NATO vs Warsaw Pact

[The Art of War]

sorry if i wasn't being more reasonable...seriously, i'm not being sarcastic.

:anyway...from what I've read, in CW's War, the Pakistani's estimated the total afghan deaths, refugees, muja, women/children, as almost 1/3 of 40 million people. This is referred to as "soldier" deaths, because the men and boys would rest in the refugee camps around Peshawar, then head off to fight. In 1989, the soviets cited 12,000 Red Army deaths, but later, Russian Fed. officials cited it as 25,000.

:By saying Iran-Contra, i'm clumping this all together. The Contra cause of Reagan's was crucified by all branches of the government, while the Afghan cause was championed..there's a reason the Contras lost, and it was funding.

:Again, from what I've read, Iran provided only refugee camps for the Afghans.

:yeah, i know of the border conflicts between USSR and PRC. There were a few division sized battles there, if I recall correctly. I have a feeling, due to Red Army losses, and the fact that Pakistan would've been a much easier target than China, the Soviets might have actually considered invasion.

Afghanistan was the CIA's largest operation and escalation (money and weapons-wise) in history. $30 billion dollars, 1/5 of Vietnam, and a longer war...but you've also got to count that Vietnam wasn't so much an "operation" as it was a war. So Afghanistan was the largest "no-US Military on the ground" operation.

 

[MadScot]

Originally posted by The Art of War


whoa! superb argumentative skills, bud!

honestly, how old are we?

And what, precisely, has that got to do with anything?

FWIW I was in Germany wearing a DPM uniform in 1990; that should give you a rough enough idea.....

But it's my personal experience that age has little to do with intelligence or common sense.

Also, yes, Afghanistan was much more pivotal than Korea. There wasn't going to be any Total War that MacArthur wanted, and what exactly happened in Korea? Wait---there's still a communist north. is there a dominant communist force in Afghanistan?...hmm, i'll let you answer that one yourself.

No-one KNEW at the time that Korea wasn't going to start WW3; the fact that the American supreme commander was pretty much trying to start it is pretty significant.

The fact that the Korean war ended in a draw (essentially) does not make it less important.

I note you seem now to be accepting almost anything except Korea as a battle in the cold war.

And I'm not your 'bud', mate!

 

[The Art of War]

I asked how old you were because you replied with a childish comment (IMO) instead of some real argument...see how easy it was to just reply?

I know Korea was a war, I'm greatful for the veterans that fought it. -BUT- in my opinion, it wasn't going to start WW3, because, as I said before, the ChiComms had no nukes, the N. Koreans had no nukes, the Russians weren't stupid enough to seel nukes to either....

I have no personal beef with you, so let it go, how about it? This is a debate, and the whole point of a debate is so that people don't have to fight about stuff.

Also, I'm glad you were in Germany in 1990.

 

[The Art of War]

ps, the "how old are we?" wasn't for intelligence or common sense, it's just that kids are known to reply with said reply.

anyway....

 

[Cunobelin]

Since you got carried away with the last few posts ill retry my question.

Someone mentioned earlier that NATO only had plans for a defensive war agianst the Soviets and were deployed as such. Assuming an attack was made and repulsed would NATO have followed it up with a counter attack across the Iron Curtain or would the fear of an escalation into full nuclear warfare have prevented such a move?

 

[Richard III]

Who knows? However, even the offensive nuclear plans were defensive, e.g. nuclear attacks based only on the failure of conventional defence.

 

[The Art of War]

and they were also just going to use tactical nukes, weren't they? no nuke bombing cities, that i know of.

also, i think that an offensive operation would've depended on the President at the time...had it been Carter, no. Reagan, possibly.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by The Art of War
and they were also just going to use tactical nukes, weren't they? no nuke bombing cities, that i know of.

Well, no!

In the atomic bombing days, it was cities, although they'd usually sort of find a target to aim at to feel military, e.g. a big presidential palace or a headquarters.

But SIOP's traffic planning system for nukes in the 1970s-1980s was big enough to be sure that everything got nuked several times over; a typical city would have 1-20 targets inside it, but we all know that the targets selected because they were looking for things to hit, not because the targets were especially, uh, targetable at that level. So, as I used to say, "we/they have enough nukes to be dicks." Downtown Moscow was the target of 64 allied warheads alone in the 1980s. There were more for the suburbs.

R.III

R.III

 

[Case]

Originally posted by The Art of War
I know Korea was a war, I'm greatful for the veterans that fought it. -BUT- in my opinion, it wasn't going to start WW3, because, as I said before, the ChiComms had no nukes, the N. Koreans had no nukes, the Russians weren't stupid enough to seel nukes to either....

Why do you think that the use of nuclear weapons is a precondition for a world war?

There was a very real risk that Korea could have sparked a far wider war. General MacArthur, the US commander, wanted to invade China, using nuclear weapons to spearhead the invasion. - Do you really think that the Soviets would have ignored such an attack on a country which was, at the time, their newest and closest ally?

Given the laughable state of the western forces in Europe at the time, it's certainly not inconcievable that the Soviets would have responded to any US led invasion of China by invading Western Europe. And that would make for a world war, especially as the Soviets could probably have reached the Atlantic in a couple of months. The fact that the Korean war didn't escelate outside of the penisular is a tribute to the level headedness of the national leaders on both sides of the front lines.

 

[John-LP]

Besides the Cuban Missile Crisis, the closest we came to WWIII was the Korean Conflict. McAuthur requested several dozen nukes and intended to drop them on Chinese cities. All the prevented this was one word from one man, President Harry S. Truman when he said "No!". It came down to one word, one man!

 

[Arvln]

Hey if you really want a good NATO vs Warsaw war, i recommend Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy
It really good, it describe advantages, disadvantages, and fear of both sides.

 

[Sarevok]

Originally posted by Cunobelin
Did the NATO tech really outclass the Soviet that much? I mean the T-72, T-80 tanks were pretty solid machines when put up against the American equivelant at the time werent they?

they sure showed their true power in desert storm against american tanks

 

[Steph]

Originally posted by MadScot
I'd expect the Western tanks to be a bit better protected, except perhaps the Leclerc which is a lighter tank IIRC.

The Leclerc is roughly equivalent to M1A2, Leopard2A5, Challenger 2. It's standard armor is a bit weaker, but I think it as slighlty better reactivearmor

 

[Steph]

Originally posted by John-LP

Air superiority is not the point. .

Reminds me of a joke. Two Russians General are striding on the beach along The Channel. Hundreds of Russian tanks can be seen behind. And then one of the Russians asks 'By the way, who won the air battle?"

I think the great difference between NATO and WP was supply. I read somewhere that the WP artillery would have run out of ammo after a few hours of bombing, with a lof of difficulties to resupply, especially if NATO air forces did well enough.

So the equation was : if Russian overwhelmed NATO fast enough, they won. If they delay to lomg, they lose

 

[marshal zhukov]

I don't think that Eastern Europe would be Soviets allies for too long in case of a war, they probably would revolt or rebel at the first sign of defeat or heavy casualties. That would completely end soviet war effort.
IMO Eastern Europe would only fight alongside soviet troops if they were attacked by western powers first.

 

[inahurry]

Afghanistan population is estimated at 27 million and some in 2003. At the beginning of USSR invasion was less than this figure. There was in no way a loss of 1/3 of the population. The Russians didn’t use indiscriminate bombing or mass terror tactics against civilian population and the Afghan strongman, Karmal IIRC, wasn’t a bloodthirsty madman at all. A population of 40 million is fantasy. My guess is the inter-Afghan fights after Russian withdrawal took a heavy toll on the Afghans if not heavier. Russians are to blame, no doubt, but let’s not invent millions of deaths, it’s a disgusting job, very much similar with the inflated figures for refugees (when the other – bad boys - side is to be blamed, of course).

 

[inahurry]

Yes, there’s improbable the allies of USSR would have joined an aggression against NATO countries but it is also improbable when the military and political leaders of those WTO countries considered the possible paths that could trigger a war they believed they could stand and watch. The populations wouldn’t have rebelled in case of a NATO attack. I also estimate the panic factor in NATO countries civilian populations would have been greater. As I doubt any side considered an unprovoked attack (politicians were pretty much more sane than today’s neocons) the war that never happened actually couldn’t have happened but by a gross mistake. The Afghan episode was just another economic and psychological Russian defeat, military one too ? – debatable.

 

[Michael York]

Just chimmin in a bit on the tanks & airpower that dominated the earlier discussions.
The Soviets greatest disadvantage in both categories came from their inferior electronics and targeting systems. Soviet T-80's couldn't hold a candle to the M1A1's for this reason.
In the air, I have heard and read quite a few times that the Soviet army did not believe that their airforce would have lasted beyond the first couple of days.

I tend to think that the Soviet's allies would have tried the bare minimum level of participation until they were capable of making peace.

 

[stalin006]

Originally posted by Sarevok


they sure showed their true power in desert storm against american tanks

T-72s were no match in desert storm......it was 20 years afterwards, and dont forget that the soviet strenght was numbers, a single american tank would be meeting against 20 soviets in europe, so the soviets would had pretty much won, depending ofcourse in their ability to defend from airstrikes.

 

[stalin006]

Originally posted by marshal zhukov
I don't think that Eastern Europe would be Soviets allies for too long in case of a war, they probably would revolt or rebel at the first sign of defeat or heavy casualties. That would completely end soviet war effort.
IMO Eastern Europe would only fight alongside soviet troops if they were attacked by western powers first.

i am not so sure about this, the soviets were darn sure that 90% of the war would be fought w/ mostly russian resources, they cared less if eastern europe burned, after all, wasnt that the point of their existance after all?, to develop a huge buffer barrier from a possible allied invasion at the end of WW2?, lets also remeber that any rebellions would had not lasted long, the KGB had plenty of experience to keep people in check, even at great presures (remember barbarossa), if they can push russians to jump and fight, they can push any east european.