Masada made a really good post, but my two cents need putting in.
Well, even if they decided not to allow it, that doesn't change much when they're physically unable to fight on, does it? I suppose they could go into seige mode and maintain a state of war for years (or resort to ICBMS) but I don't see what they could do, conventionally, after losing most of their forces in Europe.
Why would America, which had suffered nothing except maybe some bombing raids over the Bering Strait and the North Pole, be "physically unable to fight on?" The second war breaks out, if not earlier, the US would immediately mobilise, factory output would switch from peacetime to wartime production, and millions of people would voluntarily enlist to fight those "godless commie bastards." Also, I give the Soviets six months, tops, beyond the WP's borders. Not years.
No, but the Russian artillery was very mobile and had a very long range. NATO tanks during the 60s and 70's were notoriously slow. They only way they could avoid being in range of artillery would be to run away.
And Russian artillery wasn't exactly swimming with accuracy, you know. Mobility and range are only part of the issue with artillery. Besides, you know the best way to avoid artillery? Run towards it, and take it out. That becomes even more likely once the Soviets actually penetrate WG, not just from NATO, but from guerrillas.
Well, we can consider multiple scenarios, if you want, based on who is sneak attacking who. But given the amount both sides spent on intelligence to try to detect any invasion plans by the other side, it seems unlikely that they wouldn't get at least some advance notice. I mean, how hard is it, really, to notice that either the US starts shipping mass quantities of troops across the atlantic, or that the WP suddenly mobilizes all of its tanks?
They'd almost certainly have some advanced notice. There's an old adage about wars favouring the defensive side. With few exceptions, it's true. If NATO notices Russian troop movements in East Germany, all of a sudden the Fulga Gap becomes much more fortified. If Russia notices American troops steaming across the Atlantic, they pre-empt. Which is part of what makes such a war difficult to start - the one starting it is guaranteed to take
massive losses, even if they eventually win. So if one side notices the other is ready for them, they're far more likely to back off. Unless they're desperate, in which case the war is even more in favour of their opponents.
I agree, that is the most likely scenario. I was just interested in exploring the idea of what if only the small nukes were used, since that's what the battle plans for both sides revolved around. It seems to me that, the reason the USA needed such a large stockpile of nukes is because they were our only deterrence to war. We NEEDED to use them in a war, because if we didn't then we'd lose.
Read about brinksmanship and massive retaliation. The point of such a large nuclear stockpile was to contain the Soviets without bothering with a massive standing army, which it was felt would be bad for the US. After Eisenhower was replaced by that chump Kennedy, that got thrown out the window, and the US started manufacturing everything the "military-industrial complex" could ever want. Way, way more than they could ever need.
Strategic nukes were more than enough to keep the Soviets in check. And there was no need to fight proxy wars unless they genuinely threatened American interests. Most of the time, the most obvious example being Vietnam, they weren't. You didn't NEED nukes to win a war, you used them to save money while achieving the same result - deterrance - as spending much more on conventional arms. A shame that was forgotten.
I'm not suggesting crossing the alps, I'm just assuming that if they could conquer France and West Germany, Italy would be cut off from any aid, and wouldn't be able to hold out for long. It's not like there were a whole lot of troop in Italy, anyway.
You are aware that in order to conquer a country, it is normally necessary to cross their border? Italy is not as dependent upon foriegn trade and resources as Britain in WWII. They could survive. And if France fell, where the hell do you thing the NATO troops would go? Surely they wouldn't ALL go the England?
The real threat to Italy comes from paratroops, as the Alps are easy to defend with a competent military force (though, we
are talking about Italy here). I have no idea how many of those the WP had, but I do know that they were very, very good. But paratroops are always vulnerable, which is part of the reason so many got killed in Crete - peasants stabbed them while they were helpless. Italians would do the same, so the best use of them would be to seize a corridor through which the Russians could pour troops. Not easy.
The Rhine would be an obstacle, I guess. But it's not exactly impassable terrain, and the Russians also have the option of following Hitler's footsteps by swinging north through Belgium. Once they get into France, the terrain is perfect for tanks to roll. What are French resistance fighters going to do, anyway (not to mention the fact that France always had a sizable population which supported the USSR)? It wouldn't be like WW2 or modern Iraq where they could snipe at foot soldiers. I'm sure the Soviets would have no problem leveling any city that resisted them, and de Gaulle would have been executed immediately.
The Rhine
is in Belgium as well, you know? And France had a sizable population of
Communists. The majority didn't actually support the USSR. They just didn't particular like those filthy Anglo-Saxons, De Gaulle included - hell, he was probably personally responsible for much Anglophobia in France.
French resistance fighters would do exactly what they did in WWII; sabotage, harassment, assassination, espionage, etc. That probably includes sniping at foot soldiers. And if you think the Soviets are going to "level" Paris or Bordeaux, you're a fool. They're too valuable, and levelling a residential area is a sure-fire way to push neutral people into the enemy camp. America discovered that for themselves several times in its history.
Also, De Gaulle would almost certainly be kept alive. You'll forgive me for channelling Darth Vader for a moment: "If he could be turned, he could become a great asset." De Gaulle was too valuable to execute outright. Besides, making martyrs is always bad for business. So's regicide, which would cause Russia to lose a great deal of whatever international support it had.
If the USSR can hit Britain with rockets from eastern Europe, then that makes it even easier for them. Considering that the coalition did rather poorly at shooting down Iraqi Scuds during the Gulf War, I DOUBT that they'd be able to shoot down Russian missiles, especially as many as they were capable of launching. And how is the US going to flood Britain with planes and material when all of the airfields are destroyed?
I was under the impression that quite a few scuds were shot down. Regardless, you have quite the imagination when it comes to Soviet accuracy. They wouldn't even know where "all" the airfields were, let alone be able to hit them. Especially when Britain started making more of them.
Really don't see Iceland and Scandinavia as having the logistical support necessary to base a significant number of troops. They could launch some raids from there, but not enough to really effect things.
Iceland and Scandinavia are more than capable of handling significant numbers of troops temporarily. It's not like they're setting up shop there, they're transit points. Besides, bases in Norway and possibly Sweden put the US in range of Moscow quite comfortably. I'm sure that'll be great for Russian morale.
I have no idea how many carriers might be destroyed. I just think it's a mistake to assume that they'd all be operational throughout the fighting. And good luck doing any heavy bombing with a few fighter-bombers launched from carriers, when they'd have to go through massive numbers of interceptors and SAMs.
Masada was right when he said no carriers are getting taken out except by submarines. Unless the yanks lose a few in the Baltic or something early on, they only have subs to fear, and they can handle them comfortably. After all, as Masada also said, the WP only really had two viable naval bases. It's not like the French would let them have Marseilles or Bordeaux with all its facilities intact.
Why would you need heavy bombing? Any bombing in the early stages of the war would be tactical. It's not like the USSR has SAMs
everywhere. Or are you thinking they're magic again? Not to mention the fueling problems.
They TRIED going through the soft underbelly, and they spent a year fighting bloody battles in Italy to no purpose. It doesn't matter where the US lands troops, if the WP can detect it (and they WOULD detect any large invasion attempt- do you think a submarine or spotter plane can't spot a massive convoy of troops?) then they can be there, waiting, with much larger numbers and embedded artillery.
Conqueing Italy was purposeless? Besides, Churchill's plan involved attacking the
Balkans, not Italy. Do you honestly think a spotter plane would actually make it to a position where it could see said troops? It'd be shot out of the sky. Subs are different, but they'd have to already be in position to notice movements. That takes luck as much as skill.
And you think the USSR is magic again. Simply knowing where the enemy is going to attack you sure as hell doesn't guarantee you can have troops there. Once again, rails don't give you free movement in real life, okay? It takes more than a single turn to move an arty from Brest to Athens. Besides, the initial invasion would be to gain a beachhead. The large-scale stuff would follow.
While I do think that they would launch them, like I said above, I think that if they DIDN'T launch them then NATO would have very little chance of victory.
And you'd be wrong, for reasons I've previously stated.
The thing about guerrilla resistance is, it's very effective against us because we have a free media and we're very concerned about our public image. It doesn't work so well against a country like the Soviets who have no qualms about destroying any opposition. Or do you think that some civilians with rifles and home-made bombs would be able to fight an open battle against massed tanks and artillery?
I don't have nearly enough smilies to encapsulate how hilarious that is. Do you know anything about guerrilla warfare? It just became painfully obvious you are way out of your depth here, upon reading that one sentence. That's not how guerrilla warfare works son, the whole point is to avoid such open battles. To use some boxing terminology, to "stick and move." Go in, blow stuff up, and get the hell out before the cavalry arrives. I'll channel Star Wars again: the Rebels didn't do so well on Hoth, did they? Or at Endor, until the shield went down.
Guerrilla warfare is about making it more expensive, both in lives and materiel, not to mention cash, for an enemy to fight you than it is for them to leave. If you're trying to overthrow someone, it's a little different, but if you're trying to force them out, that's all that is needed. The final movement of guerrilla warfare is the switch to conventional warfare, and the US could handle that part nicely.
As for qualms, you are aware of the atrocities committed by the US in the Philippines, Vietnam, and elsewhere, aren't you? "Winning hearts and minds" the old-fashioned way: rape, murder, and looting. What more could a democracy want? In war, both side gives a damn about their public image. That's what propaganda is for. Everything that contradicts it is a filthy lie.
I'd like to see some sources or statistics that would prove this.
Those books I mentioned. I'll find them, I keep forgetting. You'll note I don't need sources for you stuff, since I know it's wrong.
They might not have loved the party, but they sure did fight for it. After all, the soviets did horrible, horrible things to anyone who deserted... I think that might prove to be a powerful motivating factor.
They fought for Mother Russia. Desertion becomes far more attractive when you're losing. As Russia would. Again, the Baltic states and others wouldn't really need much incentive to turn.
Not the toughest of opponents, of course. But that's not the point. The point is that they displayed an extremely powerful command of logistics , firepower, and tactics, despite all the losses they suffered during the war. They managed to move their entire army across Russia, and keep it a secret, too. It's not that they NEEDED 3 months, Staline USED the 3 months because it allowed him to set up the most one-sided fight possible. Why take risks when you don't have to?
Exactly, a one-sided fight. Which Europe wouldn't be. Unless he spent several months moving troops there as well, in which case the West wouldn't be caught by surprise, as Japan was. It remained a secret from Japan because Japan's espionage service was pretty much dead by this point - and had never been that good to begin with, especially in Russia. Europe's wasn't - it was very, very good.
It displayed more command of firepower than Japan; not impressive. Decent logistics; not hard with a massive army that's not currently doing much. Need to do something with them, or they'll rape 2 million women in East Berlin. Oh wait, they did. Tactics were fine, the Russians were pretty good at that. But their tactics involve the aforementioned 'marching through minefields as if they weren't there.' Not exactly a good idea when your enemy really does have mines, unlike the Japanese.
Stalin withdrew from Berlin? That's news to me. I would say that if he was afraid of anything, it would only be nuclear weapons. And he may have been sane enough to simply not WANT a war, even if he could win.
There's this little thing called the Berlin Airlift. You may want to look into it. Ground-breaking use of air power and all that.
Stalin didn't fear nuclear weapons. He said so himself, shocking the world. He knew the US didn't have enough to cause him any serious problems. And if Stalin thought he could win a war, he'd fight it. Witness the gobbling of the Baltics, Ukraine and Poland. Finland he pulled out of when it become obvious it would cost too much. You think Europe wouldn't cost more? Stalin was one of the greatest practitioners of
realpolitick of all time. He wouldn't back down if he didn't have too. Why give up what you can hold onto?
Two reasons come to mind. One, they weren't really enemies with the western allies at that point. Two, the USA had (the capability to build) nuclear weapons, and the USSR did not. That's a pretty powerful trump card. Logistical support would also have been a big issue.
They weren't enemies with Finland either, didn't stop them from invading, did it? Secondly, Stalin
knew the US only had two nukes when it went after Japan. His espionage service was the best in the world at the time. You are aware of how the USSR learnt how to build said nukes themselves, aren't you? A combination of their own scientists and some damn good spying. It was a non-existent trump card. The USSR was under no credible nuclear threat while Stalin lived.
I thought you just said they were a logistical powerhouse? There would be far less logistics involved in invading an area you already have troops than moving them to frigging Manchuria. You also seem to ignore the logistical problems with a war in the sixties, seventies or eighties, which would be worse.
If this is a US military nut then it might well cost more than a Russian tank
Seriously though, the T-55 also tended to just not break down very much, so if it did break down, it was probably because something was seriously wrong with it.
Things have a tendency to break down much more if they're in a combat situation. Guns seldom jam when used only on the parade ground and oiled every day. They do so far more when you take them into battle and wade through rivers. Same with all equipment.
OK, so why do you think Nato would quickly gain air superiority? Do you think that our fighters were so much better that they would be able to shoot down large quantities of Soviet planes very quickly? Because that's a point you'll have to justify.
I admit that I don't know a whole lot about the performance capabilities of either side's airframes, though.
I wouldn't say NATO planes were a great deal better. The Soviets had some very, very good aircraft. But they weren't as good, and that's a problem. Nor were their pilots. By no means would NATO dominate, but they
would win.
China at that time simply didn't have any capability to project force outside of it's own borders. Most of it's planes didn't even have the ability to hit Taiwan, let alone Russia, and it's soldiers were needed to maintain control of the citizens.
Russia is closer to China than Taiwan, if you hadn't noticed. And the PLA was - and is - massively popular in China. Chinese citizens didn't
need controlling - with all due respect to Jackie Chan - unless your war is happening during the Tibetan fracas or the Cultural Revolution. China was more than capable of reaching Vladivostok, Taipei, or anywhere else they wanted. Hell, they may even use the opportunity to attack India again, which I hadn't thought of.
Why wouldn't they have that capacity? It's not like they didn't have refineries. Besides, they'd have all the fuel necessary for a war stockpiled before the fighting began. It would take a long time for a fuel production shortage to effect the actual fighting. In the longterm, they could easily strong arm Turkey into helping them if they succeeded in occupying Western Europe.
If Russia was capable of stockpiling that much oil, they wouldn't have imported it. Tanks use a lot of fuel in combat. So does everything else. Fuel shortages effected the Allies in WWII, and they controlled the whole frigging ME at the time. Fuel shortages would effect the USSR very, very quickly. Not to mention that they'd need it more anyway. They're the ones extending force beyond their borders the most. And there'd be no long-term, the war wouldn't last six months, as I've already stated.
Probably at least one of these things would happen. I have no idea, really.
The one thing that can be predicted about the ME to this day is that whatever is least rational and most brutal will happen.
Radiation sickness can take YEARS to manifest. And if they did hit an area with a low-yield nuke, and then drive a shielded vehicle through, it probably wouldn't suffer too much radiation. The effects were so bad at Hiroshima because there were survivors LIVING right next to the blast site, completely unprotected.
Radiation sickness can also manifest very, very quickly, especially if you happen to drive through a freshly nuked area in an inadequately shielded tank. And I don't think the Soviets would be too bothered about making sure those things were radiation-proof, do you? And low-yield nukes still leave a fair amount of radiation.
Japan, like China, did not have any capability to project force outside its borders (and in fact, still does not, since that's forbidden by its constitution). There might be a war between North and South Korea, but both sides would be pretty much on their own until the fighting in Europe settled down. Hard to tell who'd win that one, but I'm sure it would be incredibly bloody.
Japan actually has very good force projetion capabilities today, though they're forbidden to use them. It was industrialised however, and that means that said capability wouldn't elude them for long, especially if they were frightened. And there
were more than a few US troops in Japan at the time, and they did have force projection capacity. Lot of it.
Depending on the time period, either North or South Korea could win. You're right though it would be very bloody.
The Americans could land troops in Vladivostok if they wanted, but Siberia is not known to be a hospitable place. I don't see what they could accomplish by being there? The Soviets could just wait for them to run out of supplies and then die during the winter.
Depriving Russia of their only major port wouldn't be a major feat? A crippling one, perhaps? Also, all Russia's oil, and much of its manufacturing base, is in Siberia, if America felt the need to push that far. They probably wouldn't, since they wouldn't need to. And US troops would be kept extremely well-supplied through that major Russian port they'd just taken.
Russia would be fighting a two-front war, Stalin's greatest fear in WWII, when he was petrified Japan would attack him. It wouldn't survive long without suing for peace. The question would be what the terms were, and if the West was willing to give it to them. There's also more than a little chance of another Russian Revolution if the capitalist imperialist pigs were to smite them in war.