Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm in the mood for a fun, hypothetical discussion, so here we go.

The year is 1984, the season is Spring/Summer, and for the sake of being close to realism, let's assume hardliners have taken over the Kremlin and/or a crisis has been provoked in the Warsaw Pact, say an uprising in Hungary or a wheat harvest failure is causing problems in the Ukraine. Just like Red Dawn or something.

I could have chosen the 60s or 70s, but I prefer 80s music

Any of these things would not be against the realms of possibility in real life.

It's unlikely NATO would have struck first anyway, and we'll assume there's an 'unwritten' agreement by both sides not to use any kind of nukes. This is purely conventional warfare.

So, who would have won? I've always wondered this, and I doubt if I'm alone on dakka, and thank God it never came to pass.

But the 2 key questions:

1. Could the Warsaw Pact make its superiority tell in the opening days, and win quickly, which to the best of my knowledge was always their plan?

2. Could NATO forces hold out long enough for American reinforcements to arrive?

Or would the whole thing just bog down into a grinding stalemate? The Warsaw pact makes initial gains, but NATO rallies and drives them back to the pre-war frontiers and it's back to the status quo.

What does dakka think?

Warsaw Pact likely has an advantage in the first few weeks/months but they eventually suffer economic ruin from the stress of the war.

You say no nukes, but I imagine you mean no strategic nukes. Both sides in this conflict would have lots of tactical nukes, and indeed NATOs strategy for a conflict was largely based on using tactical nuclear weapons(like the Davy Crocket) to slow the Warsaw troops down.

I wouldn't consider myself an expert in this, I would call it a stalemate however as while NATO appeared to have superior tech at the time, I think the Soviets would most likely persevere.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Warsaw Pact likely has an advantage in the first few weeks/months but they eventually suffer economic ruin from the stress of the war.

You say no nukes, but I imagine you mean no strategic nukes. Both sides in this conflict would have lots of tactical nukes, and indeed NATOs strategy for a conflict was largely based on using tactical nuclear weapons(like the Davy Crocket) to slow the Warsaw troops down.

I'm a big fan of collecting and painting T-55s and T-72s, so yeah, I have a soft spot for Communist armour, and in my youth, I did dabble with Marxism for a while

But when I said no nukes, I meant it.

As for economic ruin, a quick victory, and NATO having to accept the changed situation i.e de facto Warsaw Pact control of more of Western Europe, might not have led to economic ruin, although you can imagine Britain being used as a base for a last-ditch stand.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Valkyrie wrote:
I wouldn't consider myself an expert in this, I would call it a stalemate however as while NATO appeared to have superior tech at the time, I think the Soviets would most likely persevere.

Many of the Warsaw Pact troops were conscripts, and most of the NATO forces were volunteers. It usually meant that conscripts would out number volunteer forces, but I remember reading somewhere that the Soviets were impressed by the volunteer British forces against the Argentine conscripts in the Falklands War.


Would NATO tank crews not be better trained than their Warsaw Pact opposite numbers?


We saw in 1941, that better trained German tank crews usually got the better of larger numbers of Red Army tanks in the early battles.

It is difficult to separate out Nukes because their useage, particularly on a tactical level, was seen muc differently. The Soviets were much more inclined, in doctrinal terms, to use a nuke to stop an armored thrust or break a defense point than NATO forces would have been. In fact, following the Gulf War (a mere 7 years after 1984), the new Russian army came to the conclusion that the only way to stop a NATO armored division's offensive was through a tactical nuke.


That said, I suspect that, in the classic scenario of Ivan pushing through the Fulda Gap (which I think was way less likely than was usually made out to be the case, probably no more likely than NATO attacking first), the Warsaw Pact would prove very capable for the first couple of weeks, then their logistics would begin to strain and the tide would shift heavily towards NATO as the superior industrial/logistics/infrastructure/training/etc kicks in...until it starts trying to spearhead deep back into the Warsaw pact and that dynamic swings back. Ultimately probably some bloody stalemate.

I suspect that, more importantly, if no nukes were involved, that the conflict would still be difficult to maintain at intense levels for long, simply because the rates of destruction would overmatch production. It's one thing to crank out a T34 or Sherman off the assembly line and directly into battle. Can't do that with a T64 or T72 or M60/Abrams. Same thing with a P51 or Il2 vs a Mig29 or F16. Those WW2 aircraft were a fraction of the cost and complexity, and could be replaced quickly, the more modern aircraft would have much more trouble replacing losses.


More importantly though, what would the Warsaw Pact objective be in this scenario, and what counts as winning for NATO? I dont think the Warsaw Pact was ever going to drive to Bordeaux and the Atlantic to conquer Europe. Without having an objective, its hard to judge the outcome, which I think is also partially why this never came to pass.

Soviets.

I was a kid in northern West Germany in 1988, listening to my father's company commanders talk at a party at our house. The gist of the conversation was basically that the NATO forces would probably hold out long enough to evacuate the families and they'd be overrun shortly after that. This was a matter-of-fact conversation that none of the group bothered to dispute, which was pretty chilling to hear as a pre-teen.

Now it's an open question as to what happens after West Germany and (probably) France, but with a 'no nukes' doctrine, probably a long, bitter air campaign. How long would probably depend on UK & US elections and if they go to hardline campaigners or negotiators(or isolationists), but honestly I'd expect years of devastation and a Red continent at some point.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Warsaw Pact likely has an advantage in the first few weeks/months but they eventually suffer economic ruin from the stress of the war.

You say no nukes, but I imagine you mean no strategic nukes. Both sides in this conflict would have lots of tactical nukes, and indeed NATOs strategy for a conflict was largely based on using tactical nuclear weapons(like the Davy Crocket) to slow the Warsaw troops down.

Warsaw Pact economies were geared heavily towards resource extraction, heavy industry and the military, based on the Soviet model. If the Soviet Union is any indication, they would have been able to keep the war machine running at full steam even after the rest of their economy has simply evaporated. And a WW3 would have ruined economies across the globe, not just in the Warsaw Pact. And NATO economies, being rooted firmly in international trade and the free market, do not have that kind of resilience that the communist economies developed. Especially not since inevitably much of NATO would come under Warsaw Pact occupation since the balance of forces in Europe was heavily skewed in favour of the Warsaw Pact.

Anyways, I predict that a WW3 would have ended in a stalemate and played out much the same as the Korean War did after NATO and China intervened, except on a much larger scale. First, the Warsaw Pact would have had the upper hand. They would have occupied much of Western Europe and pushed NATO forces back to the Atlantic. However, NATO forces would not have gone down without a fight and they would have slowed down the Pact's advance enough for the US and Canada to muster and send over a massive response force. With parts of the Atlantic coast still being in NATO hands and safeguarded by the powerful US Navy, these forces could have landed in relative safety. These reinforcements then would have allowed NATO to match the Warsaw Pact more equally in terms of numbers and equipment. And given that they would have been fresh while Warsaw Pact forces would have been exhausted from the war already, the Warsaw Pact advance would likely have lost its momentum and their forces would have started to be driven back. However, the Warsaw Pact's forces would still have been very formidable and stubborn in their defense, so inevitably the NATO counteroffensive in turn would have lost momentum and brought to a standstill. At this point, either the strategic nukes will be brought out in an attempt to force a breakthrough, or both sides will recognise that the war has now become pointless and engage in peace negotiations. The outcome of those negotiations would most likely have been largely a status quo ante bellum, with only relatively minor changes in territory/political alignments depending on how successful both sides were until the stalemate. For example if Western Germany would still have been largely under Warsaw Pact occupation, I could see it being absorbed by Eastern Germany. Or the reverse if the NATO counteroffensive would have succeeded in advancing beyond the Iron Curtain.
Of course, in the aftermath of the war, the political situation would have become even more tense as the relations between East and West would now have been completely ruined and likely completely severed. Both sides would likely focus on rebuilding as fast as possible and getting ready for "round 2".

 Vaktathi wrote:
It is difficult to separate out Nukes because their useage, particularly on a tactical level, was seen muc differently. The Soviets were much more inclined, in doctrinal terms, to use a nuke to stop an armored thrust or break a defense point than NATO forces would have been. In fact, following the Gulf War (a mere 7 years after 1984), the new Russian army came to the conclusion that the only way to stop a NATO armored division's offensive was through a tactical nuke.


That said, I suspect that, in the classic scenario of Ivan pushing through the Fulda Gap (which I think was way less likely than was usually made out to be the case, probably no more likely than NATO attacking first), the Warsaw Pact would prove very capable for the first couple of weeks, then their logistics would begin to strain and the tide would shift heavily towards NATO as the superior industrial/logistics/infrastructure/training/etc kicks in...until it starts trying to spearhead deep back into the Warsaw pact and that dynamic swings back. Ultimately probably some bloody stalemate.

I suspect that, more importantly, if no nukes were involved, that the conflict would still be difficult to maintain at intense levels for long, simply because the rates of destruction would overmatch production. It's one thing to crank out a T34 or Sherman off the assembly line and directly into battle. Can't do that with a T64 or T72 or M60/Abrams. Same thing with a P51 or Il2 vs a Mig29 or F16. Those WW2 aircraft were a fraction of the cost and complexity, and could be replaced quickly, the more modern aircraft would have much more trouble replacing losses.


More importantly though, what would the Warsaw Pact objective be in this scenario, and what counts as winning for NATO? I dont think the Warsaw Pact was ever going to drive to Bordeaux and the Atlantic to conquer Europe. Without having an objective, its hard to judge the outcome, which I think is also partially why this never came to pass.

I'm more North German plain myself when it comes to invasion, because it has the advantage of securing Denmark, a natural choke point, which could have stopped the Soviet Baltic fleet from coming into play, and it allows for an attack on the Low Countries, which is where NATO HQ is located.

To win in this scenario, the Warsaw Pact don't have to conquer the whole of Europe. Capturing a few countries could have led to a domino effect a la 1940, when the Allies fell like flies, and other nations like Hungary and Romania joined the Axis soon after.

I think a Korean War style stalemate would have been the likely outcome, and I really should stop playing Team Yankee.

As an aside, how long would it have taken for your nation's military to rush major reinforcements to Europe? The 101st and 82nd would be there in what, 3-4 days, with Special Forces there sooner??? But I suppose a serious build up, say, 250,000 men, would have taken weeks. It might have been all over then...


Was it limited to just the US Army, or would the US Marines have made an appearance?






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:
Soviets.

I was a kid in northern West Germany in 1988, listening to my father's company commanders talk at a party at our house. The gist of the conversation was basically that the NATO forces would probably hold out long enough to evacuate the families and they'd be overrun shortly after that. This was a matter-of-fact conversation that none of the group bothered to dispute, which was pretty chilling to hear as a pre-teen.

Now it's an open question as to what happens after West Germany and (probably) France, but with a 'no nukes' doctrine, probably a long, bitter air campaign. How long would probably depend on UK & US elections and if they go to hardline campaigners or negotiators(or isolationists), but honestly I'd expect years of devastation and a Red continent at some point.

A friend of mine was there in the 1970s with the British Army, West Berlin, and he was telling me that they weren't expected to last long...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Warsaw Pact likely has an advantage in the first few weeks/months but they eventually suffer economic ruin from the stress of the war.

You say no nukes, but I imagine you mean no strategic nukes. Both sides in this conflict would have lots of tactical nukes, and indeed NATOs strategy for a conflict was largely based on using tactical nuclear weapons(like the Davy Crocket) to slow the Warsaw troops down.

Warsaw Pact economies were geared heavily towards resource extraction, heavy industry and the military, based on the Soviet model. If the Soviet Union is any indication, they would have been able to keep the war machine running at full steam even after the rest of their economy has simply evaporated. And a WW3 would have ruined economies across the globe, not just in the Warsaw Pact. And NATO economies, being rooted firmly in international trade and the free market, do not have that kind of resilience that the communist economies developed. Especially not since inevitably much of NATO would come under Warsaw Pact occupation since the balance of forces in Europe was heavily skewed in favour of the Warsaw Pact.

Anyways, I predict that a WW3 would have ended in a stalemate and played out much the same as the Korean War did after NATO and China intervened, except on a much larger scale. First, the Warsaw Pact would have had the upper hand. They would have occupied much of Western Europe and pushed NATO forces back to the Atlantic. However, NATO forces would not have gone down without a fight and they would have slowed down the Pact's advance enough for the US and Canada to muster and send over a massive response force. With parts of the Atlantic coast still being in NATO hands and safeguarded by the powerful US Navy, these forces could have landed in relative safety. These reinforcements then would have allowed NATO to match the Warsaw Pact more equally in terms of numbers and equipment. And given that they would have been fresh while Warsaw Pact forces would have been exhausted from the war already, the Warsaw Pact advance would likely have lost its momentum and their forces would have started to be driven back. However, the Warsaw Pact's forces would still have been very formidable and stubborn in their defense, so inevitably the NATO counteroffensive in turn would have lost momentum and brought to a standstill. At this point, either the strategic nukes will be brought out in an attempt to force a breakthrough, or both sides will recognise that the war has now become pointless and engage in peace negotiations. The outcome of those negotiations would most likely have been largely a status quo ante bellum, with only relatively minor changes in territory/political alignments depending on how successful both sides were until the stalemate. For example if Western Germany would still have been largely under Warsaw Pact occupation, I could see it being absorbed by Eastern Germany. Or the reverse if the NATO counteroffensive would have succeeded in advancing beyond the Iron Curtain.
Of course, in the aftermath of the war, the political situation would have become even more tense as the relations between East and West would now have been completely ruined and likely completely severed. Both sides would likely focus on rebuilding as fast as possible and getting ready for "round 2".

Good summary.

So, who was the stand out military within the Warsaw Pact? The East Germans seem to have a good reputation in this regard, with the Poles and Czechs not far behind...

Depends on exactly WHEN the war happens.

The 'no nukes' rule eliminates the fifties. NATO depended heavily on tactical nukes at the time, ruled by the American mindset that nukes were literally the only way to go.

In the sixties, it's possible the Soviets would have held the upper hand. In the aftermath of Vietnam, they DEFINITELY would have won; the American conscript were that demoralized at that point.

By the mid-eighties, the U.S. military had transitioned to all-volunteer, and was getting useful numbers of the new equipment like the M-1 tank and the F-15 fighter. At that point Soviet odds of winning drops off steeply.

Of course, working against NATO is the German insistence upon a forward defense, and the NATO allies all using different equipment which complicates their logistical needs. Not to mention the logisitical nightmare of having the most powerful of the NATO allies several thousand miles away across the ocean...

In contrast the Warsaw Pact forces all use the same equipment and tactical doctrine across the board. It doesn't hurt that the Soviet tactical and strategic doctrine were so good that by the eighties the U.S. was actively copying that doctrine. They were also VERY big on planning out for every conceivable possibility and condensing it all into One Big Plan.

The flip side of that is that the Soviet OPERATIONAL doctrine was badly hampered by a total lack of flexibility at anything less than the Division level... and even they had to contact STAVKA for permission to deviate significantly from the One Big Plan. NATO, on the other hand, tended to give local commanders a mission, and then allow them a great deal of latitude and flexibility in carrying it out. This could work out well, as these junior officers could take advantage of momentary opportunities that the senior officers were too far away to react to.

Or it could work out very badly if the junior officer was a real tool, which still happens to this day.

At any rate, all of this hinges on the Soviets NOT threatening France directly. If France feels that NATO is not going to stop the Soviets, they WILL unleash the nukes to keep them off French soil. I expect a NATO counterattack would also get nuked if it threatened to reach Russian soil. So this is a self-limiting scenario, basically a War of German Reunification instead of World War III.

WWI all over again, but a bit further East and with a slightly less static frontline.

No nukes changes the situation big time.

Warsaw Pact would face a substantially harder and more powerful NATO. Germany alone would have been 4x -6x larger, and not the joke it was in the 1980s but a serious force ready to fight.

US would have deployed bulk of it's forces in Europe, would likely still have a draft. On the positive, side wars like Vietnam likely would not have happened.


This also assumes we would not have attacked first, 6 Day War style. Bad assumption!

Warsaw Pact.

When it came to the balloon going up the moto was
" fighting the silent war, while maintaining a passport in case of a shooting war"

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The year is 1984, the season is Spring/Summer,

If it's 1984, the Berlin Wall still stands and NATO is still on a war footing in Germany. A-10 squadrons have been operational for years, and over 700 such planes had been delivered to the USAF by FRC. 3,000+ M1 Abrams tanks have been delivered, alongside Bundeswehr Leopard 2s, and troops would have had good training with them. M2 Bradleys would also have been in operation (but useless deathtraps). In a conventional forces battle, the A-10s and M1s should have been enough to allow NATO to hold until US production reached a war footing.

Politically, Republican Ronald Reagan would have just been re-elected as President of the free world. Given that he's the guy who told Russia to tear down the Wall, he absolutely has the stones to see the war through. Not that 80s America would give in to the Godless Commies who Hollywood was still demonizing.

By 1984, Mao has been dead for a while, and Deng Xiaoping and his technocrats are running the country. The US had normalized relations with China, so there's the potential to open the South-Eastern front for Russia with a second country that has limitless manpower and isn't afraid to use it. Offer China control of ALL of Asia if they support us in defeating Russia, and they probably bite, in order to gain absolute border security. The Sino-American alliance places Russia in the position of Nazi Germany during WW2... fighting two fronts, one of them being a land war in Asia.

If the win condition is to drive the USSR back to WWI era borders then NATO would win. If it's to actually occupy Russia west of the Urals than it's push. That's one of those regions that would be nearly impossible to conquer and control without openly killing all natives en masse and NATO wouldn't do that.

Move the start date to 1974 and I'd vote USSR in a non nuclear war.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Warsaw Pact likely has an advantage in the first few weeks/months but they eventually suffer economic ruin from the stress of the war.

You say no nukes, but I imagine you mean no strategic nukes. Both sides in this conflict would have lots of tactical nukes, and indeed NATOs strategy for a conflict was largely based on using tactical nuclear weapons(like the Davy Crocket) to slow the Warsaw troops down.

Warsaw Pact economies were geared heavily towards resource extraction, heavy industry and the military, based on the Soviet model. If the Soviet Union is any indication, they would have been able to keep the war machine running at full steam even after the rest of their economy has simply evaporated. And a WW3 would have ruined economies across the globe, not just in the Warsaw Pact. And NATO economies, being rooted firmly in international trade and the free market, do not have that kind of resilience that the communist economies developed. Especially not since inevitably much of NATO would come under Warsaw Pact occupation since the balance of forces in Europe was heavily skewed in favour of the Warsaw Pact.

Sure, that gives them a good amount of production on the front end. The real issue is when longer term logistics become an issue.

The Soviets had massive food supply problems even without an active war going on. Millions were starving to death as it was, add a war and their manpower would quickly dry up. It doesn't do much good that you have a lot of industry set up if your entire labor force starves to death. And thats before any damage from air raids is considered.

As you say, it would probably devolve into a stalemate with neither side being able to make headway. Both sides would also quickly use up all of their expensive modern equipment. Modern aircraft and tanks are incredibly expensive and simply can't be churned out in the numbers WW3 would destroy. So you'd probably have a stalemate where most of the combat devolves back to just infantry warfare, with the occasional tank or plane making an appearance.

Its possible that you might see both sides start kicking back up production of WW2 era vehicles, just because they're cheaper and it doesn't hurt as much when they're lost, and hey you need something out there!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm more North German plain myself when it comes to invasion, because it has the advantage of securing Denmark, a natural choke point, which could have stopped the Soviet Baltic fleet from coming into play, and it allows for an attack on the Low Countries, which is where NATO HQ is located.

To win in this scenario, the Warsaw Pact don't have to conquer the whole of Europe. Capturing a few countries could have led to a domino effect a la 1940, when the Allies fell like flies, and other nations like Hungary and Romania joined the Axis soon after.

I think a Korean War style stalemate would have been the likely outcome, and I really should stop playing Team Yankee.

I suspect a stalemate of some sort would be the most likely outcome. Being that I wouldn't hazard to guess too much, especially with the weirdness of the mid 80's

As an aside, how long would it have taken for your nation's military to rush major reinforcements to Europe? The 101st and 82nd would be there in what, 3-4 days, with Special Forces there sooner??? But I suppose a serious build up, say, 250,000 men, would have taken weeks. It might have been all over then...


Was it limited to just the US Army, or would the US Marines have made an appearance?

I'm sure if it was the real "Big One", the Marines would be there, hell I'd expect half the Coast Guard to get called into the Navy and sent in

IIRC during the Gulf war the US sent over half a million troops and tens of thousands of of vehicles to Saudi Arabia in like 15 weeks. With the developed NATO infrastructure of Europe, the closer distance, the UK staging area, and predeveloped deployment plans, I'd expect that time would be substantially less for a quarter million, and US air/naval support would be available immediately.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Warsaw Pact likely has an advantage in the first few weeks/months but they eventually suffer economic ruin from the stress of the war.

You say no nukes, but I imagine you mean no strategic nukes. Both sides in this conflict would have lots of tactical nukes, and indeed NATOs strategy for a conflict was largely based on using tactical nuclear weapons(like the Davy Crocket) to slow the Warsaw troops down.

Warsaw Pact economies were geared heavily towards resource extraction, heavy industry and the military, based on the Soviet model. If the Soviet Union is any indication, they would have been able to keep the war machine running at full steam even after the rest of their economy has simply evaporated. And a WW3 would have ruined economies across the globe, not just in the Warsaw Pact. And NATO economies, being rooted firmly in international trade and the free market, do not have that kind of resilience that the communist economies developed. Especially not since inevitably much of NATO would come under Warsaw Pact occupation since the balance of forces in Europe was heavily skewed in favour of the Warsaw Pact.

The Warsaw Pact nations faced a couple primary issues in the economics regard, aside from the fact that they're starting with a much smaller economic engine to begin with if the US is included on the NATO end.

First, their ability to maintain the logistics train or dynamically adapt it was significantly behind that of the NATO nations, so while I don't doubt that the USSR would and other Warsaw pact states would continue to produce, I think the problem becomes in getting that to the front adequately and communicating between elements efficiently. The NATO nations had dramatically better communications, transportation & fuel infrastructure, substantially more transport vehicles (both ground and air), etc.

Second, the sum total of Warsaw Pact industry was in much more danger of direct non-nuclear strike (via long range bombers, cruise missiles, carrier launched aircraft, etc) than NATO industry was, particularly with the bulk of that being tucked away in the US. Even with lots of stuff tucked away in Siberia, it was more vulnerable than the industrial base in the US was given the general strategic air situation.

That's not to say that NATO wouldn't face these to some degree as well (NATO would undoubtedly face extreme economic distress and destruction), or that they wouldn't have their own issues, but I think these are the critical points of difference.

Likewise, international market exposure will generally provide greater stability in the long run over a more closed economic model, as while you're more vulnerable to being impacted by world events by dint of simply being exposed to more stuff in general, you're also able to access stuff you otherwise wouldn't and surpass constraints not possible on the value or availability of one's own domestic resources. Being able to turn to another supplier for oil, or steel, or other such resources is a game changer. If you can't make enough guns or tanks, being able to buy them from someone else is a huge deal. If you can't raise enough money domestically for your war needs, being able to borrow money from the international market is important. The previous world wars were won by the sides that could call upon the power of the international market, while those cut out by blockade or combat or sanction were crushed or collapsed.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Many of the Warsaw Pact troops were conscripts, and most of the NATO forces were volunteers. It usually meant that conscripts would out number volunteer forces, but I remember reading somewhere that the Soviets were impressed by the volunteer British forces against the Argentine conscripts in the Falklands War.

I'm not sure why you reasoned the conscript versus volunteer angle like this. countries like France, West Germany, The Netherlands, Italy etc. all had conscription too, and to an extent a mandatory service period thay only got scrapped after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even now most countries still enable conscription in a time of crisis, they just do not have a mandatory service period anymore. If WW3 breaks out its unlikely such a large scale build up would be missed, but in that case why wouldn't NATO countries start mobilizing under their own conscription laws? WW3 is pretty much the mother of all hands on deck scenario for NATO countries to conscript. In the 1980's context of course.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Many of the Warsaw Pact troops were conscripts, and most of the NATO forces were volunteers. It usually meant that conscripts would out number volunteer forces, but I remember reading somewhere that the Soviets were impressed by the volunteer British forces against the Argentine conscripts in the Falklands War.

I'm not sure why you reasoned the conscript versus volunteer angle like this. countries like France, West Germany, The Netherlands, Italy etc. all had conscription too, and to an extent a mandatory service period thay only got scrapped after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even now most countries still enable conscription in a time of crisis, they just do not have a mandatory service period anymore. If WW3 breaks out its unlikely such a large scale build up would be missed, but in that case why wouldn't NATO countries start mobilizing under their own conscription laws? WW3 is pretty much the mother of all hands on deck scenario for NATO countries to conscript. In the 1980's context of course.

Indeed. I think this gets missed a lot.

The current volunteer only armies that exist would not remain volunteer only for long in the event WW3 actually happened. Assuming nukes are avoided, you've still got a huge conventional war to fight. And everybody is going to run out of fancy tanks, missiles, and airplanes very very fast.

No country today really has any sort of stockpile for fighting a long term war with missiles and aircraft vs a peer level military. The US doesn't even have large stockpiles of conventional bombs anymore. Its just a relative handful of insanely expensive smart bombs and missiles, which would be completely used up within the first week of a full on war with, say, Russia or China.

In the event of WW3, in 1984 or today, we would be reduced to fighting with mostly infantry if the war lasted any longer than a few weeks. Which would mean whoever can conscript the most manpower wins. And high tech equipment would be a luxury nobody could afford. Better to crank out 100 M4A3E8 Shermans than a couple M1 Abrams. 100 simple tanks is 100 targets instead of 2-4 targets, and 100 Shermans would provide more ground support than a couple Abrams anyway.

I think nowadays conscription is less likely because thinking has moved away from it and with abolishing mandatory service it will take a while to train up people. Combine that with even more reliance on technology and its unlikely that a war would drag on to a point that conscription would be the deciding or even large factor.

Where the 'fight' happens would likely affect the choice too. But right smack in the middle of Europe with so many countries nearby with conscription and mandatory service directly under threat? In the 1980's it would be bound to happen if there is any run up to a hot war, which I assume there is if the Warsaw Pact has had time to mobilize its own conscripts.

One thing I'm hoping to explore with this question:

I know the OP said no nukes but I'm curious as to if both sides could use nukes, would they? Would it be total nuclear armageddon or would both sides even be a bit reluctant to do so? The land they'll seize will be contaminated and destroyed, would they be hesitant to actually go nuclear?

Hesitant for sure, but this isn't about seizing land, in the context of a full scale WW3 this would be about the survival of their 'way of life', small tactical nuclear weapons have always been part of doctrine but if one side gains the upper hand and start pushing too hard nukes would come to the table to ensure their 'survival'. France having nukes puts a trigger relatively close in the case of a succesful Pact push (one of the reasons France wanted them, the question if the UK and the US would MAD over France). But this is basically an entire other debate on the deterrence value of nuclear weapons and triggers to deploy them.

 Valkyrie wrote:
One thing I'm hoping to explore with this question:

I know the OP said no nukes but I'm curious as to if both sides could use nukes, would they? Would it be total nuclear armageddon or would both sides even be a bit reluctant to do so? The land they'll seize will be contaminated and destroyed, would they be hesitant to actually go nuclear?

2 scenarios really;

A: nukes are used as a last ditch effort if one side get's completely rolled over, both sides try to actively avoid nuclear weaponry. IN this scenario it would all depend on the rationality of the commanding officers and if the conflict parties were to make a peace before the last escalation.

B: Firststrike kicks in and both sides bomb the living gak out of each other in order to gain a numerical advantage.

As for the question, Stalemate in france, germany is indefensible so long it is not unified, however and that is the key point, the soviets can't rely on Hungarian and polish, or chezch conscripts, even romanian ones. So the Rhine it is once more. Austria and Switzerland would probably act as a funnel, so Italy is not attackable via conventional means easily.

 Vulcan wrote:
Depends on exactly WHEN the war happens.

The 'no nukes' rule eliminates the fifties. NATO depended heavily on tactical nukes at the time, ruled by the American mindset that nukes were literally the only way to go.

In the sixties, it's possible the Soviets would have held the upper hand. In the aftermath of Vietnam, they DEFINITELY would have won; the American conscript were that demoralized at that point.

By the mid-eighties, the U.S. military had transitioned to all-volunteer, and was getting useful numbers of the new equipment like the M-1 tank and the F-15 fighter. At that point Soviet odds of winning drops off steeply.

Of course, working against NATO is the German insistence upon a forward defense, and the NATO allies all using different equipment which complicates their logistical needs. Not to mention the logisitical nightmare of having the most powerful of the NATO allies several thousand miles away across the ocean...

In contrast the Warsaw Pact forces all use the same equipment and tactical doctrine across the board. It doesn't hurt that the Soviet tactical and strategic doctrine were so good that by the eighties the U.S. was actively copying that doctrine. They were also VERY big on planning out for every conceivable possibility and condensing it all into One Big Plan.

The flip side of that is that the Soviet OPERATIONAL doctrine was badly hampered by a total lack of flexibility at anything less than the Division level... and even they had to contact STAVKA for permission to deviate significantly from the One Big Plan. NATO, on the other hand, tended to give local commanders a mission, and then allow them a great deal of latitude and flexibility in carrying it out. This could work out well, as these junior officers could take advantage of momentary opportunities that the senior officers were too far away to react to.

Or it could work out very badly if the junior officer was a real tool, which still happens to this day.

At any rate, all of this hinges on the Soviets NOT threatening France directly. If France feels that NATO is not going to stop the Soviets, they WILL unleash the nukes to keep them off French soil. I expect a NATO counterattack would also get nuked if it threatened to reach Russian soil. So this is a self-limiting scenario, basically a War of German Reunification instead of World War III.

Good point. I've always wondered why the Soviets never took advantage of American difficulties in Vietnam, during or after the conflict, because even in the mid-1970s, the morale of the US military was rock-bottom.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
WWI all over again, but a bit further East and with a slightly less static frontline.

True, but Britain and West Germany on the same side against Russia...

That always felt weird to me, because obviously in the previous wars, Mother Russia was our ally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
No nukes changes the situation big time.

Warsaw Pact would face a substantially harder and more powerful NATO. Germany alone would have been 4x -6x larger, and not the joke it was in the 1980s but a serious force ready to fight.

US would have deployed bulk of it's forces in Europe, would likely still have a draft. On the positive, side wars like Vietnam likely would not have happened.


This also assumes we would not have attacked first, 6 Day War style. Bad assumption!

It's highly unlikely that Western Democracies like ours would ever have struck first - the voters wouldn't entertain it. We'd always be reacting.

Joe Commie, lacking our moral compass, had no such qualms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
Warsaw Pact.

When it came to the balloon going up the moto was
" fighting the silent war, while maintaining a passport in case of a shooting war"

Looks like we've got some reds in the threads.

On a serious note, they were a serious and dangerous enemy, and a Warsaw Pact victory is not unlikely. War is such a confusing mess. even when highly skilled commanders like Wellington and Napoleon are commanding the show, so anything could have happened.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The year is 1984, the season is Spring/Summer,

If it's 1984, the Berlin Wall still stands and NATO is still on a war footing in Germany. A-10 squadrons have been operational for years, and over 700 such planes had been delivered to the USAF by FRC. 3,000+ M1 Abrams tanks have been delivered, alongside Bundeswehr Leopard 2s, and troops would have had good training with them. M2 Bradleys would also have been in operation (but useless deathtraps). In a conventional forces battle, the A-10s and M1s should have been enough to allow NATO to hold until US production reached a war footing.

Politically, Republican Ronald Reagan would have just been re-elected as President of the free world. Given that he's the guy who told Russia to tear down the Wall, he absolutely has the stones to see the war through. Not that 80s America would give in to the Godless Commies who Hollywood was still demonizing.

By 1984, Mao has been dead for a while, and Deng Xiaoping and his technocrats are running the country. The US had normalized relations with China, so there's the potential to open the South-Eastern front for Russia with a second country that has limitless manpower and isn't afraid to use it. Offer China control of ALL of Asia if they support us in defeating Russia, and they probably bite, in order to gain absolute border security. The Sino-American alliance places Russia in the position of Nazi Germany during WW2... fighting two fronts, one of them being a land war in Asia.

A good analysis, but I'm sure the Red Army had some tricks up its sleeve. Was there advanced tank not out by 1984? T-80 or something????


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 trexmeyer wrote:
If the win condition is to drive the USSR back to WWI era borders then NATO would win. If it's to actually occupy Russia west of the Urals than it's push. That's one of those regions that would be nearly impossible to conquer and control without openly killing all natives en masse and NATO wouldn't do that.

Move the start date to 1974 and I'd vote USSR in a non nuclear war.

I shall return after having consulted Binkov's Battlefields on youtube. Great channel.

He ran 3 hypothetical wars between NATO and Warsaw: 60s, 70s, and 80s, and the outcomes are quite interesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Warsaw Pact likely has an advantage in the first few weeks/months but they eventually suffer economic ruin from the stress of the war.

You say no nukes, but I imagine you mean no strategic nukes. Both sides in this conflict would have lots of tactical nukes, and indeed NATOs strategy for a conflict was largely based on using tactical nuclear weapons(like the Davy Crocket) to slow the Warsaw troops down.

Warsaw Pact economies were geared heavily towards resource extraction, heavy industry and the military, based on the Soviet model. If the Soviet Union is any indication, they would have been able to keep the war machine running at full steam even after the rest of their economy has simply evaporated. And a WW3 would have ruined economies across the globe, not just in the Warsaw Pact. And NATO economies, being rooted firmly in international trade and the free market, do not have that kind of resilience that the communist economies developed. Especially not since inevitably much of NATO would come under Warsaw Pact occupation since the balance of forces in Europe was heavily skewed in favour of the Warsaw Pact.

Sure, that gives them a good amount of production on the front end. The real issue is when longer term logistics become an issue.

The Soviets had massive food supply problems even without an active war going on. Millions were starving to death as it was, add a war and their manpower would quickly dry up. It doesn't do much good that you have a lot of industry set up if your entire labor force starves to death. And thats before any damage from air raids is considered.

As you say, it would probably devolve into a stalemate with neither side being able to make headway. Both sides would also quickly use up all of their expensive modern equipment. Modern aircraft and tanks are incredibly expensive and simply can't be churned out in the numbers WW3 would destroy. So you'd probably have a stalemate where most of the combat devolves back to just infantry warfare, with the occasional tank or plane making an appearance.

Its possible that you might see both sides start kicking back up production of WW2 era vehicles, just because they're cheaper and it doesn't hurt as much when they're lost, and hey you need something out there!

East Germany was a pretty decent industrial powerhouse for the Warsaw Pact nations, and doesn't it stand to reason that say, if they overrun West Germany and the industrial areas of Belgium, they could loot a load of good stuff or at least wreck it beyond repair for NATO?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm more North German plain myself when it comes to invasion, because it has the advantage of securing Denmark, a natural choke point, which could have stopped the Soviet Baltic fleet from coming into play, and it allows for an attack on the Low Countries, which is where NATO HQ is located.

To win in this scenario, the Warsaw Pact don't have to conquer the whole of Europe. Capturing a few countries could have led to a domino effect a la 1940, when the Allies fell like flies, and other nations like Hungary and Romania joined the Axis soon after.

I think a Korean War style stalemate would have been the likely outcome, and I really should stop playing Team Yankee.

I suspect a stalemate of some sort would be the most likely outcome. Being that I wouldn't hazard to guess too much, especially with the weirdness of the mid 80's

As an aside, how long would it have taken for your nation's military to rush major reinforcements to Europe? The 101st and 82nd would be there in what, 3-4 days, with Special Forces there sooner??? But I suppose a serious build up, say, 250,000 men, would have taken weeks. It might have been all over then...


Was it limited to just the US Army, or would the US Marines have made an appearance?

I'm sure if it was the real "Big One", the Marines would be there, hell I'd expect half the Coast Guard to get called into the Navy and sent in

IIRC during the Gulf war the US sent over half a million troops and tens of thousands of of vehicles to Saudi Arabia in like 15 weeks. With the developed NATO infrastructure of Europe, the closer distance, the UK staging area, and predeveloped deployment plans, I'd expect that time would be substantially less for a quarter million, and US air/naval support would be available immediately.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Warsaw Pact likely has an advantage in the first few weeks/months but they eventually suffer economic ruin from the stress of the war.

You say no nukes, but I imagine you mean no strategic nukes. Both sides in this conflict would have lots of tactical nukes, and indeed NATOs strategy for a conflict was largely based on using tactical nuclear weapons(like the Davy Crocket) to slow the Warsaw troops down.

Warsaw Pact economies were geared heavily towards resource extraction, heavy industry and the military, based on the Soviet model. If the Soviet Union is any indication, they would have been able to keep the war machine running at full steam even after the rest of their economy has simply evaporated. And a WW3 would have ruined economies across the globe, not just in the Warsaw Pact. And NATO economies, being rooted firmly in international trade and the free market, do not have that kind of resilience that the communist economies developed. Especially not since inevitably much of NATO would come under Warsaw Pact occupation since the balance of forces in Europe was heavily skewed in favour of the Warsaw Pact.

The Warsaw Pact nations faced a couple primary issues in the economics regard, aside from the fact that they're starting with a much smaller economic engine to begin with if the US is included on the NATO end.

First, their ability to maintain the logistics train or dynamically adapt it was significantly behind that of the NATO nations, so while I don't doubt that the USSR would and other Warsaw pact states would continue to produce, I think the problem becomes in getting that to the front adequately and communicating between elements efficiently. The NATO nations had dramatically better communications, transportation & fuel infrastructure, substantially more transport vehicles (both ground and air), etc.

Second, the sum total of Warsaw Pact industry was in much more danger of direct non-nuclear strike (via long range bombers, cruise missiles, carrier launched aircraft, etc) than NATO industry was, particularly with the bulk of that being tucked away in the US. Even with lots of stuff tucked away in Siberia, it was more vulnerable than the industrial base in the US was given the general strategic air situation.

That's not to say that NATO wouldn't face these to some degree as well (NATO would undoubtedly face extreme economic distress and destruction), or that they wouldn't have their own issues, but I think these are the critical points of difference.

Likewise, international market exposure will generally provide greater stability in the long run over a more closed economic model, as while you're more vulnerable to being impacted by world events by dint of simply being exposed to more stuff in general, you're also able to access stuff you otherwise wouldn't and surpass constraints not possible on the value or availability of one's own domestic resources. Being able to turn to another supplier for oil, or steel, or other such resources is a game changer. If you can't make enough guns or tanks, being able to buy them from someone else is a huge deal. If you can't raise enough money domestically for your war needs, being able to borrow money from the international market is important. The previous world wars were won by the sides that could call upon the power of the international market, while those cut out by blockade or combat or sanction were crushed or collapsed.

With regards to your last point, doesn't that cut both ways? If Britain is being used as a staging area and industrial production, we would also be at risk of Soviet air raids and mass bombing, just like WW2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Many of the Warsaw Pact troops were conscripts, and most of the NATO forces were volunteers. It usually meant that conscripts would out number volunteer forces, but I remember reading somewhere that the Soviets were impressed by the volunteer British forces against the Argentine conscripts in the Falklands War.

I'm not sure why you reasoned the conscript versus volunteer angle like this. countries like France, West Germany, The Netherlands, Italy etc. all had conscription too, and to an extent a mandatory service period thay only got scrapped after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even now most countries still enable conscription in a time of crisis, they just do not have a mandatory service period anymore. If WW3 breaks out its unlikely such a large scale build up would be missed, but in that case why wouldn't NATO countries start mobilizing under their own conscription laws? WW3 is pretty much the mother of all hands on deck scenario for NATO countries to conscript. In the 1980's context of course.

I was approaching it from the angle that volunteer forces are generally seen to be more enthusiastic and have better morale than conscripts, because obviously, volunteers want to be there in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Many of the Warsaw Pact troops were conscripts, and most of the NATO forces were volunteers. It usually meant that conscripts would out number volunteer forces, but I remember reading somewhere that the Soviets were impressed by the volunteer British forces against the Argentine conscripts in the Falklands War.

I'm not sure why you reasoned the conscript versus volunteer angle like this. countries like France, West Germany, The Netherlands, Italy etc. all had conscription too, and to an extent a mandatory service period thay only got scrapped after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even now most countries still enable conscription in a time of crisis, they just do not have a mandatory service period anymore. If WW3 breaks out its unlikely such a large scale build up would be missed, but in that case why wouldn't NATO countries start mobilizing under their own conscription laws? WW3 is pretty much the mother of all hands on deck scenario for NATO countries to conscript. In the 1980's context of course.

Indeed. I think this gets missed a lot.

The current volunteer only armies that exist would not remain volunteer only for long in the event WW3 actually happened. Assuming nukes are avoided, you've still got a huge conventional war to fight. And everybody is going to run out of fancy tanks, missiles, and airplanes very very fast.

No country today really has any sort of stockpile for fighting a long term war with missiles and aircraft vs a peer level military. The US doesn't even have large stockpiles of conventional bombs anymore. Its just a relative handful of insanely expensive smart bombs and missiles, which would be completely used up within the first week of a full on war with, say, Russia or China.

In the event of WW3, in 1984 or today, we would be reduced to fighting with mostly infantry if the war lasted any longer than a few weeks. Which would mean whoever can conscript the most manpower wins. And high tech equipment would be a luxury nobody could afford. Better to crank out 100 M4A3E8 Shermans than a couple M1 Abrams. 100 simple tanks is 100 targets instead of 2-4 targets, and 100 Shermans would provide more ground support than a couple Abrams anyway.

Would Shermans in the 1980s still be viable? I know that in Fate of a Nation for FOW, the Israeli Super Shermans are half decent, but in 1984?

I'm not so sure. I suppose you could upgrade them with modern weapons and defence, but would the Sherman be able to handle it?

It took a hell of an effort just to fit a 17 pounder on a Sherman during WW2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Valkyrie wrote:
One thing I'm hoping to explore with this question:

I know the OP said no nukes but I'm curious as to if both sides could use nukes, would they? Would it be total nuclear armageddon or would both sides even be a bit reluctant to do so? The land they'll seize will be contaminated and destroyed, would they be hesitant to actually go nuclear?

This reply is for everybody. The reason why I went for no nukes is that, nobody would be daft enough to hit the red button, because we'd be entering end of the world territory.

I'd like to assume, unless things got really desperate (NATO at the gates of Moscow or the Soviet Navy sailing up the River Thames into the heart of London) that both sides would still be 'rational.'

But, who knows.

I do know that true story about the Russian guy who refused to panic when they detected a US nuclear missile heading towards them, and it turned out to be a bug. It was back in 1983 or something.

What was his name again? He died 2 years ago or something???


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
One thing I'm hoping to explore with this question:

I know the OP said no nukes but I'm curious as to if both sides could use nukes, would they? Would it be total nuclear armageddon or would both sides even be a bit reluctant to do so? The land they'll seize will be contaminated and destroyed, would they be hesitant to actually go nuclear?

2 scenarios really;

A: nukes are used as a last ditch effort if one side get's completely rolled over, both sides try to actively avoid nuclear weaponry. IN this scenario it would all depend on the rationality of the commanding officers and if the conflict parties were to make a peace before the last escalation.

B: Firststrike kicks in and both sides bomb the living gak out of each other in order to gain a numerical advantage.

As for the question, Stalemate in france, germany is indefensible so long it is not unified, however and that is the key point, the soviets can't rely on Hungarian and polish, or chezch conscripts, even romanian ones. So the Rhine it is once more. Austria and Switzerland would probably act as a funnel, so Italy is not attackable via conventional means easily.

Switzerland would be pretty hard to invade would it not? Isn't there a whole set of tunnels and redoubts built into the Alps? Would be a tough nut to crack.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Many of the Warsaw Pact troops were conscripts, and most of the NATO forces were volunteers. It usually meant that conscripts would out number volunteer forces, but I remember reading somewhere that the Soviets were impressed by the volunteer British forces against the Argentine conscripts in the Falklands War.

I'm not sure why you reasoned the conscript versus volunteer angle like this. countries like France, West Germany, The Netherlands, Italy etc. all had conscription too, and to an extent a mandatory service period thay only got scrapped after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even now most countries still enable conscription in a time of crisis, they just do not have a mandatory service period anymore. If WW3 breaks out its unlikely such a large scale build up would be missed, but in that case why wouldn't NATO countries start mobilizing under their own conscription laws? WW3 is pretty much the mother of all hands on deck scenario for NATO countries to conscript. In the 1980's context of course.

I was approaching it from the angle that volunteer forces are generally seen to be more enthusiastic and have better morale than conscripts, because obviously, volunteers want to be there in the first place.

But this isn't an either or scenario, this is a why not use both scenario. Both the Warsaw Pact as well as NATO would have deployed volunteers(career soldiers) as well as conscripts for WW3. If either side mobilized the conscripts would have outnumbered the volunteers by a good amount. The Falklands in this context is a bit of a red herring, that was a war to be won in the air and on the sea, with relatively limited forces because of the location. Even the most amazingly trained ground forces couldn't have won the war for Argentina if they were starving on an island out in the middle of the Atlantic. Europe would be a continental war, where ground forces would be much more important and can achieve more of import (say capturing the Ruhr versus the Falklands which on a whole meant extremely little to any UK war effort). The Falklands is a bit of foreshadowing why a modern war is unlikely to require conscription, conscripts played little to no role in the overall outcome, but in the 80's it still played its part in thinking.

As for the Vietnam angle, morale was bad because of the kind of war the US was fighting. Any conventional push by the NVA was still obliterated by massive US firepower. Just because US public opinion turned against an almost decade long guerrilla war with little to show for it is entirely different from a conventional attack on US allies by the 'evil empire'. On the reverse its like arguing the Soviets would be defeated in the 80's because of Afghanistan.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

With regards to your last point, doesn't that cut both ways? If Britain is being used as a staging area and industrial production, we would also be at risk of Soviet air raids and mass bombing, just like WW2.

I'm sure the UK would face terrible air attack under such an event, but that's still not reaching the bulk of American industrial production, and even then, NATO could put a whole lot more heat on Warsaw Pact industry than the WP could put over the UK in that regard. I suspect it would be much like WW2, where one will notice that the aerial destruction that reached Britain, while horrific, was a fraction of that visited on the continent. That particular ball, while not exclusive to NATO, would be in their court most of the time so long as the US remains in the equation.

Would Shermans in the 1980s still be viable? I know that in Fate of a Nation for FOW, the Israeli Super Shermans are half decent, but in 1984?

I'm not so sure. I suppose you could upgrade them with modern weapons and defence, but would the Sherman be able to handle it?

It took a hell of an effort just to fit a 17 pounder on a Sherman during WW2.

Shermans wouldn't be able to match anything 1v1 really, and nobody would make the Sherman again exactly (they'd make a really cheap L7 carrier most likely), but something along the same lines of "reliable, basic, ultra cheap, able to be produced insanely quickly". This is similar to the idea behind why the WP kept so many T55's for so long, basically until the WP collapsed. Aside from replacement cost issues, it was figured that while they may not be capable of fighting another modern MBT, unless they encounter one they're still the scariest thing around and they can throw so many into the fray that it's impossible to deal with them all, and they're so basic to maintain that they can be kept going very easily. How that concept would play out? Who knows, but I suspect that's what the war would be reduced to in short order.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

This reply is for everybody. The reason why I went for no nukes is that, nobody would be daft enough to hit the red button, because we'd be entering end of the world territory.

I'd like to assume, unless things got really desperate (NATO at the gates of Moscow or the Soviet Navy sailing up the River Thames into the heart of London) that both sides would still be 'rational.'

The problem with the really desperate scenario of Moscow or the Thames is that it glosses over France being a nuclear power and willingly rolling over. This is the issue, being rational for the French stops the moment tanks roll over the Rhine. Either we have to totally take nuclear weapons out of the equation in any event or were talking about WW3 being fought over Germany and Poland.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The year is 1984, the season is Spring/Summer,

By 1984, Mao has been dead for a while, and Deng Xiaoping and his technocrats are running the country. The US had normalized relations with China, so there's the potential to open the South-Eastern front for Russia with a second country that has limitless manpower and isn't afraid to use it. Offer China control of ALL of Asia if they support us in defeating Russia, and they probably bite, in order to gain absolute border security. The Sino-American alliance places Russia in the position of Nazi Germany during WW2... fighting two fronts, one of them being a land war in Asia.

Probably not. By the 1980's Chinese-Soviet tensions had mostly died down and China was looking towards economic improvement. It would have been a very strange move for them to risk absolutely everything for pretty much nothing. Remember that China has nothing really to gain from a war with the Soviet Union. Control over all of Asia sounds great on paper until you realise that all of northern Asia, which the Soviet Union controls, is an empty wasteland that is of very little value to anyone and which is very hard to defend. In other words, it would worsen Chinese border security rather than strengthen it.
Furthermore, the early 1980's was also a period in which Chinese-American relations were strained over disagreements such as the Palestine-Israeli conflict. It is virtually impossible that China would attack the Soviet Union on the bidding of the US. That would have been ideological suicide and would have most likely led to intense internal conflict within the Chinese Communist Party. China may have been a rival to the Soviet Union (after de-Stalinisation), but that did not make it a friend of the US or NATO. China would have almost certainly stayed neutral in a NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict, safe in the knowledge that no matter who would win that conflict China would be the laughing third.

That said, even if China were to attack the Soviet Union it would not significantly alter the balance of power in Europe. The Far Eastern areas of the Soviet Union are vast and almost completely empty, so the loss of those areas would not be felt in Europe, and after taking the few industrial/population centers in the area (Khabarovsk, Vladivostok) the Chinese military would have extreme difficulties advancing anywhere because of the almost total lack of infrastructure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The Warsaw Pact nations faced a couple primary issues in the economics regard, aside from the fact that they're starting with a much smaller economic engine to begin with if the US is included on the NATO end.

First, their ability to maintain the logistics train or dynamically adapt it was significantly behind that of the NATO nations, so while I don't doubt that the USSR would and other Warsaw pact states would continue to produce, I think the problem becomes in getting that to the front adequately and communicating between elements efficiently. The NATO nations had dramatically better communications, transportation & fuel infrastructure, substantially more transport vehicles (both ground and air), etc.

The vast bulk of NATO's production capability was and is located in North America, on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. Meanwhile, the bulk of the Warsaw Pact's production capability was just a one or two days drive away from the frontlines.
NATO had much better communication and transportation infrastructure because they needed it to be able to coordinate between a dozen different nations all with dramatically different militaries, political systems, supply and command chains spread out over a massive distance. The Warsaw Pact on the other hand was only a handful of nations geographically clustered together all with the same political system and all using the same military equipment. They just had a whole lot less logistics and communication issues to deal with. The other Warsaw Pact militaries were just divisions of the Soviet Army in all but name.
Simply because of the geography, the Warsaw Pact would have been able to rush reinforcements to the front at a much higher rate than NATO, simply because they do not need to ship their reinforcements across the Atlantic first.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Second, the sum total of Warsaw Pact industry was in much more danger of direct non-nuclear strike (via long range bombers, cruise missiles, carrier launched aircraft, etc) than NATO industry was, particularly with the bulk of that being tucked away in the US.

Well within reach of Soviet bombers and missiles based in Asia. The Soviet Union and the US pretty much border one another after all. The US would not have escaped widespread destruction. And as the war is going to be waged in Western Europe for the most part, the still significant NATO industry there is going to be taken out of the picture entirely.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Likewise, international market exposure will generally provide greater stability in the long run over a more closed economic model, as while you're more vulnerable to being impacted by world events by dint of simply being exposed to more stuff in general, you're also able to access stuff you otherwise wouldn't and surpass constraints not possible on the value or availability of one's own domestic resources. Being able to turn to another supplier for oil, or steel, or other such resources is a game changer. If you can't make enough guns or tanks, being able to buy them from someone else is a huge deal. If you can't raise enough money domestically for your war needs, being able to borrow money from the international market is important. The previous world wars were won by the sides that could call upon the power of the international market, while those cut out by blockade or combat or sanction were crushed or collapsed.

That is not a conclusion you can draw from WW2. The countries that lost WW2 were capitalist market economies just as much as the US or Great Britain. The misfortune of Germany in that regard is just that they were stupid enough to wage a two-front war, allowing themselves to be cut of from any trade or supplies. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union, the only non-capitalist country that participated in WW2, ended up on the winning side largely because it could keep producing stuff even after its economy had collapsed completely. It was not limited by financial constraints to the degree that capitalist systems were. Despite complete economic ruination and the destruction of the Soviet industrial heartland, Soviet war production actually continued to increase throughout WW2. Most of this was made possible by what was effectively slave labour, forcing workers to work extra hard in appalling conditions with little to no pay. Something like that would never be possible in a market economy like the US.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Would Shermans in the 1980s still be viable? I know that in Fate of a Nation for FOW, the Israeli Super Shermans are half decent, but in 1984?

I'm not so sure. I suppose you could upgrade them with modern weapons and defence, but would the Sherman be able to handle it?

It took a hell of an effort just to fit a 17 pounder on a Sherman during WW2.

Sure, after the war has gone on for 6 months or so. By that point, all of your high tech modern tanks and aircraft are destroyed, and the few that aren't are held in reserve in case the enemy makes a breakthrough. All of your missiles are used up, except a few kept to protect a very few key strategic targets. The enemy is in the same boat as well.

It doesn't necessarily have to be Shermans. There might be a new design of similar tech level rolled out, and they would probably have a 105mm gun on them, but the general gist is you are deliberately producing well below your current tech level simply because the war destroys anything more advanced faster than you can replace it.

This idea applies today too as I mentioned before. The modern 1st world military simply does not have the stockpiled material to prosecute a "real" war. We've become so focused on precision high tech equipment that gives a massive lopsided edge, that we've forgotten that that gear only gives an edge if we're fighting insurgents in the desert. It doesn't give enough of an advantage if fighting a peer level military.

To give a little perspective. Patriot Missiles. Out of the many many countries which use the Patriot Missile, and variants thereof, the number manufactured across all these countries is only a little over ~10,000. 10,000 missiles is nothing, and they cost $3 million each.

In WW2, the Allies dropped 3.4 million tons of bombs. That absolutely dwarfs by many orders of magnitude what conventional missiles and smart bombs are ready today, and WW3 would likely require many more bombs than WW2 ever did. All the drones, high tech tanks, smart bombs, and missiles would quickly disappear in WW3 simply because you could not make enough of them fast enough.
Russia's equipment might be technically worse than the US's equipment, but the difference is minor and doesn't justify the extra expense in the event of full blown WW3.