Cold War Germany: A NATO victory without nukes?

dge1

The Vietnamese were Pro-Vietnam period. They and the Chinese had a very rough relationship, and had for several hundred years. The North Vietnamese were pro-Soviet for the military supplies they received and as a counter-balance to the Chinese.

The Soviets were mostly interested in keeping the Americans (Of whom I was one) busy in SE Asia, and making us look bad. They didn't really care about the Vietnamese beyond that. Most of the advance equipment sent in was the very old stuff. The NVA knew it.

If anything had happened in Europe the American forces would have been pulled so fast heads would still be spinning. We were winning all the battles but everyone knew we were losing the war. The American military forces didn't start breaking down until the later stages of the war and in the soul-searching years afterward.

Given a chance at a "righteous" fight with the Communists is Europe along the old "classical" type lines, the military and the political leadership would have jumped with both feet. I don't think the public would have completely bought into it but it would probably have been accepted, at the time.

As an aside, just to show where what we (the enlisted men) were thinking in late 1967, we often had very long discussions on what it would cost or take to get some of the Israeli officers to come over and run our forces for a few months.

Maeda_Toshiie

@dge1

"The Vietnamese were Pro-Vietnam"

Erm, is that some tautology or a mistake?

I think both the Soviets and Americans refrained from sending their latest equipment in, holding back their very latest for the potential "big one" halfway across the world.

I think in the 60s, the Israelis have forgotten combined arms. They have neglected infantry and artillery, while relying on their air force as their flying artillery (which reminds me of the Wehrmacht) and crack paratroopers. It was only in 73 that they found themselves being forced to pair their paratroopers messily loaded onto M113s to accompany tanks when crossing the Suez.

I think a training tour with a bunch of Bundeswehr officers would have been very beneficial on the company level and below.

Naisho

What dge means is that Vietnamese had no interest in foreign affairs or entanglements. If the US had not been there the Vietnamese wouldn't have ever seen the need to fight us. They were not pro-communist or pro-captialist but pro-vietnamese. A unified nation-state is all they cared about. The only reason they liked Russia was because they saw them as helping to unify the nation, but if Russian boots even went to ground there it wouldn't be long before the Russians would have been shot at. (imagine a situation where Russia intervened instead of the US.)

We mustn't also forget about the strain the supply lines from Russia to Vietnam were causing on the Chinese-Russian relationship. It was not uncommon for the Chinese to steal the best materials for themselves as the supplies passed through.

Also, I think it is also worthwhile to point out that both the US and Russia faced similar situations in Afghanistan and Vietnam, and in a sense proved how ineffectual their forces can be.

dge1

@ Maeda

Naisho said exactly what I meant. Sorry it wasn't as clear as I meant it to be.

It doesn't take long to understand the intense nationalism the Vietnamese felt when reading any of the early writings of the know figures of the day.

What is really funny is that the US supported the Viet Minh during the second world war, against the Japanese. There's another "what if" that I've often wondered about.

SmokeScreen

Naisho wrote: »

What dge means is that Vietnamese had no interest in foreign affairs or entanglements. If the US had not been there the Vietnamese wouldn't have ever seen the need to fight us. They were not pro-communist or pro-captialist but pro-vietnamese. A unified nation-state is all they cared about. The only reason they liked Russia was because they saw them as helping to unify the nation, but if Russian boots even went to ground there it wouldn't be long before the Russians would have been shot at. (imagine a situation where Russia intervened instead of the US.)

This doesn't really make sense.

Of course North Vietnam would never have fought the US if they hadn't been in Vietnam, but as for being pro-communist or pro-capitalist, I think the conflicts in Indochina, especially Vietnam had very much to do ideology. Republic of South Vietnam was recognized in 1949, and they fought communist guerrillas in the South as well as Hanoi ever since French Indochina was dissolved, which was well before US troops (and other anti-communist forces) ever set foot in Vietnam.

Naisho

South Vietnam was an autocratic state and many Vietnamese saw the southern state as being a continuation of the colonial rule. The Vietnamese wanted to be free of that. The fact one state had certain political leanings had no inkling of thought in their minds.

US had no understanding of that fact going into the war. They only saw south Vietnam as being pro-capitalist. So in essence the US got involved in a civil war that had nothing to do with communism or capitalism.

It was at its heart was an anti-french colonial civil war

Half_Life_Expert#4276

ok, lets get away from Vietnam and back to Europe. sorry it took me so long but I now have my input to my original question.

I agree with most here that until the late 1970s, NATO stood very little chance of repelling the Warsaw Pact if there were no nukes used. any nukes at all would have made it a pyrrhic victory at best.

Once the major NATO players really started refocusing on conventional warfare with new doctrines (chiefly Airland Battle), and new weapons designed to combat the waves of Soviet made tanks, NATO was able to achieve victory.

By 1984-86, NATO in my opinion had sufficiently adjusted to put up a good fight against WP armor with sufficient numbers of Abrams and Leopard 2s. The fact that there really only two good axis's of attack into West Germany inherently meant that NATO could to some extent concentrate it's forces. All of the following is meant in the Timeframe of the mid 1980s thru to the end of the Cold War.

CENTAG (primarily US V and VII Corps along with German II and III Corps and a Canadian Infantry Div) would probably focus a lot of it's efforts on the Fulda Gap Area, as a lot of their area of responsibility was mountains and unsuitable for a major armored advance.

NORTHAG (chiefly the British Army of the Rhine which consisted of British I Corps, German I Corps, as well as the Dutch and Belgian Corps and US III Corps in reserve) would have a tougher time as the North German Plain allowed more room to maneuver for an attacking force.

A primary tool to defending West Germany would have been Guided Anti-Tank Missiles, like the TOW and Milan. The Battles in the Sinai campaign of the Yom Kippur War showed their effectiveness against an Armored assault. if used properly and in enough numbers, they could wreck havoc on platoons of Soviet Tanks. Heck, the tactics the Israeli Tankers adopted to counter the Soviet made Sagger missiles used by Syria and Egypt were basically carbon copied and adopted by NATO tankers.

As with the last full scale major war, WWII, control of the air would be absolutely vital. At the outset of the war, I think it would be a tough air battle over the Iron curtain. Losses would be higher on the WP side but they would have more planes I think. the NATO fighters would have to spend most of their time protecting ground attack planes like the A-10 as well as helicopters. the only other real role would be intercepting enemy ground attack efforts.

The big question with regard to air warfare is the guaranteed mass usage of SAMS. Again, we must look at the Yom Kippur war and the Egyptian assault across the Suez Canal. The umbrella of SAMs rendered the IAF almost completely unable to help Ground forces when they tried to counter attack, even with some SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) tactics and equipment. The Warsaw Pact SAM batteries would probably be the primary killer amongst NATO aircraft. Yes, one can fly low enough to avoid SAMs, but that leaves you vulnerable to conventional ground fire, which few aircraft other than the A-10 were meant for that. That's why I believe the A-10 would have been one of if not the single most important weapon for a NATO victory.

The only real chance I think for a Warsaw Pact Victory would be to somehow achieve some or total surprise.

Another aspect worth discussing, even though it isn't in Germany: a third Battle of the Atlantic.

As with the last two World Wars, there were major submarine campaigns in the North Atlantic. I think a repeat of that is a near certainty, along with at least one major surface action. Soviet subs would most certainly be among the first to shoot in the naval theater and they would probably go after not only merchant shipping and convoys but also NATO subs. And NATO wouldn't have to rely on transport ships as much as in the past due to the major advances in airborne transport.

A major surface/carrier engagement would be very interesting.

the capital ships of the USSR (the only WP navy worth mentioning I think) were the Kirov Battlecruisers, and a few VTOL Carriers (the more conventional Carrier Admiral Kutznetzov wasn't commissioned until the very tail end of the Cold War).

NATO had the US super carriers, Iowa Battleships, and the British and French Carriers (the latter assuming they aren't needed in the Mediterranean).

Anti ship missiles would be the primary weapon for both ships and aircraft, even subs in the case of the Soviet Oscar Class.

in the end I think the Soviets would lose a third Battle of the Atlantic, due to NATO's inherent pre-war dominance south of the GIUK Gap (Greenland-Iceland-UK). But WP would have a better chance if they could totally control Iceland I think.

Also, no one has mentioned the Espionage aspect. there was a German Spy recruited by the East German intelligence to spy on NATO. His codename was Topaz, his real name was Rainer Rupp. He worked all throughout the 1980s in NATO's HQ is Belgium, and he was caught in 1993. The trial concluded that his betrayal could have cost NATO the war. one of the many secrets he passed along was NATO's most secret document: The document on what the Soviets know about NATO.

Maeda_Toshiie

@HLE

Take note that the Soviets consider artillery as the main killer since WWII, and they have always favoured artillery en mass. They worked out tables on the amount of fire necessary to achieve the amount of kills required. Their attack on the tactical scale is always a very short and heavy bombardment before charging their motor rifle units in. IIRC, they estimated the time needed for the enemy (in this case NATO) to recover, so they aim to charge within range before the defenders can recover.

The Soviets are actually not very big on tank vs tank battles. Most of their tank divisions are assigned to the OMGs, and about >70% of the typical tank ammo load consists of HE frag and HEAT, with the remainder being APFSDS, a rare few barrel launched ATGMs (if ever), and maybe a couple of smoke or rounds.

The US still requires a lot of naval shipment to transport equipment for the heavy divisions. There are prepositioned equipment in the Germany, as well as those on RORO ships, but those are not sufficient. REFORGER via the sea is still crucial.

daelin4#9896

A Cold War conflict in Germany between the Soviet Union and NATO would ultimately be just a tactical manoeuvre in a world war: even if we're to suppose that the Soviet Union does overrun Germany and France while powers such as the UK and USA refrain from nuclear weapons, they can always launch attacks from elsewhere.

Just think of Chess: sure they got your queen cornered, but you got a rook and bishop ready to sweep in on their king.

If there was only one thing to learn from the World Wars, it's that when it comes to a global-scale conflict, air and naval power is critical. Hitler took most of mainland Europe but was constantly clawing for sufficient fighting capability due to the Allies' superior naval forces and henceforth their ability to transport supply and equipment overseas and around to Russia. By 1944 the Allies had air superiority all over Europe. Whatever manouvres the Germans tried to make were constantly hounded by air attacks. We're not talking just tank columns either: critical personnel such as generals couldn't travel and had to rely on electric communication, which depend on the condition of their equipment.

These seem OT but the truth is, the very threat of actually being attacked from elsewhere discouraged the Soviet Union from launching an attack into West Germany.

Nisemono

I think the Chinese weren't thinking of attacking. More of the SU attacking the PRC, especially Lop Nor in 1970.

Half_Life_Expert#4276

OK, the new one is up, but I still want this one to go on if possible

next is the Pacific Theater of World War II: How far could Japan have gone?

http://forums.totalwar.com/showthread.php/113518-The-War-in-the-Pacific-How-Far-could-Japan-have-gone