>year is 1985
Soviets decide they've had enough, workers must be liberated from capitalist oppression (and their personal belongings).
Soviet troops achieve strategic surprise. No chemical or nuclear weapons are used.
How far do Soviets go?
You're asking for a realistic analysis of a hypothetical based on a total disregard of everything realistic related.
>Soviet troops achieve strategic surprise. No chemical or nuclear weapons are used.
No campaign by the Soviets involved not using nukes.
NATO and the Soviets would've used them in a heartbeat because of Pershing IIs and SS-1Cs being all along the border.
Both navies would scramble to destroy the other navy before they got out of port.
SOIP estimated that even if the US won, 100 million people would die. End of story.
>Both navies would scramble to destroy the other navy
The Soviet navy was purely defensive, out side of small amphibious ops in the Baltic and Black Sea. They were terrified of USN tactical aircraft launching nukes from carriers at targets in the Soviet Union, and they new they could not compete with US carriers in the Atlantic.
>before they got out of port.
The Soviet Navy was essentially a mobilisation force. Few units were operational at any time but the entire fleet (and it was really, really massive) was kept at high readiness in port.
They assumed they would take and absorb the first blow, then fight a war of attrition in the White Sea and Sea of Okhotsk.
>would've used them in a heartbeat
No one would use nukes in a heartbeat.
>navies would scramble
Now about nukes you have some argument, but this is bullshit. Soviet Navy was defensive. Their job was defending the bastion and interdicting Atlantic convoys.
>surprise an entire nation
Yeah surprise attacks never happened...
Just imagine Soviets managed to achieve surprise. They did have shitload of troops concentrated you know.
>No one would use nukes in a heartbeat.
Should read more on the Cuban missile crisis, Able Archer 83. and the Norwegian Missile Incident. Nukes are always on the table during that time period. It would be like going into a boxing match with one arm, saying that no nukes can be used
Cover of a training exercise?
Or springing an invasion before mobilization was complete? By '85, with NATO so strong and the Soviet Union getting weaker and weaker, it might be worth it to attack with a smaller force while reserves are being mobilized .
>Yeah surprise attacks never happened...
Oh sure back in world war 2 when satellites weren't, you could surprise all kinds of shit.
>obvious forces already massed
I don't think you know how that works.
You're comparing different things. If they didn't use nukes in attack, there's a high chance NATO restrains too so things don't escalate to full-blown exchange.
You're just repeating common bullshit.
Nukes are weapons of last resort, even if they planned to fight a nuclear war.
However, they might've easily decided to not use them. I'm asking you to imagine they made such decision.
You're autistic and you don't know shit about what you're talking about. Stop.
I don't think YOU know what I'm talking about.
Those troops were permanently in Germany and Poland. They wouldn't need to concentrate or mobillize them, they were 100% ready all the time. Idiot.
>You're autistic and you don't know shit about what you're talking about. Stop.
>Those troops were permanently in Germany and Poland. They wouldn't need to concentrate or mobillize them, they were 100% ready all the time. Idiot.
>America had no troops in Germany or Poland
>Let's surprise attack a ready and standing enemy with our ready and standing forces
>I love Balto
This is how retarded you are.
You're fucking dumb.
I didn't mean surprise them in the sense they suddenly magically appear somewhere, I meant surprise them by sudden attack, you drooling idiot.
And yes Americans had troops too, but far less troops.
Yep, you don't know what a surprise attack is then. A sudden attack on a position expecting an attack isn't a surprise attack, it's an attack.
Like holy fuck, how dumb you gotta be?
Holy fuck, you're dense.
They didn't expect attack to come without any warning out of the blue, you fucking sperg.
I'm telling you to presume that NATO didn't expect attack to happen at hypothetical moment.
>BUT THATS IMPOSSIBLE DURRR
>No campaign by the Soviets involved not using nukes.
This is not accurate at all. There were my operational level plans that did not call for the use of nuclear weapons.
Most Soviet 'invasion' plans were preemptive in nature, and designed around a desire to disrupt a perceived imminent NATO assault.
>SOIP estimated that even if the US won
SIOP did not estimate casualties for any MAO. Casualty estimates were intentionally left out of any SIOP publications. The Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff had estimate publications, but they were mostly used internally or published as an annex.
For US casualties, FEMA was the source for these, and would not have been included in SIOP publications.
>They didn't expect attack to come without any warning out of the blue, you fucking sperg.
The entire purpose of having troops there, was because of the Soviet Union. You don't know much do you mate? You think everyone was just putzing around with the enemy at the door? There were manned positions for response.
Problem is, you dolt, that NATO troops were less ready and inferior in numbers.
They counted on mobillization, which would be completed in few days.
However, in my scenario, they don't start mobilizing before the attack because Soviets SURPRISED THEM.
I seriously can't believe you're so autistic you can't even presume that this is a possibility. Are you also mentally challenged or something?
Attacking suddenly without warning>surprise. Now fuck off, if you don't want to discuss.
Not a surprise attach, the positions were a hold designed to hinder an enemy advance while a serious response was sent in. There are plenty of units on rotation stand by, it's like you have no idea how the military works or something.
How embarrassing for you that you need to throw in as much ad hominem and projection because your argument is trash.
Yeah I'm starting to suspect you're trolling because I can't believe someone is this idiotic.
SURPRISE=to do something unexpected.
In this case, unexpected attack, without previous warning or indications it could happen. With no crisis going on or anything.
Now fuck off, I'm not feeding you anymore.
It's not unexpected though lol, that's the reason they're there. Why is this hard for you to get?
>I'm not feeding you anymore
So much projection, but if it helps you cope with your loss, have at it, I accept your defeat.
They didn't expect the attack to happen at any moment. They presumed they'll have few days of warning at least, with gradual escalation of crisis.
If Soviets struck without warning, they would achieve surprise.
He's right, you're being autistic.
>If Soviets struck without warning, they would achieve surprise.
except this is literally impossible
for such campaign, without tactical nuke strikes mind you, logistics would be running around for months
its amazes me how your soviet strong circlejerk calls for allies to be completely incompetent in all levels
and soviets to be able move in all the reinforcements, and retarded amount of supplies for such attack to even be feasible without anyone even rising an eyebrow on nato side
So, just to help you guys find common ground, the Soviets had plans designed around SFG rolling right from their garrisons and to the IGB with little warning.
These plans tended to call for initial nuclear strikes because the Correlation of Forces equations did not favor success with the forces in place against NATO at the time. (Success being defined as collapse of NATO resistance east of the Rhine in 30-45 days)
On the other hand, building up conventional forces in preparation for a deliberate attack on NATO would likely lead to NATO bringing up their own reinforcements, leading to no advantage at all.
So, towards the end of the Late Unpleasantness, the Soviets had a hybrid strategy. The Soviets would begin rolling Category B and C divisions toward the west before they would actually jump off.
They would then begin their assault before the reinforcements were in place, and while NATO was still in the process in increasing their own readiness.
The Soviets accepted that strategic surprise would be unlikely to achieve unless the attack used only the forces in place, but that the attack would fall short.
So the compromise was the loss of Strategic Surprise at the expense of increased strength, but with Tactical Surprise achieved due to the Soviets not waiting for everything to be in place, so to speak.
As a caveat, NATO did consider the 'Rolling Start" option (where the forces in place are used for the assault with no build up) and did prepare for it. That preparation was a key reason the Soviets did not put much stock in its success without the use of nuclear weapons.
said what, you should be damn aware how retarded this thread is
a attack from soviet that would in any means of form threaten collapse of democratic europe would instantly met with full scale nuclear strike on both strategic and tactical levels
>a attack from soviet that would in any means of form threaten collapse of democratic europe would instantly met with full scale nuclear strike on both strategic and tactical levels
Depends on the era you are talking about.
By the 1980's, the US would want to keep the war limited with the hope of ending it short of a massive nuclear exchange. US planners called it the "Long War" and planned to fight it over weeks or months.