Warsaw Pact vs NATO (1985)

The U.K. is a big question mark IMHO dependent in no small part on the destruction reigned upon the two air forces. If the Russians have enough airpower to supress NATO air power over the channel the the U.K. won't last too long. Russian navy is powerful enough to guard the crossing and Russian paratroopers are also very well equipped and trained. The existence of the Mi-24 Hind also gives them very good leading edge capabilities enabling them to capture a port, once captured, the tanks roll in and the U.K. is taken. However if the Russian air force isn't capable of the nessesary supression, then anything trying to cross will be shredded to bits.

Originally posted by Amur_Tiger
The U.K. is a big question mark IMHO dependent in no small part on the destruction reigned upon the two air forces. If the Russians have enough airpower to supress NATO air power over the channel the the U.K. won't last too long. Russian navy is powerful enough to guard the crossing and Russian paratroopers are also very well equipped and trained. The existence of the Mi-24 Hind also gives them very good leading edge capabilities enabling them to capture a port, once captured, the tanks roll in and the U.K. is taken. However if the Russian air force isn't capable of the nessesary supression, then anything trying to cross will be shredded to bits.

lol yews russain paras are well trained
but i think that with the TA,army,RAF,RM,RN and the RNR and RMR we could hold out

In an evenly matched war, momentum is everything. Momentum is defined as how much pressure you put on the opponent. This mostly comes from your optempo, how relentless your artillery and bombing are, etc. Of course, none of this is possible without a lot of resources, and the Warsaw Pact would eclipse NATO in terms of resources (at least in the outset of the war).

That said, quality of the soldiers, airmen, etc., really goes down the drain. Two ace F-15C pilots simply cannot hold up against 20 MiG-21s. No matter how good a pilot is, or a soldier, if you give him too much to handle, then he will lose, no matter how hard he fights. There is a breaking point for everybody. Especially if you are pounding an enemy that has far less resources and support than you, it doesn't matter how much damage he deals at you. It could be a turkey shoot, but remember, they're losing men, machines, and ground as well. And because they have less, they will fall quicker. Goodbye to all those well-trained volunteers.

In face of huge numbers gaps, quality is a very null and void factor. That is the whole point of overwhelming your enemy in the first place. Yes, both sides will give and take a lot of damage, but one side will fall first.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo


In face of huge numbers gaps, quality is a very null and void factor. That is the whole point of overwhelming your enemy in the first place. Yes, both sides will give and take a lot of damage, but one side will fall first.

Your entitled to your opinion . Numbers have a role but is overrated in military history. I just don't see these 10:1 out number scenarios. THere is a lot of waste in the Warpact method of combat that tends to nullify some advantage in numbers. Momentum is an advantage only if it can be operationally tailored and targeted. Agile combat units can avoid direct impact through mobilty and superior reconnisance and turn the others momentum against them.

Soviet combat units are really vulnerable to operational flanking actions and attacks. THis is at the heart of the german way of war and was adopted by the USArmy as well. REmain at standoff and maneuver into the flank of the enemy at all times. If as has been reported they had no dogfighting training soviet jets are going to drop like flies in such an airbattle/campaign.

psteel,

Well, it's not necessarily opinion, as it was not a theory I came up with. It carries a lot of truth as well. Like a lot of things

10:1 is not something I made up, it's what I've heard many senior military officers say. I didn't realize it would be that high either.

Whatever the case, if World War III broke out, I hope neither NATO nor Warsaw Pact would've won, I would rather have them destroy the whole world. I don't know how I or anyone else could live after such a terrible ordeal.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
10:1 is not something I made up, it's what I've heard many senior military officers say. I didn't realize it would be that high either.

But how many of those are effective newer units and how much based on old technology.
In Gulf War episode 1 Abrams engaged Iraq tanks (mainly T-72s) much outside of effectice range of their guns/ammoes.

Warsaw Pact had lot of tanks so to counter that West also developed effective ATGMs which are very good "can openers".
(and Warthog was designed as pure tank-killer)

Attack to defenced positions requires always much more units than defender has. (unless you have absolute technological superiority on every area)

And why soviets developed different SAMs so frantically if their AFs where equal to west?

Originally posted by E_T

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
And why soviets developed different SAMs so frantically if their AFs where equal to west?

they didnt man thats y they developed them

THis is at the heart of the german way of war and was adopted by the USArmy as well.

The Russians have fought the Germans before, they know how they fight and know how to counter it, look at Kursk. This isn't to say that the German way of fighting won't be effective or that the Russians won't be vulnerable to it, however having fought them before and learned so much from them they will be one of the least vulnerable to said tactics. Russians being central to WarPac would make WarPac one of the worst forces to fight with those tactics, you might like to think that all your enemies are fools, but that is not the case. Developpment of SAM technology was probably mostly based on the Army's needs instead of the air force, having been on the giving and receiving end of ground support aircraft they wanted to make it impossible to repeat. Do not under-estimate WarPacs ability to use their strengths effectively to exploit NATO weaknesses, yes there was certainly a qualitative weakness in teh WarPac air force and a numbers and qualitative weakness in their navy. However Nato had a numbers and qualitative weakness in their army and a numbers weakness in their air force, the Nato weaknesses are more critical as up until the U.K. the Navy does not play a mojor role.

Originally posted by Amur_Tiger

.

The Russians have fought the Germans before, they know how they fight and know how to counter it, look at Kursk. This isn't to say that the German way of fighting won't be effective or that the Russians won't be vulnerable to it, however having fought them before and learned so much from them they will be one of the least vulnerable to said tactics.

OK first a quick lesson in History of WW-II. Many historians are comming round to the realization that Moscow 1941 was the main turning point of WW-II. THis was the time that a single army by itself first stopped the german blitzkrieg. No one had been able to do this before and in doing so locked the Nazies into a war of attrition they could not win and that their strategic doctrine expressly forbade.

THe german war economy was not structured for such a war and by the time it had been restructured for such a war, it was all but lost [1943/44]. But several other events also occured in Dec 1941 to a make it THE critical turning point of WW-II.

The USA was forced into the war giving the allies the strategic depth that the germans could never hope to counter in a million years and Hitler in a fit of self indulgence sacked his best commanders and took over the day to day direction of the war. This is called political micromanagement and we have all seen how destructive it can be to ones own side [Nam etc]. Hitler furthered this corruption of the army by appointing political figures to take over key military commands [he viewed the sacked Generals as potential adveseries].

German doctrine stressed something called 'Auftragstaktik' or "mission orders" at all levels. What this means is that strategic commanders made strategic desicions and left the operational decisions to the field commanders. THese Field commanders then made operational decisions but didn't make tactical decisions. This was left to the tactical commanders....and so on and so forth. In essence the 'whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts'. We all know that command decisions have a profound effect on the prosocution of any battle or war.

That way at each level ,the person most intune with his aspect of the battle makes decisions about how best to carry out the orders.This is why command training excelled in the german army and is also the basis of the American and most NATO armies.

Once you remove this critical link you remove the brilliant input of commanders at all levels and slow the reaction time and agility of the army in question.There fore its no accident that except for brief periods where great commanders where able to wrestle control of their battles from Hitler [Rommel and Mainstein come to mind] , for the most part german operational and strategic command and fighting ability goes down the tubes from early 1942 on.

Infact one could make the case that Hitler ruined Barbarossa [ invasion of Russia] itself ,with his increasing interferance in the command decisions made during the campaign.


They say that there are two views of history...that its made by 'great' [meaning large] men or History is made by the surrounding enviorment and is the product of those conditions. Here you had a event that encompast both and all of this. It culminated in a strategic waterchange in the war that ended with germanies eventual defeat.So to make a long story longer, decisions made during battles from mid1941 on, were crippled by Hitlers interference and Kursk is a prime example.

The battle itself was planned as an extension of Mainsteins very successful 'Back handed Blow', that he adminstered in the spring of 1943 and did so by wrestling control of the battle from Hitlers interference. It was planned as an effort to eliminate the 'Kursk bulge' , thus shortening the front line and allow the high command to husband critical Pz korps into strategic reserve to counter the expected upcoming Soviet summer offensive. Had it been excuted at the end of April or into may 1943 [as was initially planned] it would probably succeeded in this objective.

Hitler however hyjacked the whole process and tried to turned the whole operation into a 'great' German summer offensive ,at a time when the strategic reserves of fuel where 1/10th of what they were in the summer of 1941 and 1/3 of what they were in 1942. Thus it had little chance of achieveing anything even if they won the immediate battle.

Hitler delayed the offensive for 3 months while he ready the first of the Panthers and TIger tanks....The first of the many 'wonder weapons' that were going to magically win Germany the war. The Soviets were no fools and correctly recognized the plan and prepared the obvious counter a massive defence in depth trap.

< OMG England just scored its 1:0 over France >

IF this had been 1941, the german commanders would have recognised the trap and turned the tables on the Soviets and used Kursk as a fixing attack [tying down the bulk of the soviet strategic forces]. Then they would have administered a drive on moscow from the north as a feint. This would have paniced Stalin enough to abandon the safty of his fixed defence around Kursk and try to match the germans in operational maneuver [which they were still ill prepared for]. The Germans could have then encircled the soviet strategic reserve in another campaign of annihilation, similar to Mainsteins "Back handed Blow". This would have preempted the soviet summer offensive for 1943.

Contrast the experiences of 1941 to 1943. In 1941 the germans were outnumbered something like 3:1 to 6:1 and nearly annihilated the soviet army , while in 1943 they could barely punch their way out of a paper bag [strategically]. Hitlers suffocating control weighs heavly on this.

Now to make this more relevant to the current discussion. Soviet attack method is highly centralised as it was in WW-II and similar to the type of suffocating control that crippled Germans decisions from 1942 on. As in WW-II soviet commanders were selected for their political allegiance as much as any field potential.. with the exception of the strategic level . Stalin to his credit staffed real field commanders at the strategic level that were every bit as good as the contemporay german generals.Thus the soviets ended up making far better strategic decisions than Hitler did and was instramental in their eventual victory. By the end of the war even their operational decisions were vastly superior to the Hitlers decisions.

So at the end of the day the Soviet /german performance in any war in NATO/Warpac conflict, would be much more similar to 1939-41, than 1943-45.

< Rant mode off>

[edit on 13-6-2004 by psteel]

[edit on 13-6-2004 by psteel]

As soon as it appeared that any side was going to prevail they would have resorted to theatre nuclear weapons, making the realitave merits of the conventional armies moot.

The US alone (not including the arsenals of France and the UK) have more than enough in theatre nukes to stop any Warsaw Pact action. I'm sure the Russians could do the same.

It would have been inconcievable for any signifigant convential military action in that part of the world not to escalate rapidly to nuclear conflict - therefore it never happened.

If Western Europe is on the brink of falling apart to the Soviets, then they would desperatly use nuclear weapons. I think Western Nations would hate being under communist rule. If the Warsaw Pact was falling apart then the soviets would use nuclear weapons.

The thing is, for the war not to use nukes, it is best to have a stalemate.

Very informative Psteel but I think you're still missing the critical link that the Soviets are a lot better then they were in the '39-'41 period. They hadn't just come out of the purges, they didn't have a huge technology gap to fill, they weren't horribly trained. Also having gone through all out war with the Germans before they probably learned a thing or two in how to counter their tactics.

Originally posted by Amur_Tiger
Very informative Psteel but I think you're still missing the critical link that the Soviets are a lot better then they were in the '39-'41 period. They hadn't just come out of the purges, they didn't have a huge technology gap to fill, they weren't horribly trained. Also having gone through all out war with the Germans before they probably learned a thing or two in how to counter their tactics.

My aim was to shift the debate away from a bean counting exercise. At the ripe age of 13 , I followed the 1973 Arab Israeli war where every expert in the world predicted an israeli defeat cause not only did the arabs out number the Israelis 'many to one' , but they fielded much better soviet equipment like the T-62 and SAM-6. THe one factor they could not compute was how much difference troop quality could make. How the Israelis cold take handme downs from NATO and make them into better tanks than T-62 and how troop usage to turn this into a route for the Israelis. How else could Israeli Shermans face down Iraqie T-62 and win a lopsided victory [ 79:0].

TEchnology discussions are interesting in defining limits but at the end of the day wars are fought by people , not by weapons.And if the those people have the willing ness to endure and the witts to learn how to find the weakness in their enemies , then they are a force to be reconned with.

[edit on 16-6-2004 by psteel]

Comparing Arabs to Soviets is comparing apples to oranges. Arabs do not have the level of training and even quality of Soviet equipment that the motherland has.

Training cannot overcome overwhelming numbers. The best soldier in the world cannot defeat 20 hostiles in close combat.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Comparing Arabs to Soviets is comparing apples to oranges. Arabs do not have the level of training and even quality of Soviet equipment that the motherland has.

Training cannot overcome overwhelming numbers. The best soldier in the world cannot defeat 20 hostiles in close combat.

Well apples and oranges are pretty much the same allround[ spherical fruit with seeds in the middle that taste pretty damb good if picked when ripe ]

Seriously techno discussions and beancounting is pointless unless it has some kind of historical context. Other wize we can assume the moon.

Read any account of elite panzer units fighting in WW-II. Most battles they rearly ever worried about superior numbers. That just mean't a target rich enviornment. It only mattered how good there own side was. Heres an typical example of what elite training can do. Got this off the internet from another source.....

At Kursk a company of PzIV lang [7 tanks] from the 1 SS Pz Rgt , engaged about 35-40 x T-34s and lost 4 tanks but KOed 19 x T-34s.The Rgt [SturBFuhrer Grobs 1SS Pz Rgt] with 33 x Pz-IVs engaged atleast 75 soviet tanks and destroyed 62 T-34s/T70s in a three hour battle with the lose of only 5 tanks.During three days of fighting the regiment is credited with 192 tank kills for the loss of 27 tanks for a 7:1 kill ratio. [ German losses = 1 Tiger, 11 Stug and 15 Pz-IVs], ["The Leibstandarte" Vol-III Lehmann, pp 231-241].

7:1 kill ratio for Pz-IV vs T-34...honestly most people might acknowledge that the Pz-IV MIGHT be better than the T-34, but 7:1 kill ratio when fighting out numbered 3:1...few would acknowledge that , even with elite training on the panzers side.

Besides few people credit the warpac with 10:1 to 20:1 superiority in numbers

We all should pay attention to the lessons of histroy, they can teach us alot.



[edit on 16-6-2004 by psteel]

Yeah... compraing two sides who have different terrain, technology, strength, numbers, logistics, WOMD, Fire power etc. is unwise. If i was a general i would punch you in the face.