In 1985, in a war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, who

Before 1980 the pact would win.

After 1980 NATO would win.

>>34102978
Pretty much this

>>34102978
What changed in 1980?

If Nukes everyone dies.
If conventional the soviets.

>>34104715
Ronnie got elected and started spending money to rebuild the military that Ford and then Carter neglected in the post 'Nam era

File: Autistic huzzahing.png (243KB, 750x642px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 750x642px

THIRD SHOCK ARMY HERE I COME
AAIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

File: F-15C Eagle.jpg (201KB, 3191x2124px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 3191x2124px

>>34104715

Wouldn't the overwhelming numbers of tanks and other armored vehicles have resulted in NATO using nukes to stop the USSR from breaking through their lines? I'm thinking of the Pershing 2 missiles that were there for that very purpose. And after that NATO HQ maybe gets nuked and things get completely out of hand.

>>34102077
What kind of war? Or more importantly are tactical nukes an option?

In terms of MAD the US would be better off, the Soviets had better tactical nuke doctrine ( though this goes back to MAD being somehow off the table yet mini nukes being okay)

Conventionally the Soviets would have the upper hand and be able to overrun everything up to Belgium easily and then it would be a matter of how much fight the euros would have in them until US forces got mustered.

>>34104728
I mean both sides differentiated between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. As long as the war didn't start with a strategic nuclear exchange odds are it wouldn't have escalated just suddenly happened. Essentially nuking a bunch of Soviet soldiers is no different than using a few big bombs, but nuking the middle of Moscow is different.

>>34102978
Maybe not 1/1/80, but fairly early on in the '80s.

The US began a conventional buildup that included guided weapons (some of them from the Assault Breaker programs) and new doctrine in the form of Air-Land Battle, which would have aimed air power mostly at the interdiction of the Operational Maneuver Groups that were the key to Soviet planning.

There was a link in a thread maybe a week or two ago to a story where some guy reviewed Soviet war plans that leaked out after it fell; they went from a mostly conventional (for them) invasion plan in 1980 to one that used a massive amount of tactical nukes in 1987. The reason? They were afraid that guided weapons would take out their high-level HQs, causing the few key decisions that had to be made (like when and where to commit the OMGs) to be made too late or not at all; plus, shorter-ranged weapons like ATGMs were becoming increasingly capable of slowing down the tempo at the tactical level, constantly forcing Soviet columns to stop and switch from column to abreast to attack a fleeting enemy.

>>34104715
F-15, F-16, better guided weapons, better subs, better tanks, etc etc. Not to mention the lessons learned from conflicts like Yom Kippur and the Falklands being implented (ATGMS everywhere, CIWS on ships, that kind of thing).

>>34102978
After 1980 the soviet economy was unsalvageable
The soviet union goes to war and the whole country immediately runs out of grain, with no kulaks around to expropriate.

>>34104736
Would NATO win pre 'Nam?

File: 1492852684304.jpg (618KB, 2047x1323px) Image search: [Google]

618KB, 2047x1323px

Would Red Storm Rising's scenario be accurate?
Soviets prepare to make a big push, NATO strikes some bridges and fuel depots before offensive begins, Soviets push hard and make big gains quickly, NATO gains control of the air, things eventually slow down as Soviet forces hit stiffer lines of defense, within a few weeks REFORGER units are disembarking and being offloaded onto mainland Europe, Soviet advance halts, both sides are left with the prospect of an entrenched war of attrition or trying to make a breakthrough with nukes.

>>34105860
Soviets were indeed worried. US has a history of using PGM munitions to great effect.

Desert Storm crystallized those worries. Soviets were really scared that their entire battle order might be sitting ducks to concentrated PGM attacks.

>>34105941
Like the book, but 1,000 Tomahawks on every refinery east of the English Channel would have made their excursion pointless,

Still, dat attack on the carrier group... damn

I feel bad for all the other Warsaw Pact forces.
They would be tasked with achieving an astounding amount of tasks but would lack the ability to. The Eastern Germans would be hit extremely hard since they would be expected to push attacks and occupy Western Germany, while also defending their own borders from counter-attack or civilian uprising.

>>34105993
>>34105941
Red Storm Rising as an HBO miniseries when?

File: 1400348755238.jpg (78KB, 800x526px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 800x526px

>>34106069
I wish so badly it was a thing. It would be perfect for a miniseries. So many awesome scenes in that book, only lackluster part is the politics.
>Predawn before the Soviet invasion begins, F-19s streak into East Germany and begin to take out bridges, Soviet SAMs, and Soviet AWACs
>Once radars and SAMs are taken out, a huge wave of F-111s and F-15s rush in to start wrecking Soviet frontal aviation airfields.

Soviet forces would win the war. The Marshal of the Soviet Union Nikolai Ogarkov made certain of that.

>>34102978
In 1980 itself? Not really. Need to go a few years into the 80s for that. The new gear wasn't made in mass and Abram's reformation of the Army post Vietnam were still taking place.

>>34104715

F-15 and F-16 and M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 plus the Soviets recoiling from Afghanistan.

>>34106194
The tanks weren't produced in significant numbers until 1985. I ran the numbers. Count them up yourself.

>>34106089
How many hours can the erection stand before i see a doctor?

>>34106232
If the erection is plane related, you're good for about 12 hours

>>34106069
>Red Storm Rising as an HBO miniseries
Fuck man, I would binge-watch that on my TV while streaming it on my tablet and binge-watch the making-of on my phone - at the same fucking time.

>>34106094
The Soviets were fairly bogged down in Afghanistan in 1985. Most of the army aviation was there, although much of the army was still free and not in country.

>>34106232
Just don't blow your load before the scene with Tu-22Ms striking an American base on Iceland with cruise missiles and then a disguised freighter offloads hovercraft full of VDV to take the base/island.

Or all the numerous submarine-focused segments Goddam that book is so awesome and needs to be made into a visual form.
Early Tom Clancy is just incredible.

>>34106246
Although it must be stated that a significant portion of the Soviets best and most prepared units were.

>>34102077
Nobody, that's why it didn't happen.

>>34106286
I would cum buckets

>>34105673
Dude, we're talking about the Cold War here.
Any bigger city and important infrastructure will have disappeared from the map under nuclear fallout by the first week.

Look up the unearthed Pact plan of defense. Nuke the advancing NATO and nuke the fuck out of Europe itself, then send the tanks through this mess to secure the rest of the mainland europe and deny further aggression from the west.

NATO wouldn't have been much different, though knowing the generals of post-WW2 US (Operation Unthinkable and the like), they probably also had a plan of attack unlike the Soviets.

>>34105941
The moment the war breaks out, Pact nukes the fuck out of everyone. So no.
Read through the real documents. You have them, Clancy did not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine

>>34105993
My fave book of all time.

File: Ivy.jpg (420KB, 1280x1599px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 1280x1599px

>>34102077

The cockroaches

>In 1985, in a war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, who was more likely to win?
NATO, easily.

As soon as the Warsaw Pact armies were occupied elsewhere, their countries would collapse in revolt. Despite the iron grip of communism, there was still civil unrest all over the place.

Then you've got armies in foreign countries without any supplies or logistical support. Half of them would probably surrender right then and there.

File: 1392162737732.jpg (357KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 1280x1024px

>>34102077
Neither. If NATO held firm against the WarPact attack, they'd get nuked to break the stalemate. If the WarPact pushed back NATO, tactical nukes would have been used to stop the advance. A Tit-for-tat nuclear exchange results, likely escalating to full scale strategic nuclear war. We all lose.

>>34105941
Eh, mostly. Remember, in the book though the Soviets had an entire army not on the front (which makes sense, though the area was wrong, in reality it would be closer to Vladivostok, where it was known that the USN/MC wanted to strike).

>>34106808
>Seven Days to the River Rhine

cringe worthy how flawed it was.

>>34107068
>Any use of nuclear weaponry results in infinite escalation

Worst meme.

File: 1465626926534.jpg (91KB, 960x715px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 960x715px

fuck rail logistics

I think that Operation Flashpoint was scarely accurate.

How retarded am I??

>>34102077
WarPac curbstomps Europe, US and SU both sit on their continents unable to carry any meaningful invasion, stalemate ends with peace, probably withdrawing NATO from continental Europe and expanding WarPac to include Western Germany and Yugoslavia. Possible Constantinople liberation.
>>34102978
>After 1980 NATO would win.
Dream on.
>>34105861
So pretty much everything the Soviet military has also began to receive.
>>34105891
>After 1980 the soviet economy was unsalvageable
Rather after 1988 or so.

>>34107190
>liberation
Spotted the Russian

File: crimea river.png (837KB, 1000x4000px) Image search: [Google]

837KB, 1000x4000px

>>34107269
>Having problems with liberating the Constantinople
Found a t*rk.

File: t80u-small.gif (4MB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 320x180px

>>34102077
Pact.

>>34102077
Both sides would have lost.

>>34107190
t. insecure butthurt eastern european

File: ss (2015-01-05 at 04.31.57).png (38KB, 824x629px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 824x629px

>>34106020
>They would be tasked with achieving an astounding amount of tasks but would lack the ability to.
You have no idea

File: OFP asian face.jpg (61KB, 700x716px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 700x716px

warsaw pact?

wtf is that?


you mean NATO was assembled to stop the war mongering polsih from marching into western yurope?

you mean fucking soviet russians dont you bolshevik dick head?

>>34107190
Have a (You)

>>34102978
>After 1980 NATO would win.

Try after 1981 by the US own guess.

>>34105927

The last year that NATO would win was 1967 based on US war games. 1968 to 1971 were to close to call. 1972 on words they knew they would lose.

>>34104736

It was not just the US that had neglected its armed forces but rather most of NATO. Here is a video of part of the effort to improve European armed forces in the 1970s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkrtxDdaWuM

>>34105927
only reason


and I repeat


the only top priority NATO was EVER assembled in the first place was because western yurope didnt want to end up like poland and east germany. and hungary

>>34107277
Constantinople is Greek clay, sub-human slavs can keep their hands to themselves and go squat in their own streets.

>>34108545
>Here is a video of part of the effort to improve European armed forces in the 1970s.
Too bad they stopped.

File: 1444922779002.jpg (98KB, 1109x756px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1109x756px

>>34106783
>they probably also had a plan of attack unlike the Soviets.
Sure thing, vatnik. Already got BTFO out in the other thread and you just thought you could start your shit here then.

Soviets were heavily training for attacking the west, basically no defensive training, had larger number of tanks, soldiers, nukes and planes. Already had occupied half of europe and forced them into their union. But the west of course where the ones who would attack first. Get fucked, shill.

File: Turken Durken.jpg (15KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 275x183px

>>34108572
>Constantinople is Greek clay

there never was a city called (((constantinople))))))))) which sounds gayreek as fuck

Turks would NEVER name one of their cities gay names like (((((constantinipples)))))

it was always called Istanbul

File: 1401139229930.jpg (993KB, 3000x2253px) Image search: [Google]

993KB, 3000x2253px

>>34108571
>western yurope didnt want
>implying that in 1949 any yurope had opinion
NATO was assembled to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down. Opinion of Europeans never mattered.

File: vatnuk.jpg (159KB, 579x595px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 579x595px

>>34108618
whatever


vatnik scumbag

>>34108586
>>34108641
What is the vatnik thing supposed to be

File: vatnik.jpg (266KB, 677x820px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 677x820px

>>34108666
A cotton padded jacket that I guess was common when the USSR was still around.

>>34108689
That's what the character in >>34108586 >>34108641 is supposed to resemble though.

>>34107091
>guy fires one shot at me
>I shoot back
>firefight begins
Yeah you're retarded.

File: vatnik gear.jpg (562KB, 700x695px) Image search: [Google]

562KB, 700x695px

>>34108668


>bolshevik-wear


it was the top fashion trend before counterfeit addidas tracksuits became all the rage.


the good thing about vatnik-wear is all the shit and piss stain acquired in your drunken state were easily removed.

>>34108666
Under what rock have you been for the past years? Not only is it well known on /k/, it even is so known in the world, that it got its own wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatnik_(slang)
Now seriously: Where do you come from?

>>34108595
Is that a picture for roaches

File: yurocoat.jpg (23KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 480x480px

>>34108699
Also its where the modern day yuro-coat evolved from.

>>34108668
>>34108699
man you should have seen Grandma's old depression-era coat, made from patches of different material sewed together 1,000 times

depressing af

>>34108545
This. The Soviets didn't think they had actual parity until around 1975, which is one of the reasons they decided to try and show off in Afghanistan.

>>34108412
>People actually forget how grossly overpowered the T-80u was in EE's early days.

>>34108774
Afghanistan was about the same reasons for it's invasion by the british and today by multinational corporations.

There's a lot of untapped uranium, lithium and other rare metal resources in those mountains.

And the local dont like western faggot entrapreneurs trying to get at them.

>>34106286
VAMPIRE VAMPIRE VAMPIRE

>>34108448
are you drunk?

>>34104728
Not after thev US got Abrams tanks an Pache helicopters.
Also the germans got over a thousand leopard 2s. The only tank that could compare to those was the T 80 but they had too few of those

>>34108814
>hmm....i wanna fuck this preggo Islandic chick...but the Puerto Rico marine keeps giving me ugly looks...

>>34108876
>Oh shit! A Hind! Better grope her to make the pilot think we're just some couple and definitely not Americans who escaped from a base.

File: br.jpg (22KB, 666x360px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 666x360px

>>34106808
>have close friends, family and lovers in the majority of the cities that would be completely destroyed by atomic bombs
Reading this makes me surprisingly uncomfortable

File: 1480234750706.jpg (21KB, 326x315px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 326x315px

>>34108814
>VAMPIRE VAMPIRE VAMPIRE

>>34106089
Shame the characters are bland and forgettable; the politics wasn't the only lackluster portion

>>34102077
>who was more likely to win?
Nukes.

>>34108876
God, everything about that bitch and the radio guy was annoying

In retrospect, RSR isn't a very cohesive narrative

>>34106089
>>34105941
>>34106069
Hnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng

>>34106089
Interesting that the basis of that plan - low-observable aircraft punching holes in the IADS of the enemy before conventional fighter-bombers swarming through them to gutpunch the enemy air force and infrastructure - was pretty much what the Coalition forces executed in the first few days in Iraq during Desert Storm

>>34102978
>As soon as a weapon's programme starts, everyone is affected by it.

Turns out this isn't how reality works, in reality the Americans had as many M1s in 1980 as the Russians have T-14s now.

A 1980s war would be fought with the avaliable equipment, the newest equipment in NATO countries always took a long time to be even close to standard.

File: Pictures of The Fall of the Soviet Union, 1991 (17).jpg (161KB, 991x601px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 991x601px

>>34102978

First post something something.

>>34112121
>taking 105mm guns against late Cold War T-72s and T-80s

>>34112604
Even T-64s.

Soviets were never good at manuever warfare. They would have gotten wrecked. Desert storm showed what the US military could do. The Russians could never pull off an operation like that. They lacked the logistics, air and sea power for sustained operations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1BC3igse50

>>34112659

should have posted some actual war footage, my bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4SIF5iK2cw

>>34112672
How come Americans don't have CAS escorts on stuff like this. Every Mi-8 group had several Mi-24s to protect them and defend them while landing.

>>34112051
I mean, it's exactly how you'd use such a limited supply of stealth aircraft. Don't have to be a genius to understand that.

>>34112659
This is a retarded post, made by someone who knows very little about anything in the post he made.

>>34112697

because the airbase was already taken and there are a shitload of aircraft in the air ready to provide CAS when needed.

File: images (3).jpg (2KB, 208x243px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 208x243px

>>34102077
Who wins? Who always wins?

>>34112709

Its absolutely true though.

>>34112604
105s swhacked t-72s gud in desert storm.

>>34112715
That isn't the point, why aren't CAS helicopters a dynamic part of airlift units like they were for the soviets.

>>34112730
lol why yall always posting that creepy ass white dude

>>34107121

Best game ever, so you're a genius.

>>34107117
imagine deploying all those tanks while the train is still moving...

I've been watching too many animes.

>>34112738
Something isn't true just because you wish it to be.

File: 9e9.gif (621KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

621KB, 500x281px

>>34106069
fucking this x1000, I've read that books so many times, a full on band-of-brothers length miniseries please kek

>>34108668
>>34108699
looks p comfy desu

>>34107068
Holy fuck anon that pic was the background for my Windows 1995 POS comp in my room when I was like 7. Thank you for the memory.

File: .....gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>34112659
>Zhukov was highly influential in the development of contemporary combined operations of highly mechanized armies

>Deep Battle doctrine

>Operation Bagration, among others

You're full of shit.

>>34113667
>using overwhelming numerical superiority to hammer against weak, outnumbered enemy
>barely got passed through Seelow Heights, with horrific casualties

yep the Soviets are great at maneuver warfare alright...

>>34102077
You never consider the fact that after Russians attack, all their puppets and occupied countries like Poland, Hungary, Ukraine and so on will immediately uprise and turn their guns against russians?
Just look what happened in Poland in 1989.

File: 1478372998795.jpg (81KB, 940x529px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 940x529px

>>34114524
I don't think they will. East Germany and Romania were extremely loyal to the USSR due to political indoctrination, the other Warsaw Pact nations had long since purged any dissidents and in a war they wouldn't just be able to turn their arms against the Soviets.
For one, those nations relied on their partners to fight effectively (Warsaw Pact interoperability) and alone would not stand much of a chance. It's not like they could just swap sides and start getting assistance from NATO. Secondly, most governments were loyal/scared enough to know not to try to revolt.
Maybe the Czechoslovakians would try to break away, but I think that'd be the extent of any revolt within the Eastern Bloc.

In his trip to China, Nixon and Deng Xiaoping worked out a secret agreement where China would come to the aid of the US in the event of war against the USSR and vice-versa.

So the Soviets would also have had to face 200 Chinese divisions rushing into Siberia during any conflict. The Soviets had better tech and training, but the numbers combined with a second front would have been a big mess for them

>>34114445
>Soviets lost almost two man for every Axis

Sounds pretty good compared to others soviet battles.

How do we improve the story of Red Storm Rising?

>>34114558
>I don't think they will. East Germany and Romania were extremely loyal to the USSR due to political indoctrination,


lolwut, Romania was basically warsaw pact in name only by the 1980s. Ceausescu didn't withdraw only because he didn't want the Czech/Hungarian treatment, but otherwise wasn't very involved with the Soviets much military and didn't take part in any WP exercises from 1968-1989. He also had strong ties with China and Yugoslavia which angered Moscow. In the event of a war, it's likely Romania would have fought the West. Ceausescu generally had good ties with Western States & Yugoslavia

The Soviets knew this, which is why they didn't equip the Romanians with their latest tech. By the mid-80's Romania was the only WP state with no Mi-24's, SA-3's, T-72's, BMP's, Soviet self-propelled guns, Tochka Missiles, or MiG-29's. After the fall of Ceausescu, the Soviets sold some more advanced tech to the Romanians for a few years as they were desperate for $$$ by that point

The most "loyal" WP states were East Germany, Bulgaria (almost a de facto SSR), and Gutsav Husak's Czechoslovakia.

File: 2626677.png (143KB, 975x470px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 975x470px

>>34114576
The Germans actually did not inflict a 2:1 kill ratio on the soviet army in WW2. The immense amount of deaths mostly comes from the amount of civilians & prisoners the Germans killed

>>34114600
My bad. My area of interest for the WP is mostly on East Germany, but in previous threads I saw people saying Romania was loyal to the USSR. Perhaps they were referencing an earlier time or maybe I'm just not remembering it correctly at all.
Any new info I learn about this stuff is interesting and appreciated.

>>34114604
1.75:1 is almost 2:1 anon

File: 5b40397b140fcb97d0f145675e898ae1.jpg (58KB, 600x393px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 600x393px

>>34102077
>>34105941
>>34106963
>>34107068

File: ww3.jpg (189KB, 1425x625px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1425x625px

>>34114586
Make it a true world war

>>34114628
""""almost""""

>>34114706
But that makes the issue of wooden characters without much emotional weight behind what they are doing even more pronounced

>>34114712
>wanting a NATO vs. WP story to focus on characters and not the military picture

fag, learn2autism

>>34114711
Yes almost. That's probably within the margin of error of this kind of casualty estimate.

>>34114723
>implying you couldn't do that from the perspective of a single commander whom one can care about instead of some nobody that exists for SUPER COOL SCENE VAMPIRE VAMPIRE VAMPIRE to transpire. High stakes decisionmaking as the order of the day rather than COOL MACHINERY

>>34114628
I wonder what happens when you start counting all the other axis people who were also on the eastern front.

>>34108805
>There's a lot of untapped uranium, lithium and other rare metal resources in those mountains.

Those weren't known until the mid 2000s, so neither the USSR nor NATO invaded Afghanistan for those reasons.

File: 1358321206595.jpg (441KB, 1495x930px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 1495x930px

>>34104715
>What changed in 1980?

Implementation of the 3rd offset. Pic very fucking related. Say good bye to all slav CnC. Plus, once it looked like the USSR was going to lose several satellite states like the Czechs would bolt or even side with NATO.

File: 1493717938837.jpg (14KB, 300x256px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 300x256px

>>34114445
>soviets use deep-battle and numbers to overwhelm german forces
>soviets are bad!
>americans do the same thing with the help of an entire coalition of nations
>US number one!

Just tossing this in before trying to remember where the source materials are at...

Soviet logistical planning was found to be inadequate for a sustained campaign. Basically it was win in about 3 weeks or less or run out needed levels of essential supplies to the front line troops.

>>34115202
I doubt a full on conventional would last that long between the Pact and NATO. USAF in the 1970s estimated that attempting to establish air superiority over Russia would be near suicidal, and is debatable on whether they'd be able to establish it or not - hence the push towards stealth technology. Either NATO wins air superiority and can bomb the pact ground forces into submission, or they lose air superiority and get swarmed with soviet armour.

>>34102077
PACT would have taken over not just by artillery or tanks, but the amassed close ranged SPAAG and motorized SAM that usually provide coverage against enemy attack helicopters and planes. Soviets and PACT have a better order of battle than NATO forces and unfortunately will bypass the woods of centralized europe if they are not bottlenecked by the clearings and roads. NATO seems to have considered urbanization as a battlefield due to the city planning of West Germany having about a 3 mile clearing around the cities of previously cut wood or forest in place of fields, but that won't go well when multiple SPG' and MLRS exist while under encirclement but the allure of material reclamation in multiple industrialized store houses make the cities themselves targets. The meta of the NATO counterattack is using the cities themselves as a center post of a roundabout to try and flank PACT/USSR forces into the city to be encircled and cut off. Since the cities themselves is a sort of road junction it is not to be underestimated, as simply a barrier to ignore. The forests around the cities provide aerial to ground cover for woods navigating NATO forces to ambush. Ironically most Tank battles will happen in the woods to make use of 105mm SABOT rounds against greater effective ranged 125mm APFSDS rounds. The Leopard 2A4 and Chieftain and Challenger will be the main contenders against enemies on open ground. France historically left Nato in 1966 and will not participate unless threatened territorially. U.S. would use TOW systems as well as M551 MGM-51 to try and engage Soviet tanks while using M60A3's on the ground in causing confusion but not a means to directly engage T-64's and above. The most common Soviet tank at the time is still the T55A and T62. The mistake is staying in Berlin.

Perhaps it was not their plans but that is how I would think it would go down.

>>34115173
If you actually read up upon Desert Storm you would realize that U.S. tactics of having units to advance and separate from their battalions to a suicide mission was not part of the plan.

>>34115173
>Soviets use massive numbers to overwhelm weak German forces
>Soviets takes horrific casualties because slav lives don't matter, and it's easier to throw lives away rather than use elaborate maneuvers
>USA DID THE SAME THING

yeah no.

>>34112785

That's only after they adopted the Israeli ammunition developed specifically against the T-72 when it turned out their guns were useless.

>>34112785

Those were bottom of the barrel T-72Ms assembled from Polish parts.

The Soviets would be fielding significantly stronger T-72B variants, including those behind reactive armor.

A T-72B with Kontakt-5 proved immune frontally from even the first generation of 120 mm M829 APFSDS ammunition, that's why they had to rapidly develop an improved version.

>>34114558

Are you kidding?

Romania and Hungary were absolutely the least reliable pact allies. It was pretty much assumed they would be defecting en masse.

Poland and Czechoslovakia were hardly better.

Only the core Soviet, Belorussian and Ukrainian forces were counted upon to do the heavy work/

>>34102077

I was wondering a certain situation that I'm sure the soviets must have considered.

You have a soviet tank company under your command(40 tanks, choose T64/572/T80), and you are ordered to split from your main regiment to secure a foward zone where you will meet with the rest of your regiment, as such you carry with yourself a small IADS made of 1 ZSU-23-4 and a SA-13(Strela 10), and the 2s1 of your howitzers regiment are also deployed to give your artillery cover(tactical nukes, flechettes, smoke you name it... at the start of the war you don't lack much in theory) but you know that the air force is busy being gangraped by F-15 ambushes so asking for any kind of air support is out of the question.

Now, its 14:00, the sky is clear and sun is bright, and to reach your objective you have to go through a long road(other roads have been taken by other companies) with small mountains in both sides(the elevation doesn't go further from 60 meters) but with a forest, so you give the order to advance.

10 minutes after entering the zone, the radar of your ZSU says that catched a small glimpse of something at 7.700 meters, seconds later your vanguard tank gets destroyed, the ERA did nothing and there are no other contacts so it must be a AH-64 doing peekaboo.

Since the AH-64 is doing fire and forget attacks, there must be a small team around with a laser designator guiding the Hellfires to their target without exposing at all the AH-64.

Another contact, from another direction, the AH-64 is shooting another hellfire that will surely destroy another tank.

What did soviet manuals say that you have to do in this scenario? On one hand the logical thing to say is to order the armor column to disperse but the AH-64 is still out there and the small team of observers too, if you stay an A-10 or two will come and rape your shit taking advantage of your stationary position.

What to do /k/?

File: twilight2000.jpg (175KB, 602x786px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 602x786px

>>34102077

>>34112659
> Desert storm showed what the US military could do.

Desert Storm was 1990, (and against dumbass Arabs who were on the defense) in 1985 the U.S. was still coming out of the post-Vietnam War funk.

>>34104757
where does this meme come from

I've seen it everywhere

File: 1493690231299.jpg (153KB, 736x1105px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 736x1105px

>>34114558

DDR was the most fanatical in the Warsaw Pact (aside from USSR).

>>34115893
You're making the same mistake that western planners were making in the Cold War. You have a good grasp of the tech, but not of the scale or the doctrine.

>You have a soviet tank company under your command(40 tanks, choose T64/572/T80), and you are ordered to split from your main regiment to secure a foward zone where you will meet with the rest of your regiment
This sort of order would never have been given in a Soviet thrust. They flatly avoided positional warfare and everything was designed to advance the tank division, to the point where even the nuclear weapon complemented the armoured division. The division would provide the manoeuvre, with the nuclear asset striking at whatever opposed it.

>I was wondering a certain situation that I'm sure the soviets must have considered.
It won't have even been discussed. The idea of a company taking on an objective would never have been entertained, such was the dominance of the offensive and rapid mindset in the Soviet staff officer component.

Nothing delayed the offensive and there was a complete absence of the tank divisions pausing to create bridgeheads. The instance you're talking about would have been taken care of by an airborne division, but only if it were absolutely necessary. They'd have bypassed the challenge and remained on the move westward.

Soviet doctrine was designed around the divisional front fighting along something as narrow as 6000m. Attacks would take place after the nuclear strike and they would then follow up with a rapid bombardment to prevent reinforcement. The tank division would cover the ground. Company or regimental level engagements been given strategic thought would have been unthinkable.

>>34105850
Except you know, nuking a few soviet soldiers will work like a charm until the fallout hits you in the face, counting out that they would also nuke your soldiers and so it would escalate into a full nuclear war.

Thats the thing about nukes, really no middle ground in the modern age.

>>34116089
No it doesnt have to escalate into a full on nuke war. Nobody wants a fully irradiated wasteland as trophy. Both sides would use a few nukes on key cities and armies, then they probably draw new lines and settle with that. Only if nukes start hitting too close too home like US or russian soil then they will go all out and annihilate eachother.

BBBRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTTT

>>34115956
>1985
>post vietnam war funk
>when AirLand Battle was a thing
>Just finished its first major maintenance and modernization cycle
>training moved from defense to winning
>morale at a high
>post vietnam funk

Just fuck off.

>>34102978
Tbh I conder anything after 1960 to be in the pact's favor until the 80's, however prior to this it would be a toss up

>>34116114
Very utopian ideal.
I mean theres kinda an unwritten pact between nuclear powers you know, you bomb me I bomb you.

You can't just edge with nukes, theres no "Oh you killed millions of people, soldiers, civilians hell we're not counting livestock or food. Jolly good man I'll be sending my ICBM over right now." that's why there was a cold war and never ever going to be any more actual wars, cause as soon as you shoot one, they shoot one, then you shoot two in retaliation, then they shoot 4 and so on so on. Until they feel threatened that they begin a full on nuclear war.

Of course thats also why nobody in their right mind will ever allow their nukes or their leaders to fire those nukes.

File: 2k22 tunguska-m1.jpg (146KB, 1194x820px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1194x820px

>>34116140
That's a nice brrt you've got there, would be a shame if something happened to it.

>>34116149
agreed 100%

>>34116157
Except there are degrees in getting nuked. There is a
"you nuked one of my allies and moved up in the north, so I nuked your southern ally and moved up there, now we either settle on this or we turn europe green".
And there is a
"you nuked new york and wiped out many of my citizens as well as an important seat of my power, I cannot let that slide so we make moskow glow"

File: Turkish Commando.jpg (176KB, 540x720px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 540x720px

>>34108595
Find better pics fag

>>34116254
>you nuked new york
Russian doctrine regarding nuclear weapons is defensive. New York will only be nuked if amerishits will decide to get silly and nuke Russia.

>>34116375
Thats my point. Neither nation wants to nuke all the way into MAD. If you nuke US/russian soil you get nuked to hell yourself. If you nuke european countries you might be able to keep it reasonable and have some land left to rule over

File: Thus.png (485KB, 3000x2800px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 3000x2800px

>>34116051

hmm

>The division would provide the manoeuvre, with the nuclear asset striking at whatever opposed it.

So from this I understand that they never took objectives on the map, they just pushed forward the frontline, but then what does this imply? Did they only considered threats things that stopped movement and not things that caused attrition?

I have just entered this world in trying to understand soviet doctrine and information about it is scarce.

> absence of the tank divisions pausing to create bridgeheads

This is another thing I can't get my mind around, if you advance and advance your assets can't catch up, your maintenance vehicles are too vulnerable and valuable to be at the front or even near the front, your artillery needs to establish itself into a secured position, even being "near" a S-X00 required time, how did they dealt with this? And most importantly; when could the soldiers catch a breath? Its easy for them to simply be 3 days straight without sleep or barely any sleep but a week and combat performance drops to dreadful levels and soviet command must have known it.

So everything works as a division(how they expected to move entire divisions like one unit? Seems too cramped and inflexible for uneven terrain), but another thing I can't understand is; taking into account how important helicopters were for soviets, why helicopters squadrons worked beyond division level? As far as I understand helicopter groups would have to serve all divisions of the same army but taking into account how centralized soviet command helicopter squadrons would have to work hopping from problem to problem in every division as headquarters seemed fit in their maps, so if there are too many problems your larger amounts of helicopters per group will surely solve them but doesn't seem to take advantage the comat helicopter gives

The answer to my post: Nothing, keep going on and eat the 8 hellfires, jesus I suddenly like more my western army

Thanks in advance.

>>34116254
>Newyork >Moscow you can find a better trade, Smolensk or St Petersburg would be more sensible

>>34104715
>What changed in 1980?
The US AVF improved shit rapidly.

>>34108699
I can confirm that those felt boots are cozy as fuck.
But you can only wear them in the most extreme cold. If it's semi-cold when there is mud and shit they get soggy and worthless.
But in cold where ground is hard there is nothing better. They breath easily and your feet stay dry and toasty even if you're just lying in the snow.

File: 1472967277569.jpg (803KB, 3504x2528px) Image search: [Google]

803KB, 3504x2528px

>>34116596
>you will never patrol with your commie bros through the frigid north while vatnik keeps you nice and cozy

>>34116388
>Did they only considered threats things that stopped movement and not things that caused attrition?

Yes. As far as they were concerned, casualties were a reality and casualty aversion would detract from their movement.

>This is another thing I can't get my mind around, if you advance and advance your assets can't catch up, your maintenance vehicles are too vulnerable and valuable to be at the front or even near the front
A Soviet Armoured Division would have 400 MBTs. Even motor rifle divisions would have 200 MBT. They really weren't concerned with maintenance in warfare.

>And most importantly; when could the soldiers catch a breath? Its easy for them to simply be 3 days straight without sleep or barely any sleep but a week and combat performance drops to dreadful levels and soviet command must have known it.
Life expectancy of the British facing off against 3rd Shock Army was less than 72 hours and on a purely defensive footing, with Soviet Cat A (of which 3rd Shock was) viewing 48 hours until destruction as good enough for their own units. Cat B units would last slightly longer, unless they got caught out by a strategic nuclear weapon, with Cat C units filling a wide array of roles that are not of front line concern.

>>34116658

>So everything works as a division(how they expected to move entire divisions like one unit? Seems too cramped and inflexible for uneven terrain)
You're thinking of western divisions and all the supporting cast. Soviet divisions had a smaller percentage of Infantry. They were more than capable of moving over rough terrain and their bridging capabilities were first class.

>but another thing I can't understand is; taking into account how important helicopters were for soviets, why helicopters squadrons worked beyond division level?
Again, an assumption we made because of their Afghan experience. Attack helicopters were largely improvised by the USSR and not considered to be important until the early 70s, and even then they struggled to get it right.

Subsequently, the focus for helicopters was to support other airmobile and airportable operations and light strikes. They were glad to have the Hind for use against lightly fortified or possible areas where ground could be contested, but again the Soviet view of the attack helicopter was different to the western view.

>>34116141

Morale was not at a high.

The barracks in Germany were not governed and there were race riots and mutinies.

The bulk of the tank fleet was the apalling M60A1.

Late 1980s is when the policies and investment starting taking effect.

>>34116671
>being this wrong about absolutely everything

Holy shit, how are you even typing?

Bulk of US forces in Germany were almost all M1s by 1983 and the only ones with M60A1s by 85 were nasty guard.

India wins everytime

>>34116157
>there's no such thing as acceptable losses
>beliving in MAD
>thinks that nuclear war isn't winnable

I hate summer so much.

>>34107021
Wrong

>>34116671
>The bulk of the tank fleet was the apalling M60A1.

Dumb

>>34116780
Hey retard

>>34108766
Post it please

>>34116658
>>34116664
>with Cat C units filling a wide array of roles that are not of front line concern.

I never crossed this classification of unit categories before, care to expand?

Also, I don't really get it what has to do British(I'm assuming the British army of the Rhine) with physical and mental attrition. Are you implying that soviet doctrine supposed that the war would go so fast that the soldiers simply wouldn't even have time to get tired?

>were first class.

So, that implies that the solution of this is in reality none in the sense that it wouldn't be a problem in the first place since everything is mechanized(I guess that's also why they didn't had precision in their focus too, if every single unit is mechanized and constantly moving there is no time for calibration and the less calibrations the better)

> and even then they struggled to get it right.

Yes, the hind becoming more and more an attack helicopter(and even in that, its role falls more along the of a gunship) but they did had many variations and helicopters in great numbers with versatility in mind, the mi-26 is the first that comes to my mind capable of lifting as much as a C-130.

>airmobile and airportable operations and light strikes

So, when the VdV gets deployed deep in enemy territory they deploy hinds and Mis too, but otherwise their use is to take down fortifications and encircled units that aren't much of a threat to the main division movement in a dynamic way ,correct?(And I'm guessing with support of the air forces protecting from helicopter hunters, IADs supression and bombardment here and there)

>>34114800
The ratio would probably go up to 3:1

>>34116998
>I never crossed this classification of unit categories before, care to expand?

Essentially:

Category A - Frontline units, units meant for breakthroughs and operational maneuvers. Generally given the best equipment and training.

Category B - Reserves, gap fillers, etc. Generally have the hand me downs or last generation of equipment. Lower level of readiness and training.

Category C - Auxiliary units, border guards, national guardsmen, coast guard, etc. Typically have the least training, least readiness and oldest equipment. Ex: equipped with T-55s and M48A5s

>>34116089
>really no middle ground in the modern age.
There was no middle ground in the early years of nuclear strategy. Post about 1975 there was a very real middle ground of limited nuclear war.
>>34116157
>I mean theres kinda an unwritten pact between nuclear powers you know, you bomb me I bomb you.
No, there are attempts at escalation control and deterrence.

>that's why there was a cold war and never ever going to be any more actual wars, cause as soon as you shoot one, they shoot one, then you shoot two in retaliation, then they shoot 4 and so on so on.
Its very possible that you can have a limited exchange. One might design a very limited strike to a single class of targets, avoiding the targeting of the other guys nuclear weapons or launching so many nuclear weapons as to convince the other guy that an all out attack is in progress. Of course, you would expect to receive a similar response, but depending on the situation, the end state might be perceived as benefiting you more. As an example, you might target the other guys refining capacity knowing that he will target yours in return because your POL situation would be favorable even after the retaliation.

>Of course thats also why nobody in their right mind will ever allow their nukes or their leaders to fire those nukes.
In the US, the military was very willing to fight a nuclear war, because being willing to fight one adds to deterrence.
Having the attitude you describe here actually weakens deterrence and makes a nuclear exchange more likely.

>>34116382
>MAD
Isn't really a thing anymore.

>>34116690

That said, M1A0 is not an amazing piece kit, and would have had trouble against the Category A Soviet tank divisions assigned to them.

It has been said that Russian had a greater focus on tactical nuclear weapons, but that seems counterintuitive,

Didn't they focus on strategic weapons? Their weapons didn't had a greater CEP and so compensated with more power? Didn't they end up pouring most of their money into ICBM development and embracing MAD as a way to compensate for their lack of conventional prowess?

Seems odd with what I know.

>>34115893
>You have a soviet tank company under your command(40 tanks
Mate, that's larger than an entire Soviet battalion of tanks.

Also, the Soviet military worked differently than that. You've got to look at organization and especially their combat reconnaissance doctrine. The latter is especially important given how the Soviets basically believed everything was going to be a meeting engagement.

>>34119152
wtf is an M1A0?

Vatnik, is that you?

>>34119524
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-3.pdf

Page 139

A regiment is made of 279 tanks
A battalion is made of 93 tanks

Page 137

A tank company is made of 31 tanks

So unless this source is old or I'm deeply retarded and made an inconspicuous mistake that I definely not see right now, the number is actually fitting.

File: Anon needs reading glasses.png (165KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1366x768px

>>34120165
The source is old, but it's correct. However, you're fucking retarded and can't read it. It literally says that the standard Soviet platoon is 3 tanks. 3 platoons in a company and 1 vehicle for the company commander. That's 10 per company. 3 companies per battalion as well as a single tank for the battalion's CO. That's 31 tanks in a battalion. You're a fucking retard.

Pic related. See the highlight. This is talking about the battalion. See it. Right there. 31 tanks.

3 battalions in a regiment (usually) and 1 command tank. 94 tanks in a tank regiment.

So yes. Go back and reread much more closely.

File: GODDAMIT.png (52KB, 400x486px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 400x486px

>>34120332

...

I only feel rage against myself and my unholy retardness

>>34113667
>>34115173
That's just retarded, "deep battle" is as far from modern doctrine as it gets.

>>34120460
To be fair to you, if it was a tank unit organic to a motor rifle unit, the tank platoons would be four strong, leading to 13-tank companies, 40-tank battalions.

>>34115961
https://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Survive_To_Fight

>>34119152
Not really.

M833 made even the Leopard 1 and M48A5 a legitimate threat on the modern battlefield.

File: 1495102412891.jpg (97KB, 550x512px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 550x512px

Pic related

>>34116690
he likes the Regan myth and has not read the actually history. Both Ford and Carter lead the charge on conventional forces and most of the Regan increases were in nukes and pipe dreams like SDI, not that he did nothing.

>Ctrl+f "Chrome Dome" reterns 0

>Mfw

Doesn't /k/ know about Cold War?

US had tons of B-52s stuffed with nukes flying constant patrols within range of all strategic targets from the Eisenhower administration until ICBMS and ballistic missile submarines could fulfill the same purpose.

It was really a rather threatening peacetime operation, but those bombers would have incinerated anything not covered by long range AA at the outbreak of hostilities.

Both sides quickly accumulated sufficient ICBMs to make war a no-win scenario.

>>34116522
Anything on this scale would be seen as the start of a full on exchange and responded to as such unless red phone rang as soon as or before missile was detected and Premier says sorry plz forgib here are concessions and non-agression pact w/decommissioning of strategic weapons.

Otherwise the birds fly and every metro and to military installation in the pact reaps the whirlwind.

>>34118997

MAD is a reality of strategic nuclear weapons. Once enough of them explode, fallout becomes global. It's always going to be part of the doctrine of strategic nukes until missile defense systems can defeat large numbers of MRV's,
(disregarding strategic arms limitations on both those systems).

The most likely scenario of either side taking a significant offensive action is full scale fast-paced global war, then whichever side is losing deploys strategic weapons in a desperate attempt to destroy whole armies and disable c&c, civilian government, and corresponding strategic assets.

The sheer number of available weapons, detection systems, and redundancies makes a similar counterattack all but inevitable. Maybe one side is slightly less btfo, but all major population, government, and military centers are destroyed, societies decend into chaos, and global fallout sets in.

>>34120466
We were talking about maneuver warfare.

>>34106286
Fucking hell my dick would explode if I saw that scene

>>34105927
Nato had overwhelming nuclear superiority until about 1965.

>>34102077
NATO for sure.

>>34117557
Is this the WARPACT or NATO designation?

My understanding that the Warsaw Pact and Soviet frontline units is actually their screening and meatshield units before the secondlines get into play.

>>34112730
Hi /pol/

>>34124982
You're slightly confused. Soviet doctrine was focused on always moving forwards. I liken it to a wave- travelling through the path of least resistance. Resources were funneled into areas where penetrations were achieved, which is where you get the idea that the reserves were the most important. Which isn't strictly speaking true.

Category A units were at the highest state of readiness and are the ones who would be doing the initial fighting. Category B units would be readied and sent forwards as able and/or used in areas of slightly less importance. Category C units were in even worse condition, and were not intended for frontline use in important areas.

Category A units would be the first ones in action and the ones making the initial penetrations, simply because they were already ready and in position. They would be attacking the enemy when he is at his strongest. Once the war has been going on for even two weeks, those Category A forces would effectively no longer exist. They'd be ground up in the meatgrinder. However, it's not like NATO forces are going to be in pristine condition either. At that juncture, fresh Category B and C units have a reasonable chance.

File: threads3.webm (2MB, 924x696px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 924x696px

nobody
https://vimeo.com/18781528

>>34125412
>>>>>military targets

>>34114706
>most of south america NATO
lol wut

>>34119412

Urrm... no one?

>>34125506
I heard that the best officers were sent to strategic weapons.

>>34125471

Isn't that the priority in any nuclear exchange scenario?

Military air bases, military ICBM silos, military warehouses, military naval ports, military this , military that, military there...

Unless your city was near one of those, you should be kinda "safe"

>>34125525
I was referring to the webm.

>>34114604
I like this revisionism where the millions of soviets were POWs that were killed by the evil germans

>>34123524
>people this willfully ignorant are still around

Incredible

File: image.jpg (24KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 480x480px

>>34106069
Fuck me days lads that'd be an absolute winner! Brad Pitt as Mackall busting open soviet tanks in an M1 so that he gets a decent tank commander role

>>34114563
the thought of a billion screaming chinamen running a train on the Soviet army makes my dick hard.

no homo gwai lo.

>>34104757
>THIRD SHOCK ARMY HERE I COME
>RIGHT BACK WHERE I STARTED FROM

File: 1494974092559.jpg (147KB, 798x595px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 798x595px

>>34116333

>>34125374
their infantry doctrine was move forward, shut the fuck up, and when we stop, we dig in hard for the rear guard to use our trenches as staging areas.

>>34123524
>MAD is a reality of strategic nuclear weapons.
No, its not.

>Once enough of them explode, fallout becomes global.
No, it doesnt.

>It's always going to be part of the doctrine of strategic nukes until missile defense systems can defeat large numbers of MRV's,
It hasn't been a doctrine ever. It was an aspect of deterrence. It no longer is.
Here is an example.
DPRK has some nuclear weapons. They can hit one US city. One day, they shell part of the ROK, and kill 10 US Soldiers and 20 ROK soldiers. The US may do any number of things, but you know what they won't do? Invade the DPRK because the risk of losing the US city is not worth stopping more shelling.
The DPRK can not destroy the US, but they are still deterred. They are deterred because the losses are unacceptable, not because the single DPRK strike poses an existential threat to the US.
Deterrence is US doctrine. How the US performs deterrence has changed over time. At one time, many decades ago, assuring destruction was part of US doctrine.

>The most likely scenario of either side taking a significant offensive action is full scale fast-paced global war, then whichever side is losing deploys strategic weapons in a desperate attempt to destroy whole armies and disable c&c, civilian government, and corresponding strategic assets.
The most likely scenario that leads to a nuclear exchange, is a crisis of some sort that results in a series of miscalculations that lead one side to believe that a nuclear attack is their only option.
CONT CONT CONT

>>34123524

>>34126307 CONT
The goal of escalation control during a crisis is to prevent a nuclear exchange. It basically is a carrot and stick approach. Logically, you would always go with the carrot. The issue is that the other guy may not always see your carrot. Or what you think is a carrot is not a carrot to him. Thus he only sees you with sticks, and he decides he better get his sticks, and so on and so on.

>The sheer number of available weapons, detection systems, and redundancies makes a similar counterattack all but inevitable. Maybe one side is slightly less btfo, but all major population, government, and military centers are destroyed, societies decend into chaos, and global fallout sets in
Neither side has the warheads to do what you describe. The capabilities of both sides mean that if circumstances are good, you could pull off a first strike that eliminates most of your enemy's arsenal.

File: US Soldiers Humvee Panama.jpg (340KB, 1600x960px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 1600x960px

>>34102077

NATO would win because the technological gap between them and USSR had gotten to the point where it could blunt the Soviets' advantage in numbers. New equipment from the M81 BDU and PASGT to the M1 Abrams meant that US soldiers had the advantage in everything from a simple firefight to a Kursk-tier tank battle.

The deteriorating political and economic situation wouldn't have helped the Warsaw Pact either. Much as Nazi Germany did in 1939, the USSR would likely be going to war in a desperate effort to reverse their own impending economic implosion rather than to fulfill their ideological circlejerk of world Communism.

And since we're talking about World War III here...

In Africa, the Soviets would have an advantage because they had spent decades fomenting Communist uprisings across the continent and NATO would be too busy dealing with them in Europe to stop them. Say goodbye to South Africa lads.

In South America, the United States would have the advantage stemming from both its proximity and its century of experience with military operations in that region (Banana Wars).

If China joins the war as a Soviet ally, Mainland Asia will most likely fall. Japan might be held though because of the terrain and there's simply too many US soldiers there to easily overpower with zerg rush tactics.

If World War III in the 1980s isn't used as the basis of Rising Storm III I'm gonna be fucking pissed. I just want to run around the ruins of the Berlin Wall with my BDUs and PASGT, shooting Commies with my M16A2/M203 while blasting Public Enemy through my headset.

>>34114706
>Mexico Warsaw pact
>south America NATO

U wut m8?

>>34126645

Also, in case of war by 1980s most warpact nations had plans prepared to backstab Russia in the last moment, only the DDR remained totally loyal.

>>34108571
>western yurope didnt want to end up like poland and east germany. and hungary
you mean sold out by the US and Britain because they were tired?
Patton was right, we should have rearmed the Germans immediately, and marched East

File: US_Marines_MOUT_practice.jpg (572KB, 2100x1368px) Image search: [Google]

572KB, 2100x1368px

>>34126854

Indeed. The Warsaw Pact might give a good it a run for the first year or two, but ultimately their collapse on the Homefront would reverse any gains on the battlefield.

That's probably why Soviet hardliners didn't actually bother trying to start WW3 in the first place. They did the math and realized it was a lose-lose situation. Either they'd be militarily crushed by NATO or their client states would turn on them.

They figured it was better to lose gracefully and let the USSR die a quiet death rather than be wholesale annihilated.

File: the stare.png (155KB, 678x711px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 678x711px

>>34125412
I just finished watching this.


Fuck.

>>34127155
I think they were more scared of the chances of NATO getting some, or most of them alive in the case of a war, and pulling another Nuremberg trials and hanging the lot of their sorry asses.

there was a book by some guy that now lives in the states who was passing state secrets to the CIA in Moscow, that goes something like the Politburo was a bunch of dirty, decadent soft old men who lost their bloodthirstiness after getting into middle and old age, but still jumped every time someone said "Stalin". they had plans to go and hide in those closed cities in the Urals, that they thought we didnt know about, and in the deepshaft bunkers in the Urals and outside of Magnitogorsk. its where the part of the show "the americans" got the panic attacks when Reagan was shot, and they thought a coup was fixin to happen complete with soviet style purges. they also thought big bush was going to throw hands at them.

they had the fear hard once that happened. its like they didnt know we had a open line of succession in case of an emergency or tragedy.

File: 1280px-Berlin_Brigade._Spandau_Prison._1983._(3).jpg (247KB, 1280x849px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 1280x849px

>>34128023
>I think they were more scared of the chances of NATO getting some, or most of them alive in the case of a war, and pulling another Nuremberg trials and hanging the lot of their sorry asses.

Like I said, it was a lose-lose situation for them. They get hanged as war criminals by NATO, hanged by a murderous lynch mob when civil war breaks due to mass starvation, or are vaporized by nuclear missiles.

I suppose it would've been fitting for the Western Allies finish what they started in 1945 and give an elderly Rudolf Hess a few new cellmates in the form of ex-Politburo and Soviet military heads (a fitting irony considering the Soviets used to run Spandau part-time), although not at such enormous cost to human life it would require.

>its where the part of the show "the americans" got the panic attacks when Reagan was shot, and they thought a coup was fixin to happen complete with soviet style purges. they also thought big bush was going to throw hands at them

Strange. I didn't think they were that poorly informed on the American system of government.

I suppose a vengeful Reagan or H. W. Bush initiating a bloody Stalinesque purge would make for decent alternate history scenario, but that's more of a >>>/his/ thing.

>>34105993
>Still, dat attack on the carrier group... damn
I've never finished that book due to chronic laziness but that part was really good, I was on the edge of my couch.

File: Russian Marines.jpg (274KB, 2000x1328px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 2000x1328px

>>34128023

On another note, Russia fighting a Third World War it was doomed to lose would've effectively ended its centuries-old status as a world power, something the fall of the Tsar, Russian Civil War, or even the genocidal onslaught of the Nazis could not do.

Russia would've been either thoroughly devastated in a manner far worse than the Second World War or forcibly demilitarized by the victorious United States and left a pariah state.

By dissolving the Soviet Union peacefully, Russia basically got a second chance to slowly rebuild their status as a world power no longer hindered by the ideological shackles of Communism. Something they are doing today, albeit with mixed success.

>>34126829
Most of South America were under anti-communist dictatorships during most of the Cold War, more specifically during the 70s and 80s. You can bet they would've supported NATO.

>>34128181
>Strange. I didn't think they were that poorly informed on the American system of government.
Not him, but it seems reasonable for a gut instinct sort of thing. Obviously at least some of their advisers knew what was going to happen, but the masters who likely weren't educated in US political processes could easily project their frame of reference onto the situation. Their frame of reference being the Soviet Union doesn't help matters.

>>34116333

>Secular
>Turk

Pick one.

Tekbir!

>>34128181
Consider Obama did his own non-violent and purely political purge of the US military over his time in office, a similar non-violent purge, just worse, isn't out of the question after a president has gotten assassinated or an attempt at it.

File: threads6.webm (2MB, 604x444px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 604x444px

>>34127854
>Fuck.
that is the reaction of anyone who watches it
the worst thing is, its possibly the most scientifically accurate 'nuclear war' movie

>>34128703

It's pretty common for US President to sack the appointees of their predecessor, especially when the predecessor in question is from the opposite party. It's been that way since the days of Andrew Jackson

ex. Eric Shinseki and Tommy Franks. Both were appointed by Bill Clinton and were fired by George Bush in 2003 because of they were critical of his plans for the Iraq War.

TL;DR every president has a "purge".

>>34106808
not really a nuke the fuck out of everyone plan more like launch about a dozen warheads to break up spots where comms or resistance was likely. most shit after the mid 70's was pretty tame with the nuclear doomsday bullshit MAD gets overplayed in history courses

>>34112857
It's true though I'm an expert

>>34122963
Yea cause you know sdi didn't cause gorbi to continue spending 14% of gdp on military and desperately ask for disarmament deals as he saw his country falling apart from money issues. it's you who has fallen for the liberal mythology of zombie cowboy reagan

>>34108595

It was called Konstantiniye under the Ottoman Empire for 500 years retard

>>34104715
The combat effectiveness of the NVA in East Germany went downhill from about 1986 on, they were probably the most dangerous opponent to NATO next to the Soviets and they were right at their doorstep.

>>34102077
NATO wins. The only thing the USSR has is tank brigades without any logistics.

NATO has the superior air force and navy, with the air force being very superior. In terms of the nuclear option, MAD is in full effect.

>>34129889
Gorby was at the head of the country only after it started the economic death spiral. Krushchev was the only leader who had any success in shoring up the economic situation and cultural issues of the USSR. Brezhnev then let that work rot for 18 years while he poured money into the military.

>>34102077
Nobody.

NATO would thoroughly smoke the ComBloc, but the cost would destroy the world's economy for decades.

U.S. farmers would be feeding Russians for centuries. While barely being able to feed their kids.
No kidding.

>>34116671
>The bulk of the tank fleet was the apalling M60A1
Most of the European divisions had the M1 by 83 or 84 IIRC

>>34130028
So we don't disagree. Reagan was able to push them over the edge and continue their retarded defense spending rate. Add to that a bit of economic engineering with oil prices and gg ez

>>34129889
my reply was neutral. I was referring to which programs were planned and initial funding given. Also SDI was considered a dead end by 1985 when gorbi took power so you are not well informed. Trident/peacekeeper/MM3 was more important than SDI to the USSR and Regan does get credit for that. The actual collapse is more a mix of bad agriculture practices Chernobyl and the Saudi's driving oil into the dirt than anything the US did under any president. We just gave a push to a drunk on the edge of a cliff.

>>34129971
>The only thing the USSR has is tank brigades without any logistics.
Couldn't be further from the truth.
>>34130070
>U.S. farmers would be feeding Russians for centuries. While barely being able to feed their kids.
In times like this, you tend to feed yourself first and let the other guy starve.

>>34130290
>SDI was considered a dead end by 1985
I don't see how seeing as it was less than a year old(1984) by that time and most primary and secondary documents seem to agree that Gorbi was worried about it. Especially with ERIS testing beginning in 1985. Please try not to get snippy on how informed you are when you fall flat on your face like that.

At this point is where we really seem to diverge. You seem to be completely of the perception that the USSR was completely unrecoverable by 1985. I feel that was when they were at their most technologically viable yet unstable and were more than capable of pulling off a possible recovery. It's disingenuous to feign ignorance of our involvement with the Saudi's at the time, and the effect that so clearly had. Just as disingenuous as it would be to claim it was agriculture(while still important as a factor) and not a failure of the soviet bureaucratic system to keep it's citizens satisfied in a system that had all of it's money sunk into the military burner leaving it functioning in poorly. This dissatisfaction caused the multi tiered collapse we saw.

>>34130378
>Couldn't be further from the truth.

But they did place a lot of focus on having as many tanks as possible, diminishing other combined arms(mainly navy which strongest point were subs) and disregarding strong logistic lines in favor of more tough equipment.

By Israel experience we know that their air force would get crushed on engagements with k/d as ludicrous as 1:20 which is devastating on a force that doesn't place emphasis on air force and expect it to compensate with numbers(so now one of their start units; VdV cannot even use their mobility advantage and their logistics planes and helicopters can get easily detected with AWACS and destroyed)

In, Infantry... both sides had their prons and cons here, I wouldn't even talk about MANPADS or man portable ATGMs since both sides seemed to compensate and reach some level of equality in the foot soldier(aka the only thing that really counts in combat and gets the least attention)

Once the air force gets crushed, IADs suppression(which actually matured during the vietnam war and was in no way experimental) will take take care of the rest of the problems air forces might find, and then through Irak experience we know that once total air supremacy is achieved it becomes a war of pushing buttons and guerrilla warfare.

So, I wouldn't say that its directly false but in the end is the only thing they would have left, maybe their artillery is also something to be noted, but still subjected to the fact that counter battery fire in western armies is simply superior through the more precise equipment in sensors and actual shooting(soviets empathized sector bombing and saturation bombing, after Afghanistan they actually developed some precision laser-guided munitions but nothing that was really out of their doctrine).

>>34126645
>If China joins the war as a Soviet ally, Mainland Asia will most likely fall. Japan might be held though because of the terrain and there's simply too many US soldiers there to easily overpower with zerg rush tactics.
I don't think that there's a chance in hell of the Chinese doing anything to help the Russians, not in the slightest. They're substantially more likely to join the allies, and be the "Soviet Union" to NATO's "Allies." If they did join the Soviets though I doubt any of their gains could be held once NATO shifts its attention to the east.

File: 1448843032887.jpg (182KB, 700x644px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 700x644px

>>34126645
>NATO would win because the technological gap between them and USSR had gotten to the point where it could blunt the Soviets' advantage in numbers. New equipment from the M81 BDU and PASGT to the M1 Abrams meant that US soldiers had the advantage in everything from a simple firefight to a Kursk-tier tank battle.
it wouldn't be a curbstomp by any means but 1985 was the one of the last years where a NATO - WARPAC showdown wouldn't conceivably be a toss-up/WARPAC victory. This is ultimately moot because by 1985 the chickens were coming home to roost in terms of the Soviet state's political/economic mismanagement. The powers-at-be would have gone to great lengths to prevent a war because they simply couldn't handle one. 1985 isn't a very exciting year for a hypothetical conflict anyway, 1970 - 1980 would be far more interesting.

>If China joins the war as a Soviet ally
they wouldn't. After the early 1960s the Soviets and Chinese became bitter rivals. Just because they were both ostensibly communist doesn't mean that they were united by ideology.

>If World War III in the 1980s isn't used as the basis of Rising Storm III I'm gonna be fucking pissed.
at least we can agree on something. I'm amazed at the lack of industry interest in such an apocalyptic scenario.

>>34125487
Depends on the year.

>>34130444
The Soviet system was a failure on so many levels that we could have ten threads just about that but history has show that people will put up with just about everything as long as they have bread. SDI was in the 83/84 and 84/85 budgets as a rather large item, 85/86 it was back to a back burner as it stayed until it started to become feasible option to the threats faced. Gorbi was much more worried about the IRBM's than SDI. Either way my point was the Regan buildup was more focused on nukes and he simply did not cut convention expansion already set in motion by the prior two admins. as we are discussing conventional battle to claim that the Regan buildup was critical is a bit disingenuous. The house of Saudi was going to bankrupt the USSR with or without the USA giving the go ahead. I did say that the nuke buildup did push the drunk man off the cliff.

File: 1491609979001.jpg (79KB, 319x319px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 319x319px

>>34125412

>ATTACKING WARNING RED

>>34130903
>it wouldn't be a curbstomp by any means but 1985 was the one of the last years where a NATO - WARPAC showdown wouldn't conceivably be a toss-up/WARPAC victory.
I honestly have to somewhat disagree. The technological advantage was blatant by this point. As previous anons had pointed out, in 83 and 84 the mass deployment of the M1 began, so did the Challenger, mass deployment of guided munitions, the F-15 and F-16, the F-117 (how do people forget about this), FGM-92, better APFSDS ammo that could defeat Soviet armor, PASGT, Attack helicopter mounted TOWs. This was the point at which most Soviet advantages were mitigated or nullified to the point of seriously harming the Soviet war effort. I agree not a "curbstomp" but certainly a pretty decisive NATO victory.

>>34125598
The Soviets actually were quite worried about the Chinese front in the event of War. The Soviets had around 500,000 troops stationed int he far east, against 4 million Chinese that could grow to 12 million within a week and 50 million in a month.

They eventually developed a strategy to saturate every Chinese civilian center (as opposed to just military/C&C targets) with nukes of every kind (mainly free-fall bombs, as their ICBM/SLBM arsenal was for use against the west) then let the remaining Chinese wash up against the "fortified area troops".

The Fortified Area Troops were actually a quasi-secret branch of the soviet army (one of the two secret units, alongside the Air Assault Troops, not to be confused with the Airborne Troops) established in the 1970s in reaction to Sino-Soviet border clashes. They basically manned semi-fortress bunkers on key areas along the border, equipped with discarded/retired weapons. Many an IS-2 tank turret ended up being set up for use here.

>>34126645
>If China joins the war as a soviet ally

There was a much better chance of China joining the war as a US ally. Read up about the sino-soviet split.

1945-~late 50s = overwhelming US advantage

late 50s = ~1965ish = Significant US advantage

1965 - ~1975ish = Stalemate

1975- early1980s = slight Soviet advantage

early 1980s - 1990 = US advantage

>>34131402


100 percent wrong by all accounts

>>34115917
Real cold warrior taste right here

File: 1478666226500.png (59KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 200x200px

>>34125412
>that woman pissing herself

>>34130203
You have a strange definition of agreement. Where did I credit Reagan for nearly two decades of mismanagement that left the Soviets in an unrecoverable economic position by the time he took office?

>>34126854
>>34127155
anecdotally, I actually have an old wargame from the early 80s that actually had rules for poles, romanians et al not only surrendering and buggering off once the war started, but actually switching sides
so with a lucky dice role suddenly you could have a dozen Free Polish tank divisions rampaging around the WarPact rear areas

>>34102077
No one.
Nuclear exchanges are terrible.

>>34130572
>But they did place a lot of focus on having as many tanks as possible...
Not quite. More precisely, they put far more emphasis on their ground forces as a whole than just on tanks. Why did they do this? Just a simple analysis of what they needed and their enemies capabilities. They can't contest NATO at the sea, so why bother? It's not like the Soviets need to control the sea routes, merely disrupt them for a short period of time. This was done through two methods: through submarines or through massive raids of bombers launching cruise missiles. Yes, this worked.

As for the air, this was somewhat a weakness of the Soviets, but as a whole, when used in combined arms using SSMs and SAMs were very effective at contesting NATO's ability to hit Soviet targets. And no, Wild Weasals wouldn't have magically made everything better. Matured SEAD and DEAD doctrines helped, but the Soviets had a LOT of gear and NATO air forces would be ground down in the IADS. They'd achieve some victories, sure, but it's not going to be any overwhelming advantage like you think.

As for infantry, this is where you've completely lost it. The Soviets actually had very GOOD combined arms infantry. All of their infantry units were in armored personnel carriers. Sure, a BTR-70 isn't a match for a Bradley, but it's still an armored rolling box with a machinegun on it, and would prove extremely useful in providing the Soviets with the rate of advance they needed. Same with BMPs, albeit the BMPs were better at fighting. Now, was a Soviet conscript the equal of an American professional soldier (by this point)? Probably not.

In artillery, they have slightly less advanced systems, but they have a lot of them and knew how to use them. Don't discount Soviet counterbattery fire either.

tl;dr: The Soviets did focus on combined arms, just focused on the ground.

>>34131589
>so with a lucky dice role suddenly you could have a dozen Free Polish tank divisions rampaging around the WarPact rear areas
That's why the Poles were to be driven straight into NORTHAG.

What's the name of that wargame? I'm certainly interested in it.

>>34131434
Kill yourself fucktard.

>>34131838
IIRC it was either GDW's Third World War or SPI's The Next War

>>34104715
A bunch of color revolutions hit the former communist bloc.

Morale by then was an issue for them but not so for the West.

>>34132152
Thank you kindly.

>>34116812
He's not wrong.

>>34131989
That's a pretty shitty reaction anon.
How about you present a counter argument instead, Friend?

>>34114558
>Romania were extremely loyal to the USSR

Jesus christ i mean look at your own goddamn picture!!!

>>34104736
>Ford
the only person to serve as both vice president and president without having been elected to either office

>>34130070
you do realize we were already feeding the russians back then, right? carter fought against a grain embargo because he didnt want to use food as a weapon.

russia cant and never could farm for shit. ever see a russian chicken? they cant grow a fucking chicken there.

>>34131823
No, NATO had a pretty decisive air advantage, and it all stemmed from Soviet doctrine - having your air forces constantly rely on ground control and never maturing AWACS s an incredible disadvantage simply due to how radar horizon works.

Even if soviet IADS was flawless, pact air forces are at an absurd disadvantage in detection and BVR capabilities

>>34131312
What was the Chinese plan to invade the Soviets?

I was wondering.

Taking into account the huge scale of the conflict and the type of weapons employed, when would it start and when the main fighting would happen? Day or night?

I know both sides had tanks with night vision, but with the same quality?

It might sound like a stupid question but somehow is something that seems to be very overlooked when people write about this, like its implied that you already know that it will happen at one specific moment of the day or that its implied that it will happen when it has to and thats it.

>>34135977
Early Morning.

>>34135994

why specifically during daylight?

>>34136007
3am is early morning.

File: Bmc Kirpi 1.jpg (426KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 1024x682px

>>34125641
Me likey

File: US invasion of grenada.jpg (553KB, 1460x913px) Image search: [Google]

553KB, 1460x913px

No World War III: The Movie?

I'll solve that real quick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1kUeTFFZos

>>34134916
I don't think you heard me. NATO would be largely unable to leverage any air advantage they had because the Soviets have so much gear to throw at them. With competent IADS and a large number of fighters, NATO, as I said earlier, can't really leverage their advantage.

I love reading the stories about the USA inviting old Wehrmacht officers to hear how they would handle an attack of the Soviets.

It was always about letting the Soviets outstretching their lines of logistics and avoiding battles and then going full encirclement on the Soviet forces.

It was pretty much the anti-thesis of the American and British doctrines back in the days which were always about doing that static lines of defence nonsense like they were still stuck in the Great War.

No one.

>>34102077
The Jews.

>>34136773
But they could. You seem to not understand just how many airframesNATO had at the time. Loses were not only accounted for but expected. To simply say "but muh iads" shows a shocking naivety when almost every NATO attack craft at the time not only was meant to, but the crews were trained for low level flight and payload delivery. Radar horizon will forever be the enemy of any surface defense.

>>34102077

1943-Now

Russia wins anything. 10,000 nukes are unbeatable.

>>34137894
Believe me, I'm well aware of exactly how many aircraft NATO had. I'm also aware that the US expected to no longer have any A-10s left flying after 3 weeks. You seem to not have even the slightest respect for Russian capabilities. Trust me on this. I'm a pro-NATO guy, but you HAVE to treat adversary capabilities with respect.

At this point in time, precision weapons are still in their relative infancy, and not very widespread. In order to hit anything accurately, you need to be fairly close to the ground. Each Soviet infantry platoon should have a MANPADS attatched to it from the battalion MANPADS platoon. That means, in each MRR, you'd have 27 of them, plus three in the regimental headquarters. Additionally, the MRR has 4 SPAAGs and 4 IR missile carrying self propelled SAM missile systems.

Given how the Soviets operated, if you are hitting the main body of an MRR, which would probably be your best tactical target, you're going to be facing two battalion's MANPADS and at least two SPAAGs and two IR missile systems, but likely more. You will be in the threat envelope of all of that. While you might not lose a plane in every strike on it you make, planes WILL get shot down at a frightening rate. NATO realized this. Hell, the A-10 was armored to hell and back because they knew that flying those sorts of missions (with the weapons of the day) would involve taking hits and they wanted the A-10 to survive until it got to release it ordnance and hopefully limp its way back home.

Then at MRD level they have at least one regiment of self propelled SAMs. Occasionally they had more AA attached, be that a second SAM regiment or a SPAAG regiment. Some of those could be attached to an MRR. And this isn't even taking Soviet aircraft into account.

Point being, yes, NATO would not have free reign of the air like you think they would. Yes, they would have an advantage in the air. I am not disputing that. I'm disputing your denial of threats.

>>34138206
>I'm also aware that the US expected to no longer have any A-10s left flying after 3 weeks.
Outright lie.

> precision weapons are still in their relative infancy,
The US had been dropping LGB and EO weapons for more than a decade.

>NATO would not have free reign of the air like you think they would.
NATO would generally have air superiority. While the Warsaw Pact would be able to contest this over selected battles, this would be the exception.
You are the one that seems to have an over estimation of the ability for MANPADS to attrit air forces.

I'm not that guy, btw.

To be clear, NATO would not have air supremacy, but would almost assuredly have air superiority.

>>34138206
>no a-10s

Jej

>I'm pro NATO

I don't give a fuck. If you're wrong, you're wrong. Simply saying MUH IADS is a lazy way of getting out of any sort of critical thinking. Surface defenses are always at an inherent disadvantage to any aerial aggressor simply because of how the inverse square law along with radar horizon work. It doesn't matter if it's Russian, American, Indian, Chinese or Martian. The laws of physics and the limitations they impose on surface based defenses bend for no man, it's why SAM traps became a thing in the first place.

>>34138413
>The US had been dropping LGB and EO weapons for more than a decade.
You seem to not understand reality. Such systems were not widespread. They were few in number and stuck on a few kinds of aircraft. For example, let's look at Desert Storm. Only 8% of the munitions used were guided. And hell, it's incredibly incorrect to count it all, as many of the munitions in question were only in use following 1985. For example, the AGM-65D. IOC was in 1986. Previous Mavericks were EO guided, which are nice, but not as good as the IR guided ones. Much more difficult to use. GBU-10s only met IOC in 1977, meaning there were far fewer of them in inventory as there were in Desert Storm.

In short, no, a war set in 1985, while containing PGMs, would likely not see them used anywhere near the extent you saw in Desert Storm.

I'm realistic about MANPADS efficacy. While they aren't great, flying into over a dozen of them in addition to other systems, while not necessarily achieving a kill every time, is going to cause severe attrition on anything that tries it. And at this point, yes, they're primarily using unguided munitions, which means they've got to be low if they want to hit anything.

>>34138526
None of the systems I mentioned even have the range to worry about the fucking radar horizon. Hell, all but the SPAAGs don't even have radars on them. And remember, the planes need to fly into the envelope of these short ranged munitions in order to deliver their predominantly unguided munitions.

So could you please bitch to me about muh radar horizon again. I'm aware that it's a thing. I'm aware that it's very useful in getting underneath different SAM systems. However, it's simply not something you can use to handwave away the realities of the situation that was the use of aircraft against ground targets in the Cold War.

>>34138413
And since I finally found the information, LANTIRN pods only entered LRIP in March 1985, with full rate production the following year. GAO reports also indicate that the existing guided munitions were heavily restricted by weather.

>>34138550
Why did you bring up Desert Storm? You are using that as a guideline of your own creation.
Your statement that PGMs were in their infancy has nothing to do about the numbers in use and everything to do with the maturity of the tech. The tech was mature.

Seems to me that you have a very tenuous grasp on the issues here.

Your theory that NATO airpower would have no impact on the mattle is simply silly. Going into detail about your silliness is beyond the scope of posting on 4chan, but I will advise people who are curious about this to actually read and examine the material, rather than take your ignorance at face value.

>>34138813
>Why did you bring up Desert Storm?
To illustrate how few PGMs were used in relation to conventional munitions at the closest conventional conflict to the time being discussed, albeit at a significantly later date in regards to PGM and targeting pod development, so people should assume a much lesser percentage of munitions in a 1985 scenario. Then, given that standoff usage of PGMs is such a minor part of the equation, that conventional munitions had to be used. Said conventional munitions put you square in the threat envelope of a MRR's AA systems. Is that a difficult concept to understand?

>Your statement that PGMs were in their infancy has nothing to do about the numbers in use and everything to do with the maturity of the tech.
Actually, it was both. Or does "still in their relative infancy, and not very widespread" not imply widespread nature?

As for the maturity of PGMs, I wouldn't state that all PGMs necessarily WERE mature compared to modern PGMs. Hence the usage of "relative infancy". We can do a lot of things with PGMs today that weren't possible with PGMs of yesteryear. Even just smaller CEPs and greater targeting ability is a significant advantage, not to mention range. For example, an SDB or SDB II would be a massive difference from a fucking Walleye. While the Walleye was good for the day, to say that it's the same capability as an SDB is somewhat reductionist and not reflective of actual usage.

In short, it seems you are unable to formulate any argument in the slightest. And to say that my argument is that NATO airpower would have no impact is reflective of such idiocy. My argument is that the impact of NATO airpower would likely be less than what some people think it would, and that the Soviet IADS was not just a simple pushover.

>but I will advise people who are curious about this to actually read and examine the material
I would advise anyone to do the same. Hence why I've got three papers open right now about

>>34139076
>My argument is that the impact of NATO airpower would likely be less than what some people think it would, and that the Soviet IADS was not just a simple pushover.
You said that NATO would be unable to leverage their air power into an advantage.

Outright ignorance or lie. I don't know which.


> Hence why I've got three papers open right now about
Of course you do sweetie.

>>34140120
The exact quote was largely unable, thank you very much, and it was a bit of a misspeaking in a moment of passion. To get a clearer view of my position, see >>34131823

NATO airpower would be ground down to the extent where no massive exploitation is possible. I myself have readily admitted that strikes will go through and planes will make it out. Some to great strategic effect, I'd wager. However, to pretend that Soviet IADS meant nothing at the time is preposterous.

But it seems to me you haven't made a counterargument and refuse to do so. Do you happen to have one? I'm sure the good people here would love to see you destroy my arguments. Providing, of course, that you can.

>>34115117
Thats the second offset, thirs hasn't happened yet, unless there is another one I am missing.

File: f-117.jpg (44KB, 800x571px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 800x571px

>>34140315

>>34102077
Doesn't matter because the second one side started losing it would be nukey time

>>34140315
No offense but the idea that NATO airpower "would be ground down to the extent where no massive exploitation is possible" is heinously optimistic on the one hand, and tacitly jingoistic on the other. If IADS could indeed so effectively diminish NATO's air-supremacy then their is no reason to suspect that the Soviet IADS wouldn't win them the air war, which is what you're trying to say while hiding you PACT bias. The fact that you'd hide it though kind of proves that you're taking out of a place of passion and not objectivity.

>>34137981
Not if 90% of those nukes aren't ready to launch in an hours notice

>>34114706
>Rhodesia
>Portuguese Mozambique
No.

File: 317.png (80KB, 500x501px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 500x501px

>>34138569
>None of the systems I mentioned even have the range to worry about the fucking radar horizon.

Is this a joke?

You can't shoot something with a cannon if you don't have line of sight. Even if all of Europe was flat and had no foliage at all (which would all lower detection due to physically blocking LOS).

Do you think you can just shoot through terrain?

>And remember, the planes need to fly into the envelope of these short ranged munitions in order to deliver their predominantly unguided munitions.

Inverse square law - you can detect any radar well before it can get a viable return on you, allowing you to alter your course accordingly. This is why EMCOM is a thing - especially since even the older Standard ARM had more than enough range to be fired outside of a radars effective range when flying low level.

>>34140352
Posting a picture is not an argument. Would you like to try and flesh it out in full? Incidentally, by the end of 1985, only 31 were operational, including the ones accepted that year. They would certainly have a significant impact in what they do, but I personally doubt they'd make a real strategic difference.

>>34140429
Mate, I'm still not seeing an argument here. Are you going to sit there accusing me of a hidden Soviet bias or do you have a real argument?

And no, the Soviet IADS and aviation as a whole couldn't project beyond the FEBA as effectively as NATO could. My argument is that the Soviet IADS (which does include fighters) prevents NATO from being able to have any sort of free reign to do whatever they wished. It hasn't changed. How does that make me have Soviet bias? That I don't think the Soviets were completely incompetent?

>>34140464
>>34140509
Actually, it isn't a joke. Namely, if the aircraft is going to be exposed for too little time to bring your weapon to bear on target, the aircraft will not be able to actually see its target. If you can't actually see what you're bombing, you aren't going to hit anything. Instead, you'd be flying in such a way that permits you to see the enemy before the attack. This includes a pop up attack of sufficient length. Given that the target is not stationary, you need to see the target with your very own eyes before you know exactly where it is. In any case, the ranges of these weapons are so short that you will probably expose yourself before you are even in their threat envelope. Hence the "radar horizon isn't a significant concern" comment.

>>34140619
Against tactical level systems like IADS they'd make a significant difference against soviet ground radar.

>>34140509
>>34140619
To expand upon this idea, when you're attacking a target you know the exact location of, terrain masking can be made use of to a far greater extent. Let's say NATO wants to take out a bridge. Given that the bridge does not have wheels, they know exactly where it's going to be before they even pop up, and thus would be able to minimize exposure. If you were instead trying to interdict a Soviet TR as it conducts a movement to contact (which is what the Soviets planned on doing about 90% of the time), you don't know exactly where the targets are going to be. A forwards observer might tell you that they're on a given road in between x and y, but when you pop up you're going to be searching for exactly where you should put your CBUs or EO Mavericks. You don't want to just dump a CBU in between columns or by the side of the road, after all.

>>34114445
>using overwhelming numerical superiority to hammer against weak, outnumbered enemy
How is this different from every other nation's methods during WW2?

>>34105941
I've never read a single sentence from any Tom Clancy book, would Red Storm Rising be a good place to start? I'm a huge slavaboo and love all things Soviet from the 80s if that helps.

>>34140711

Start with The Hunt for Red October. It's so good it's actually taught at US Naval Academies despite being a work of fiction.

>>34140711
You could do it. It's in a completely different universe from the other books. I still think The Hunt for the Red October is probably a good one to go first so you can understand the submarine bits of Red Storm Rising a bit better.

>>34112659
>Desert storm showed what the US military could do
against a small isolated country with the whole world helping you?

>>34141124
What did the rest of the world do that was so helpful?

>>34134921
Get nuked, die of starvation. The end. In a WWIII Russians would unceremoniously nuke the Chinese in a preemptive decapitation strike and let the country fall into chaos.

>>34104715
Up through the 70s a land war in Europe was basically considered a way to buy time for the bombs to fall. During the 80s we started to actually plan for combat instead of treating the soldiers as speedbumps

>>34134860
>duh
that is why they called him the "accidental president"

>>34136783
They sure were stupid

I would wager that NATO nuclear missiles would be more likely to hit their targets, which would be the decisive factor granting victory. To a good degree though M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) would be the primary outcome of such a conflict for human civilization. It's hard to speculate on the conventional fight, suffice to say there would have been one hell of a land battle in Germany, until organized combat eventually bogged down in the muck of a nuclear wasteland.

>>34141124

And remember(many people don't) Irak had gone to war with Iran and suffered very heavy loses, by the time the US came they were picking demoralized leftovers