Let's discuss the hypothetical Soviet invasion of Western Europe in 1985.
-let's presume nuclear and chemical weapons won't be used
-let's presume Soviets manage to achieve surprise
How would this war go? Would NATO be able to stop Soviet advance?
NATO would win, especially since they'd have USA support
They'd probably be freedom riots and rebellions in the USSR too, a war that large would be bigger than WW2
http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0000500655.pdf
>>274122
Care to explain why would NATO win?
Soviets would have advantage in number and equipment early on. I also said that you should presume they will achieve strategic surprise.
I mean I'm not saying Soviets would definitely win, but it's not ''NATO wins'' by default.
>>274157
Population of NATO in 1949 was 880,000,000, more than twice the Soviets were in 1985, so how would they have the advantage in numbers?
>>274189
I'm talking about soldiers, not civilians.
Besides, why are you just counting Soviets and not entire Warsaw Pact?
>>274208
More Civilians allow for more soldiers, and by the 80's popular opinion was going against the Communist parties in the Warsaw pact, there would have been nothing by coups and rebellions if they went to war
I was in the Air National Guard in the early 1980s. No, NATO would not have won. The Soviets had better tanks and much shorter supply lines. Our mission was to be a "tripwire" to slow the Soviet advance and give the diplomats time to prevent a nuclear war. If the had diplomats failed, we'd have used smaller tactical nukes first. After an EMP burst, their MIGs would still have worked, our fighters would not. At some point, somebody would have lauched missiles, I believe.
it would have been bigger than ww2
...but it would have been over much, much faster.
>>274112
>No nukes
Might as well say
>And everyone's riding on unicorns and using guns that shoot rainbows
Because it's about as realistic.
From the Soviet perspective, we can pretty much expect something a lot like Red Storm Rising. Ground forces will be moving not only into Germany but northern Norway as well in hopes of securing safe passage for the Soviet Navy and Naval Aviation bombers. In Germany, tanks are going to be pouring across the border everywhere, ideally supported by ridiculous artillery bombardments and gratuitously deployed tactical nukes. Mobile air defenses will ideally neuter the inevitable NATO air response while SEAD and strike elements work their way towards strategic air bases. VVS-FA/PACT equivalent will be also be doing what they can to intercept incoming enemy fighters, although the focus on ground-controlled interception means that fighters operating close to the front will likely be ineffective (even MiG-29s).
In the skies over Germany, you're going to have a combination of
>high altitude nukes
>massive jammers on Tu-22s and helicopters
>bombers dropping chaff
to hinder enemy electronics. SEAD elements supported by tactical bombers (everything from Su-17s and -24s to MiG-27s) will be carving ~100 mile wide path through Germany to strategic airfields, allowing more aircraft to come through and neutralize NATO forces.
Over the North Sea, the Soviet Navy has (hopefully) located the US Atlantic fleet. About 40 Backfires are going to be sortied, equipped with 3 Kh-22s (IIRC) each to strike the NATO fleet. Unless the F-14s happen to be in exactly the right place at the right time, the bombers should be safe to launch their payloads without heavy losses, forcing the interceptors instead to focus on the incoming missiles. Best case scenario, the combined actions of the surface fleet, submarines, and bombers close off the Atlantic.
According to Soviet plans, they'd be on the Rhine in a week.
>Cont for NATO side
>>274224
The question is if the Soviets could blitz the West hard enough to take France and Italy before NATO conscription kicked in full force.
>>275480
NATO will also be relying heavily on tactical nukes. Just as the Soviets intended to smash the frontlines with nukes, NATO planned to counter hordes of enemy armor with their own nukes. Barring that, by the 80's they've got advanced ATGMs and a new generation of MBTs that are more on par with the best things the Soviets can field. Thanks to better gun stabilization, you'll see a lot of hit-and-run tactics and forces performing a fighting retreat through various prepared positions.
In the skies, aircraft will be swarming over the front. F-111s and Tornadoes are going to be flying in dropping cluster bombs, and A-10s will be launching their Mavericks and getting downed in droves. Frontline fighters will generally have the advantage dealing with PACT aircraft thanks to better training, ergonomics, and AWACS. Though enemy air defenses will inevitably cause massive losses near the border, the further PACT pushes westwards the easier things get for NATO aircraft. Even with their mobile air defenses, they're going to outrun the more formidable aspects of their defense network and friendly fighter cover.
In the Atlantic, you've got NATO forces scrambling to defeat any elements of the Soviet Navy they can find. Odds are any Soviet subs aren't going to last long, and Tomcats are going to be desperately searching for the Tu-142s that serve as the eyes for the incoming Backfires. If NATO surface vessels stay beyond the GIUK Gap, they should be fine, as that puts them at the very edge of the Backfires' operational radius while also putting them under the cover of ground-based systems in Iceland and Scotland.
Whereas the PACT objective is to close the Atlantic and rush as far west as possible until NATO capitulates, NATO's goal is to take the momentum out of the PACT advance and keep the Atlantic open to allow reinforcements to come across.
Depending on how desperate things get, you'd see semi-strategic level strikes, particularly along the Vistula and Oder.
>>275529
Realistically, it wouldn't be possible by 1985. The newest generation of NATO MBTs and ATGMs had tipped the balance in their favor.
Had we been talking the 60's or 70's, things would be more in favor of the Soviets, as the first generation MBTs (Leo, AMX-30, Patton) weren't good enough to make up for the quantitative advantage of Soviet armor and NATO airpower hadn't advanced to the point where they could effectively counter both the VVS and ground-based defenses at the same time.
>>274112
>How would this war go? Would NATO be able to stop Soviet advance?
Let's see. The Soviets would benefit from the element of surprise; and succumb in months, overall logistics inability to keep its troops, to produce weapons, and to feed soldiers and the population. Problems that NATO never had.
The obvious answer is that the Soviet bloc would fall to six years in advance.
>>275480
>ideally supported by ridiculous artillery bombardments
Have you seen Soviet TOEs? There will be ridiculous amounts of artillery.
>>275585
Haven't seen them, but I can only assume that the Soviets are going to back up anything they do with ridiculous amounts of shells and rockets.
>>274112
You mean when it doesn't happen because half the politburo arrests the other half for bonapartism?
