats and hot Russian women can be crucial in a war situation
Anyway, while I agree that Nato certainly had an edge in naval power, and nukes, I don't agree that they had better quality of tanks or replacement parts. In fact the Russian tanks were known to be quite robust and easy to repair.
And you over-estimate the Russian ability to keep the West from gaining air superiority. The Soviets would likely enjoy initial air superiority, but it wouldn't last. And air power is massively important. The Gulf War involved a strategic bombing campaign. That means bombing the factories said tanks come out of, not the tanks themselves. If the US had used bombing tactically, they'd have taken out many more tanks from the sky.As for air power, that only comes into play if you can gain at least some air superiority. And with the vast numbers of extremely effective Soviet interceptors, I don't see that happening (remember the WP air force was designed primarily to prevent NATO from ever gaining air superiority). Besides, I'm not convinced that air power is ever as decisive as our military leaders would like it to be. In the same site I linked above, he quotes an Iraqi tank commander in the first Gulf war as saying, "After two months of bombing, I still had 17 of my 24 tanks operative. After one battle with the M1s, I had three." And that's with about as overwhelming an air advantage as any side has ever had.