Author Topic: NATO-Warsaw Pact 1985  (Read 8432 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bayonetbrant

  • Chief Arrogance Mitigator
  • Musketeer
  • *****
  • Posts: 37051
  • Loitering With Intent
NATO-Warsaw Pact 1985
« on: January 15, 2015, 02:29:15 PM »
so a few years ago, Swatter asked

Quote
Given a massive invasion of Germany in 1985, with both sides moderately prepared- what would have happened and why? Do the WP armies reach the Rhine in two weeks or less? Does the US commit to using tactical nukes if that happens? Please back up your assertions with solid reasoning.

and we got 15+ pages of solid discussion.

So let's ask again...

Russians roll West with their allies in tow.  What happens?
The key to surviving this site is to not say something which ends up as someone's tag line - Steelgrave

"their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of 'rights'...and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure." Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers


Offline The Puss

  • Equites
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
Re: NATO-Warsaw Pact 1985
« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2015, 02:42:26 PM »
hey Brant,
Just finished reading "The Zone" series by James Rouch and really enjoyed it. Am I too cynical to think that his vision of WWIII is possible?
Ave Imperator, morituri te salutant
Si vis pacem, para bellum

Offline bayonetbrant

  • Chief Arrogance Mitigator
  • Musketeer
  • *****
  • Posts: 37051
  • Loitering With Intent
Re: NATO-Warsaw Pact 1985
« Reply #2 on: January 15, 2015, 03:09:27 PM »
Just finished reading "The Zone" series by James Rouch and really enjoyed it. Am I too cynical to think that his vision of WWIII is possible?

I haven't read it - can you give us a run-down?

ps - nice to see you back!

pps - you never told us how the trip to California went :)
The key to surviving this site is to not say something which ends up as someone's tag line - Steelgrave

"their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of 'rights'...and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure." Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

Offline mirth

  • Tercio
  • ******
  • Posts: 48615
  • Cardboard Harlot
Re: NATO-Warsaw Pact 1985
« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2015, 04:02:24 PM »
In '85? It's Red Storm Rising. They make some progress early, but we gut them. And unlike RSR, the naval war isn't even close. We destroy them at sea.
"45 minutes of pooping Tribbles being juggled by a drunken Horta would be better than Season 1 of TNG." - SirAndrewD

"you don't look at the mantelpiece when you're poking the fire" - Bawb

"Can’t ‘un’ until you ‘pre’, son." - Gus

Offline GDS_Starfury

  • Musketeer
  • *****
  • Posts: 36786
  • Sons of Punarchy
Re: NATO-Warsaw Pact 1985
« Reply #4 on: January 15, 2015, 10:49:17 PM »
I think its somewhere between Hackett and Clancy.  and at some point nukes go off somewhere.  hopefully it would just be at sea.
Gus - I use sweatpants with flannel shorts to soak up my crotch sweat.

Banzai Cat - There is no "partial credit" in grammar. Like anal sex. It's either in, or it's not.

Mirth - We learned long ago that they key isn't to outrun Star, it's to outrun Gus.

Martok - I don't know if it's possible to have an "anti-boner"...but I now have one.

Gus - Celery is vile and has no reason to exist. Like underwear on Star.


Offline Staggerwing

  • Blunderbuster
  • ****
  • Posts: 20657
  • "Today your love... tomorrow the World!"
Re: NATO-Warsaw Pact 1985
« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2015, 04:17:28 AM »


Does anybody have a link to the regional OOBs for each side in 1985?

Also what other forces could be expected to be sent in-theater after hammerdrop plus 1 week?
Vituđ ér enn - eđa hvat?  -Voluspa

Nothing really rocks and nothing really rolls and nothing's ever worth the cost...

"Don't you look at me that way..." -the Abyss
 
'When searching for a meaningful embrace, sometimes my self respect took second place' -Iggy Pop, Cry for Love

... this will go down on your permanent record... -the Violent Femmes, 'Kiss Off'-

Offline bayonetbrant

  • Chief Arrogance Mitigator
  • Musketeer
  • *****
  • Posts: 37051
  • Loitering With Intent
Re: NATO-Warsaw Pact 1985
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2015, 04:27:22 AM »
Does anybody have a link to the regional OOBs for each side in 1985?

attached are NATO in '88
The key to surviving this site is to not say something which ends up as someone's tag line - Steelgrave

"their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of 'rights'...and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure." Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

Offline Staggerwing

  • Blunderbuster
  • ****
  • Posts: 20657
  • "Today your love... tomorrow the World!"
Re: NATO-Warsaw Pact 1985
« Reply #7 on: January 16, 2015, 04:38:19 AM »
Cool. That'll give us something to chew on.
Vituđ ér enn - eđa hvat?  -Voluspa

Nothing really rocks and nothing really rolls and nothing's ever worth the cost...

"Don't you look at me that way..." -the Abyss
 
'When searching for a meaningful embrace, sometimes my self respect took second place' -Iggy Pop, Cry for Love

... this will go down on your permanent record... -the Violent Femmes, 'Kiss Off'-

Offline Airborne Rifles

  • Man-at-Arms
  • *****
  • Posts: 1569
    • Northern Fury
Re: NATO-Warsaw Pact 1985
« Reply #8 on: January 16, 2015, 04:54:39 AM »
I think people may be underestimating the Russians in 1985, especially on land. Their army hadn't been completely demoralized by Afghanistan and the collapse of the Soviet Union at that point. I think by 1989 their army was like ours had been in the mid-70s. There's a good trio of books about just this scenario that I just finished reading, The Red Effect, The Black Effect, and The Blue Effect, by Harvey Black. He does the tactical land combat much more in depth than Clancy or anyone else I've read. He focuses on the British, and the war ends in a limited tactical nuke exchange before cooler heads prevail. In his book NATO uses nukes first, which I think is unlikely, but the justification is that it is a response to convince the Russians to stop using chemical weapons. Good reads.

Offline Uberhaus

  • Equites
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: NATO-Warsaw Pact 1985
« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2015, 01:55:28 PM »
In '85? It's Red Storm Rising. They make some progress early, but we gut them. And unlike RSR, the naval war isn't even close. We destroy them at sea.

Don't count your chickens...  http://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2010-06/navys-biggest-betrayal 

The Walker spy ring wasn't broken up until midyear.  John Walker Sr.  was arrested May 20, then brother Arthur, and son John Jr.  Jerry Whitworth turned himself in on June 3.  Steps can be taken to ensure safety of communications after that but it takes considerable time (can't find anything solid on when encryption machines were changed).  It's kind of hard to use couriers for naval ops, especially regarding submarines.

So, Brant why did you choose 1985?  Was it because it was the "Year of the Spy"?

As an aside to the thread, naval espionage continues to this day.  Ashamed to say he's Canadian,  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/navy-spy-delisle-sentenced-to-20-years-in-prison-1.1129694


Offline bayonetbrant

  • Chief Arrogance Mitigator
  • Musketeer
  • *****
  • Posts: 37051
  • Loitering With Intent
Re: NATO-Warsaw Pact 1985
« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2015, 02:03:30 PM »
So, Brant why did you choose 1985?  Was it because it was the "Year of the Spy"?

Middle of the decade :)

Too much earlier, and you don't have M1s, M2/3s, or MLRS systems for the US.
Too much later and you have CFE treaties and the Helsinki accords that give nations the ability to inspect your "exercises" to ensure they're not a prelude to war.
The key to surviving this site is to not say something which ends up as someone's tag line - Steelgrave

"their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of 'rights'...and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure." Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

Offline OJsDad

  • Crossbowman
  • *
  • Posts: 6355
  • Fighting for Oppressed Individualism
Re: NATO-Warsaw Pact 1985
« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2015, 06:34:01 PM »
The F-117 was operational by that time.  Did the WP know it was operational at the time, and if so, could they do anything to stop them.  If not, how would they be used.  I would think the AF would have tried early on to take out the WP ground based air defenses first, thus making it easier for non-stealth aircraft to operate deep to disrupt supplies and follow on units.

Also, could the AF us tomahawks to neutralize WP airfields and possible destroy or damage WP AWACS aircraft while on the ground, ie the sub strike in RSR.

For the WP, could they neutralize Iceland, more specifically the SOSUS line.  If they could, then the NATO navies would be hard pressed. 
'Here at NASA we all pee the same color.'  Al Harrison from the movie Hidden Figures.

Offline GDS_Starfury

  • Musketeer
  • *****
  • Posts: 36786
  • Sons of Punarchy
Re: NATO-Warsaw Pact 1985
« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2015, 10:57:33 PM »
at the time we had enough dedicated SEAD aircraft to press WP air defence.  117's would have been dropping bridges left and and right and screwing the commie time table.
by 1985-87 the WP would have been attacking into a well rehearsed killing ground on known territory, ATGM teams and phase lines the troops could recite in their dreams.  at the time Joe public had no idea what was what but in hindsight.....  20 years of Russian AFV production would have been trashed.  I cant even begin to list all of the weapons designed to saturate and crush a Soviet/WP advance into Western Europe and the mostly came online in the early 80s.  I'm not saying it would have been a cake walk but a 10-1 ratio across the board is reasonable.
Gus - I use sweatpants with flannel shorts to soak up my crotch sweat.

Banzai Cat - There is no "partial credit" in grammar. Like anal sex. It's either in, or it's not.

Mirth - We learned long ago that they key isn't to outrun Star, it's to outrun Gus.

Martok - I don't know if it's possible to have an "anti-boner"...but I now have one.

Gus - Celery is vile and has no reason to exist. Like underwear on Star.


Offline mirth

  • Tercio
  • ******
  • Posts: 48615
  • Cardboard Harlot
Re: NATO-Warsaw Pact 1985
« Reply #13 on: January 29, 2015, 07:44:31 AM »
^Bingo. If it went nuke it would have been because the Sovs opted first to  use tac nukes or chems to make their objectives. In 85, NATO could have held on conventionally.
"45 minutes of pooping Tribbles being juggled by a drunken Horta would be better than Season 1 of TNG." - SirAndrewD

"you don't look at the mantelpiece when you're poking the fire" - Bawb

"Can’t ‘un’ until you ‘pre’, son." - Gus

Offline BanzaiCat

  • Arquebusier
  • ***
  • Posts: 19334
Re: NATO-Warsaw Pact 1985
« Reply #14 on: January 29, 2015, 07:56:04 AM »
There's other considerations, too...

Would the Soviets invade Iran with eyes on the Gulf?

Would they need to draw troops from the Sino-Soviet border to reinforce those forays, and if they did, would the Chi-Coms decide this would be a good opportunity to seize Siberia and/or central Asia?

If Chinese attention went that way, would India start something with China over disputed territory?

I know this is all outside of the original discussion boundaries (which only indicated a WP invasion of Western Europe), but all of this could easily domino into a nuclear war easily. There's more than just the Soviets to worry about lighting off a few bombs.

I'm in general agreement with regards to Western Europe otherwise. It would really depend on how well NATO could execute the naval war and sink Commie Boomers and interdict Backfire attacks. While we had pre-positioned equipment in Europe, a conventional war would need immediate reinforcement via heavy ship, which means convoys, which means possible Commie sub luckiness.

I loved the game NATO: The Next War in Europe and played it to death in the 80s. I almost always had the Soviets use chemical weapons - it just gave too much of an advantage with minimal risk, in-game at least. That could help even the odds somewhat. Regardless I just don't see the Warsaw Pact overrunning NATO, unless everything just went absolutely wrong for NATO from the start.