What was the last year where the Soviets had a chance of defeating

1989.

from 1946 to current day russia could STEAMROLL all of europe

The late 70's.

>>32751051
nah, not really.

>>32751000
NATO? Never. They would have to fight a war on two continents.

>>32751051
>this is what vatniks actually believe

>>32751101
This, the fact the US is separated by huge bodies of water significantly keeps them from invasion attempts. It would take years of transport between another country and south American to set up an invasion, and the US would know every second of it, even if it was under the cover of freighters and private ships.

>>32751051
s..sure they did and do, just like they steamrolled the corrupt and totally dysfunctional ukranian army led by government crippled by many months lasting political crisis.

>>32751000
Nukes would be used. There is no magical "no nukes" setting in the real world.

>>32751162
>being this insecure and butthurt
wew

>>32751000
The Soviets had a chance of winning all the way to the end. How big a chance that was lessened starting in the 1980, but NATO does not get a guaranteed win even in 1989. By 1985, I think it's a rough parity.

1989
>>32751051
Nope. Russia doesn't really have the means to do that. They could easily beat European armies, but they don't have logistic capacity to go far, or resources to occupy so much land.
Russian military is a lot smaller than Soviet army, and Russia is a lot weaker in every sense compared to USSR (and also stronger in some ways).

>>32751125
russia vs europe is basically just poland,germany and france vs russia tell me how in the fuck they would stop russia. the US acted as such at the end of ww2 to stop the soviets from taking all of europe. In a world where its just small western europe countrys with no outside support against russia they getting ass fucked

>>32751162
If you believe Ukrainian conflict is in any way representative of Russian capacity for conventional war you really need to stop discussing things you know little about.
Or if you're just trying to bait vatniks, in that case just stop, stop ruining this fucking board.

>>32751185
>1985
I would say Americans gained a relevant qualitative edge by then, but it's not like Soviets were sitting on their asses.

>>32751162
proxy shadow war = full military might keep being retarded when i say they could defeat nato I'm saying they could defeat western europe today and for sure from 1945-1989 Why would they need t invade the US to defat nato if they have all of europe in there control

>>32751182
That projection though.

File: vatnikistanstronk.jpg (61KB, 531x640px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 531x640px

>>32751051

>>32751271
They would never beat NATO "for sure".
But they did have a huge advantage until roughly 1985.
I mean, just for illustration, when Soviets already deployed T-64 and T-72 in huge numbers, Americans were still using slightly upgraded M60's.

>>32751000
Right up to 1989
They win regardless up to 1985, but after that it all depends on who hits first, if the Israelis taught us anything, it's that a successful pre-emptive strike makes all the difference, and the Soviets and Americans both had plenty of capacity for either

Every Soviet plan also called for nukes to be used on the battlefield, no way around it. Every vehicle they made since the 80's was designed for an NBC environment.

>>32751312
Every vehicle they made from 60's had at least some NBC protection.

>>32751287
russian active and reserve 2,700,000 german active and reserve 330,000 poland active and reserve 170,000 french active and reserve 300,000 in this no nuke scenario how would western europe not get ran the fuck over. it would happen now and it would have happened then

>>32751366
numbers are not an advantage in 21st century warfare

>>32751366
Because it's not just about numbers.
Absolutely speaking, yes, European militaries are a joke compared to Russian military.
But Russia doesn't have the capacity to take them all at once, nor does it have capacity to occupy a lot of ground.
And they don't intend to.

Soviets probably would've steamrolled up through the early 80s, especially in the mid to late 70s when NATO was a modernization cycle behind and the US Army was a mess post-Vietnam. The balance starts to tip in NATO's favor after that though I would only give a NATO a guaranteed victory in the mid 90s if the Cold War had continued that long.

>>32751378
get jumped by three men and tell me numbers don't matter. op said no nukes. so in what way is having an army double the size of your opponent not a distinct advantage

>>32751378
Numbers are always an advantage.
And Russian military is not some Arab tribal warrior band. In terms of capability they are ahead of every European army.

>>32751366
Conscripted "reserves" are a joke.
A 45 year old fat plumber who has not held a rifle for over 20 years will not ever be an effective fighter, not without massive training at least.

>>32751366
It wouldn't happen now, as they have nowhere near the bridging capability or rail infrastructure they enjoyed. Even if they did have it, right up to East Germany, they would still have to contend with the NATO forces in Europe which are more than sufficient to grind them to a halt.

>>32751000
1980 is considered to be the last year it was viable for the Soviet Union to reach Calais within a week. That was the assessment made by the British and the Americans at the time and one of the few not revised after the Cold War.

BRIXMIS estimates had 3rd Shock Army reaching Northern France within five days, based on their set-piece efforts.

>>32751402
>get jumped by three men and tell me numbers don't matter

so I get jumped by three men, but all they have are old, shitty rifles whereas I've got superior weaponry, training, tactics, defensive advantage, and optics

the average NATO soldier could fight off ten fucking slav conscripts on his own

the difference only gets more ridiculous as you upgrade equipment

>one abrams/leopard can easily solo a company of t-72s and t-80s just from the advantage of thermal optics alone
>two apaches are all it takes to wipe out a battalion, air defenses included
>one man with a radio can shit on a whole soviet division and they'll never find him

>>32751432
Reserves are an important asset. It's far easier to teach someone who had some military training, than an average German nu-male (for example) who never saw a rifle.

>>32751419
>And Russian military is not some Arab tribal warrior band.
This is a falsehood. Time and time again it has been shown that they're effectively as bad as arabs. Their pilots weren't any better as proven in yom kippur, and their soldiers aren't any better as shown in modern conflicts, from Chechnya to Syria today

>>32751435
Please stop posting. Your friend too should stop posting. This is cringy as fuck.

>>32751465
I see you've lost the argument

>>32751402
>so in what way is having an army double the size of your opponent not a distinct advantage

This was brought up time and time again in various planning exercises of the 60s and 70s. The conventional wisdom was that, when looking at the forces that were actually going to fight each other, the Soviets did not enjoy as big of a numerical advantage as was originally estimated. Category A Armies (Shock, Guards, certain motor rifle) did not dwarf their NATO opposition alone, only when counting the B and C categories did the numbers really begin to rise. These B and C troops were not going to be engaging or fighting alongside the A armies and were only to be used to enforce lines in the rear and protect wider strategic assets.

Would they have won a conventional war? Until 1980 or so, probably. But not down to numbers. Their positioning and advantage in supply lines would have seen them through, along with their world class air defence and bridging capabilities.

>>32751454
But that's false. As I said, stop posting shit and go to YT comments or something.
You first used Ukraine, then you probably understood why that's an awful example, now you use Chechnya, a conflict that happened 17 years ago, and was followed by two huge reforms of Russian army, as well as drastic changes in Russian state and society.
>Syria
Jesus Christ.

>>32751366
>all of Europe
>Poland, France, Germany

EU active personnel : 1.4 million
Spending : 200 billion
Tanks : 7500
Armoured vehicles : 18000
Artillery : 9000
Attack helicopters : 800
Multiroles/air superiority aircraft : 2100
(does still account for the UK though)

I don't think you people realize how powerful the EU is combined, and how overestimated Russian capabilities are.

File: 20170123_142000.png (270KB, 1440x1989px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 1440x1989px

>>32751435
Do u purposely act retarded or no?

>>32751435
This is legitimately one of the worst posts I have seen on this board.

>>32751469
I never really argued with you, you're arguing some vatnik, and amazingly you're more idiotic than he is.

Count us Brits out. http://forces.tv/07710167

>>32751491
>retarded commander decides to fly all his helicopters low over an urban environment, the worst place they could be
>no recon
>they all get shot up

Amazing

>>32751487
I don't think you realize EU doesn't really exist militarily, nor is that politically united. And no European military has Russian military capability.
When you combine them all, you're just combining irrelevant armies and few slightly relevant ones. However they still lack capability.

File: 327rugercyloutld.jpg (81KB, 589x361px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 589x361px

>>32751221
atleast finland would be a shitty insurgency to occupy

we have enough supplies to mobilize over a million men

>>32751525
If you'd like to explain how Russia could get through every country in central and eastern Europe to fight France, for example, then go right ahead.

>>32751526
>muh hardcore Finns
Nice meme. But yeah, Finns are in a lot better situation because they still have military training.
However chances of Russia invading Finland in any scenario are very slim. Nor will Finnish government do anything to provoke that.

>>32751493
It's true, though.

Massive numbers don't make a difference when you're swinging them around in the open to a waiting enemy who can see you and has more than enough weaponry to melt your forces down

>>32751542
It wouldn't be able to do that, I'm not this vatnik this idiot is "debating".
I'm just saying no European military is on the same level as Russian military.

>>32751562
Yeah, that applies to scenario(s) we speak of.
Oh wait, it doesn't.
Russians are not Arabs, Russians aren't that far behind technologically, and are actually superior to most if not all European countries.

>>32751552
>Finns are in a lot better situation because they still have military training

About half the countries in Euroland exercise conscription and most of the ones that don't conscript have professional, experienced militaries. There are a few exceptions, but it's not as if they're all like Ireland or Iceland.

There is never any explanation about how Russia gets through Austria with the equipment it used to get through the plains of Belarus, or how it maintains a supply line through Poland to fight Germany without gaining the attention of the 25,000 British and 100,000 American troops stationed in Germany. Or how it does all this without getting Tomahawk missiles launched at its lines from the Med. Even if some (false) explanation is given for this, it doesn't make any sense considering it would have to then fight France without the American presence in Italy hitting it from the side.

It's impossible. Even with a military the strength of the USA it would be extremely costly and time consuming for no gain.

File: bfranklin_fb_link.jpg (417KB, 1200x628px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 1200x628px

>>32751552
its a meme but if political tensions rise the spending could be upped by a factor of 10-15 and we still do alright for only 1.5 billion in spending a year

i think the best part of the finnish situation is that if under siege finnish people are trained to report to duty instead of killing eachother like in sarajvo

>>32751552
>provoke invasion
just like in winter war i presume?

>>32751589
*in military sense, of course

File: irrelevant.png (829KB, 876x667px) Image search: [Google]

829KB, 876x667px

>>32751312
>Every Soviet plan also called for nukes to be used on the battlefield, no way around it. Every vehicle they made since the 80's was designed for an NBC environment.

False. Ever since the late 70s the soviets realized they had the conventional advantage and wanted to avoid nuclear escalation.

On the other hand, NATO knew this just as well, and was prepared to turn west germany into a nuclear barrier to stop the soviets from rolling further west. They would also have nuked poland to prevent the soviet second line from reaching germany.

>pic unrelated, its an operation map from the warpac exercise 'Shield-72'

>>32751593
I'll repeat: I never said Russia could conquer Europe.
I did say Russia is militarily far ahead of European nations.
>>32751602
Winter War was Stalin's paranoia.
By provoking I meant joining NATO, or increasing military spending, or concentrating troops.
Really depends on Russian leadership and their tolerance, but many of them are chekists, including Putin, very pragmatic types, even if a bit paranoid.
Finland is really in no danger. It would be expensive invasion and for little or no gain.

File: 1481834277552.jpg (22KB, 395x428px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 395x428px

>>32751596
i meant 2.5 billion

but yeah europe should just concentrate on airpower and deny russians air superiority and also could possibly be used as an anti-missle defense.. wouldnt that pretty much guarantee the russians never fucking with us?

File: soviet motor rifle.jpg (736KB, 2584x909px) Image search: [Google]

736KB, 2584x909px

>>32751378
>Large mechanised formations will always defeat small mechanised formations. - God

>>32751589
>Russians are not Arabs
They're just as bad as them. Being a clueless conscript with poor technology doesn't make a difference whether you're from a forest or a desert.
>Russians aren't that far behind technologically
But just enough to make a huge difference
The total lack of FLIR or other thermal optics is a huge disadvantage. It doesn't matter how many men you have if the enemy can see you but you can't see him.

NATO aircraft were vastly superior in almost all regards and would have won the air war in an instant, making it a pain for Soviet forces to even move anywhere without getting bombed into submission

File: tumblr_static_9o6qatn65gwsgggoc4gw0os0s_640_v2.jpg (54KB, 323x351px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 323x351px

>>32751648
thats nice to hear.. part of me really hopes you know what youre talking about

>>32751650
Europe is dying, if you mean EU.
This of course is Putin's goal, however that also means his future agressive moves will be limited.
Ukraine is fucked though. And Russians will probably try to gain more influence in Baltic states and Balkans.
But that's pretty much their limit. They won't cross it, because they know they can't realistically hold it.
All this paranoia is kinda retarded.

>>32751676
Most of Russian military is professional. Now that you learned this fact, maybe you'll accept you don't know shit and fuck off from this thread. Thanks.

>>32751703
>Most of Russian military is professional
Wrong

File: a31ce481adfaa955b04a27567217b1dba983e6da634f1acfc37d84bf0e19ad90.jpg (296KB, 1200x737px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1200x737px

>>32751687
well it would be really sad see something horrible happen to estonia :(

not to mention make it awkward for finland, but i dont even think finland would do shit

also fuck lithuania, just kidding

>>32751666
Okay Satan, let's pick this apart

>Regimental Recon
Has no thermals, but enemy counter recon does, so they get picked off before they can report anything
>CRP
See above
>FSE
Can be wiped out by a single tank platoon. Tanks are easy prey for the same reason and the rest of the force is helpless because the Soviets literally had no ATGMs that could penetrate the armor of NATO tanks
>Main Body
With their recon destroyed and advance forces taken out, the main body is picked apart by mines, artillery, air strikes, helicopters, and superior NATO ground firepower
>Command group
Oops, is that an A-10? Aww shucks, now your big force doesn't have any command elements! Now they have to run around like the headless chickens they are.
>Artillery
Darn, another A-10! F-16s too! If that's not enough, maybe the NATO counter-battery artillery will convince you to sit the fuck down.
>Regimental Main Body
Jeez this is getting tiring, what a turkey shoot for giddy NATO tankers.
Too bad that AA didn't really do much in the face of jamming, SEAD, and artillery!
>Rear security
Ahh, stragglers!

>>32751166
Which means NATO invariably loses.

The better question is, was there *ever* a time where the NATO could have defeated the Warsaw Pact?

>>32751713
Nope. By now, most are kontraktniki, as Russians call them. Number keeps increasing. Almost all NCO's are professionals, and change in recruitment length pretty much removed hazing and other shitty things.
Your idiotic ideas about bullied starving untrained Slavs is rubbish anyway. Hazing and that shit exploded in 90's. It was a problem before but that's when it got really damaging.
Soviet army wasn't in such a chaos during most of 80's.
>>32751733
I don't think anything horrible will happen, only Russians will have more influence. Didn't mean they will occupy them. That would be dumb.

>>32751790
The 50's and the 80's.

>>32751773
Jesus Christ stop posting.

File: M60s inna woods.jpg (559KB, 800x1204px) Image search: [Google]

559KB, 800x1204px

>>32751051
Russia didn't exist between 1946 and 1991. During those years it was part of the Soviet Union.

>>32751000
The problem with putting forth a 'no nukes' qualifier is that there are virtually no Cold War gone hot scenarios in which nukes don't come into play.

>>32751795
The post Georgia debacle reforms have helped a lot.

>>32751000
The late 1970's.

Once the army got some new tech and got rid of the druggies, it was a much better fighting force.

As a friend of mine told me, who was an officer during the time, "The army in 1985 was completely different than that army in 1975".

>>32751845
I wouldn't say Georgia was a debacle. It did expose weaknesses. But they didn't really send some high-quality prepared units, they sent what they had nearby and they did an okay job. I think some units had T-62's.

>>32751845
They still can't fucking take Ukraine.

>>32751888
But they don't want to "take Ukraine".

>>32751870
>I think some units had T-62's.
They did. Some of them even lacked cage armor which was the very minimum extra protection T-62's could possible have.

>>32751904

If you fail, just pretend you didn't try!

>>32751486
That was me, that used the ukraine and I was reacting to
>from 1946 to current day russia could STEAMROLL all of europe

which is bullshit larger than comparing large scale warfare to proxy war in ukraine or chechnya conflict.

you aregetting very butthurt, but was it you who made the first statement? I hope you werent, because now you are just making excuses why all examples of russian action (and we can quote since 1946) dont count.

Dont get me wrong, I am not trying to laugh at russians, but all those examples make me very unconvinced. I am from on of the satelites and I know how things very often looked almighty on papers and how the reality differed.

on the other hand, I would also exclude syria, I think Russians did fairly well and I welcome that they joined US in getting involved in this world police game if they want to be respected superpower

The war doctrine was always about nukes.

What a lot of people today don't understand is the differentiation between strategic nuclear Armageddon, and the planned-for tactical (to break a defence or disrupt an attack) use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine

>>32751921
Okay. I see it's absolutely pointless to talk with you.

>>32751773
>Recon Comes into contact, quickly reports to command.
Recon dies by reports positions of enemy force.
>FSE Now advised of enemy assault by fire.
Vanguard carefully pinpoints positions of enemy tanks, displaces tanks with DPICM/ATGM.
>Main Body arrives to assist fight.
Main Body overwhelms small Tank Platoon, outrun NATO Arty, airstrikes ineffective, helicopters shot down.
>Command Group attacked by A-10
A-10 shot down by SHORAD
>Artillery under air attack and counter-battery
Soviet Artillery damaged by counter-battery but remains in force.
>Regimental Main Body enters fight
Regimental Main Body pushes through after casualties and begins to fall into chaos after initial breakthrough.
>Rear Security
Rear security comes into contact and is overwhelmed by NATO stragglers, these stragglers interrupt Soviet supply lines to the front.
>Days later
Soviet supply critical from the NATO stragglers the Soviet spearhead missed.
>Soviet advance halted due to supply.
NATO now has time to re-organize and form proper defensive lines.
>Week later
Frustrated Soviets use nukes to breakthrough the hardened NATO lines.
>NATO uses nukes
Soviets and NATO in utter chaos.
>Months later
Anarchy and Radiation
>Years later
Wow that was fucking stupid. Lets rebuild.

File: soviet attack scheme.jpg (97KB, 843x514px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 843x514px

>>32751773
Your blatantly obvious willfull ignorance is simply mind boggling, and if it were not for this being a place of public discussion and you possibly having an influence on others, I would not even reply.

But alas, lets see.

>Has no thermals, but enemy counter recon does, so they get picked off before they can report anything
Thermals are not God vision, especially not old 70s-80s thermals. They provide an advantage to a certain degree, but not nearly as much as fans of the Western school of tank design love to believe. Identifying infantry even in a field on a sunny day in thermals is basically impossible at over 500m, and any tank viewed in old thermals even on clear days is just a blob at over 1500m.

>FSE wiped out by a single tank platoon.
No, especially considering the quality of western armor (the majority of america's tank fleet in Europe was M60A1 and A2s right up until the late 80s)
Modern M1s starter arriving in 85, with the M1A1s becoming relevant numerically in 1987-88, which was after the soviets switched to a defensive structure following Gorbachev's line of thought.

>superior NATO ground firepower
simply an incorrect statement.

>A-10 / F-16
most likely shot down in the chaos that is the airspace over germany, either by WP air assets, or by the most developed small unit air defence network in the world.

the rest if your post is irrelevant.

TL:DR- Stop posting, your bait game is mediocre at best, and there is literally no truth in your statements.

>>32751051

>Cant conquer Afghanistan
>Somehow thinks he can win aginst a whole continent

>>32751961
Vatnik translation: I cant argue the point.

>>32752033
>america
>cant conquer Vietnam, iraq or afghanistan
>somehow thinks he can win against a peer level superpower

Tis a double edged sword, lad.

>>32751666
Iraq, Iran, Israel, Germany, Russia, US, etc, etc, etc experience says otherwise rather decisively throughout history against those with a similar technology level.

>>32752008
>Thermals are not God vision,

No one said otherwise.

>especially not old 70s-80s thermals.

Passive thermals will always be superior to anything that requires an IR light to illuminate a target.

>They provide an advantage to a certain degree, but not nearly as much as fans of the Western school of tank design love to believe.

They provide an extreme advantage as history has shown. One only needs to look at the Gulf War and count who shot first to see how decisive those '70's-80's" thermals you're so dismissive of helped out the side that had them over the side that did not.

>(the majority of america's tank fleet in Europe was M60A1 and A2s right up until the late 80s)

Blatantly false. By '84 the M1 and IP were the second largest tank force NATO had outside of Leopard 2s. Eitherway, the next step down was the M60 series, the majority of which were 60A3 TTS models and by that time the M883 was common in NATO stockpiles so anything with a venerable 105mm was capable of taking on anything the Pact threw at them.

Probably the early 1970s was the last time the USSR had an advantage in ground warfare and could have made a serious push and hold what they gained..
Waves of T-64s and T-72s would have given serious problems to the Chieftains (With an extremely poor ready rate), centurions, AMXs, Pattons, and Leopard 1s.
This was also before NATO had air superiority fighters in large numbers.

From the mid-1970s on, the USSR/Warsaw Pact lost the initiative. NATO built ways to counter Soviet MBTs and a potential airwar would have been decided quickly and in NATO's favor. Better fighters and better capacity to dismantle a Soviet SAM network (Lessons learned from the war in Vietnam)
While a Soviet push in Europe at any time would have had gains and inflicted massive damage, it would have bogged down into the scenario you see in 'Red Storm Rising' where it came down to an initially strong Soviet push hitting its limit, getting stuck, and then having to consider using nuclear weapons for a breakthrough.

>>32752054
b..but in the terms of the threads topic, america did conquer Vietnam and obliterated Iraq.

didnt really conquer Afghanistan tho, nobody did recently. It is a problem when there actually isnt anything to conquer

>>32751000
>What was the last year where the Soviets had a chance of defeating NATO in WW3?
1985.

>>32751000
Never.
US always had the nuclear advantage.

>>32752008
>soviet attack scheme
>"lol just make a big line and throw it at the enemy"

Literally human waves.

>>32752312
No, it was make three big lines and funnel the reserve units to whichever one didn't stall, re-examine stall status every two hours and reapply reserves.

So pretty close. Deep Battle was some simple shit but it worked.

>>32752332
>funnel the reserve units to whichever one didn't stall
What stall? Each line would be obliterated by enemy firepower.

>>32751992
>A-10 shot down by SHORAD
Nice meme. The AGM-65 outranged everything short of an SA-6. And even then those are easy prey for SEAD and not very effective.

>>32751000
Now let's talk about Allies conquering Soviet Russia in 1947.
I wonder why isn't it a popular topic on /k

>>32752353
Because operation Unthinkable was just that.
Unthinkable.

>>32752312
>>32752332
This is not a deep battle map, its a very basic guideline to a small mechanised unit with tank support attacking a defended position.

check soviet tactical markers to get a better understanding

>>32752394
The US, UK, and a rearmed Wehrmacht probably could have pushed the Soviets back across the USSR's pre-war borders.
But the idea the USSR could have been totally defeated would never have worked. It would be a massive version of what the DMZ between the Koreas is.
You'd still get the Cold War but with more hostility and tension. Plus the USSR would continue to exist into today.

>>32751491
Iraq was a lot different than employing Apache as it was planned for use in USAREUR over FRIENDLY ground against advancing armor.

Helicopters can never be tough enough to take serious punishment and should not be operated near effective small arms fire.

>>32751419
>In terms of capability they are ahead of every European army.

Agreed with you until with, unless you mean just the European armies.

>>32752485
>Pushed back to USSR
>Use B29 to atomise Stalin
>Depose commies and help the Russians the commies had what on (most of them)
>Same as above but with non Russian ethnicities in the USSR
>Soviet Union ceases to exist, no cold war, no shit tier ex-soviet countries
>McDonalds and suck jobs for everyone

File: 1484796625820.jpg (30KB, 463x358px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 463x358px

>>32751051
>from 1946 to current day russia could STEAMROLL all of europe
>current day russia
>STEAMROLL all of europe
>current day
>russia

File: 1447980522448.jpg (347KB, 1920x1277px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 1920x1277px

By the time new tanks like the M1A1 and Leopard 2 were out, the Soviets didn't stand a chance.

How the fuck are you supposed to win when you can't kill the enemy? You can't.

>>32751815
it existed as a republic within the soviet union. the rsfsr

fag

>>32754207
well to be fair by 1985 germoney only had like 200 leo 2's in europe and the US only had 150 m1a1's delivered. Meanwhile the slavs were upgrading their t-72s to the b models aswell as the t-64's to b model aswell as upgrading the t-80b's to bv. I mean just think of iy this way. 1986 the US had roughly 6k tanks in Europe most of these were m60 varriants. slavs had 13k front line tanks and easily a possible 20k in reserve.

Thankfully our airforce kicked the shit out of theres but the damage we could have done in the estimated weeks time it would take for slav mech and armor to cross europe questionable