Poll: World War Three.

BaronUberstein

New member
Jul 14, 2011
385
0
0
Saying "without nuclear weapons" is absurd because entire doctrines were designed around nuclear weapons. Even the French made up for their small military by having tactical nuclear missiles that could hit East Germany. The nuclear deterrent simply cannot be ignored when discussing the cold war.
 

Shock and Awe

Winter is Coming
Sep 6, 2008
4,647
0
0
The Mid 80s with no nukes? NATO bar none. Better weapons, better training, better economic footing, ect. At this point the US military had gotten its collective shit together and had really become the best in the world on all fronts and NATO as a whole had pulled away from the Warsaw Pact. Now if it was the mid 60s or 70s I don't know, but by 1985 the game was over.
 

Faewerd

New member
Jan 30, 2013
19
0
0
If the cold war went hot then the winner would be the cockroaches, in case of non nuclear weaponry then i bet NATO would win, but the actual winner would be Switzerland with their smart policy of neutrality
 

karma9308

New member
Jan 26, 2013
280
0
0
During the 80s? Nato. Soviets were in a bit of a grind in Afghanistan and would have had a bit of trouble. Assuming no nukes fly of course. Pre 80s though, the Pact. To hear my grandfather tell it, the Soviets could have had Europe during Vietnam. Considering that he (and the rest of the 2nd marines) would be about the only thing standing in between them and the Atlantic.
 

TornadoADV

Cobra King
Apr 10, 2009
207
0
0
The US Military actually outnumbered the Soviets in actual manpower and equipment. The Soviets loved to bloat their numbers by creating tons of half strength divisions that would get rolled into the frontline ones during heavy combat to replace losses. The USSR's hope would be to somehow keep the American REFORGER convoys from getting to NATO (they couldn't, FYI) and to prevent China from pushing up from the south. (The Dragon and the Bear were not friends at all in the 80's).

So the US would win, NATO is just there to slow down the Soviets.
 

Supertegwyn

New member
Oct 7, 2010
1,057
0
0
Considering at this point the Soviets were raging around inside Afghanistan, and China really hated them, you really do have to go with NATO. They have better technology, better training, more units, and James Bond.
 

TheRussian

New member
May 8, 2011
502
0
0
Zipa said:
''I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones.'' -
Albert Einstein .

Smart guy.
Ninja'd to the quote.
As everyone has pretty much said, there will be no winners in a nuclear war. In the hypothetical scenario of conventional weapons being used, my money is on NATO. More money, more technology. Sort of.
 

Karelwolfpup

New member
Jul 5, 2012
99
0
0
Since this is hypothetical, and almost fantastical with the concept of no bio-chemical or nukes being popped like champagne corks; if it's the 80s timeline, then NATO would win a conventional war.
Wouldn't be easy, but the Bundeswehr, Britain and the US all had much better equipped and organised armoured forces than the Warsaw Pact.
We saw this type of battle play out between Syria and Israel, and the Israelis won. Different terrain to Europe, certainly, but exactly the same strategic and tactical scenario.
Massed Soviet armour only works after the 3rd wave hits any defences, who have by then exhausted their munitions and probably taken casualties that mean they can't respond as effectively.

NATO tankers had good guns and the tactics, training and skills to use them, NATO airforces had the same edge too, those combined will pick apart and annihilate classic Soviet tactics just like the Wehrmacht did over and over again on the Ostfront. Nevermind the fact that your average Warsaw Pact unit was not equipped with the best the USSR had, that was reserved for 4th and 5th wave assaults by Guards units. The entire Warsaw Pact was essentially a huge meat shield for the Soviets.

At a tactical level the Warsaw Pact also have a unique and serious problem: commissars. Political officers can veto command staff at lower levels, causing inflexibility and sometimes downright stupid decisions in a system that was already pretty rigid and inflexible.
Although, it must be said that the Warsaw Pact had some top notch spec ops units, and East German Hind pilots in particular had a serious advantage as they trained in the same terrain they'd face and, unusually for WP forces, had some top notch equipment.

In terms of naval battles... well, the US had 14 or more aircraft carriers in the 80s, that's a shit ton of firepower that the Soviets couldn't match. Submarine forces were about on par, but again, the manufacturing quality and technology edge of NATO would make the difference.

It'd be a hard slogging match, but the Warsaw Pact and their Soviet slave drivers would lose a lot of people and just didn't have the command flexibility due to inevitable political meddling at various levels.
Northern Germany and Holland would probably be lost, but central and Southern Europe would be the springboard from which NATO would cut off Soviet supply lines. A ceasefire would probably follow once both sides realised further fighting was either pointless or just not possible anymore. The Warsaw Pact would probably collapse in on itself by this point as there was already widespread discontent.

Of course, this assumes that Afghanistan is still a hot issue for the USSR and China hasn't waded in at some point.
 

Albino Boo

New member
Jun 14, 2010
4,667
0
0
The mid 80s time frame is quite broad. If its 1983 then the Warsaw pact could have had a high chance of staging a decisive breakthrough and running to the Rhine in side of a week. The M60 and the Leopard 1 just didn't have enough stopping power to deal with massed T72s and there where not simple enough Chieftains to make a difference. When you get to 1987 the balance slips the other way, the deployment of Leopard 2s, M1 and Challengers 1s in large numbers made the Warsaw pact ground game look weak. In the same time the smaller Nato Air forces went up a generation from F4s to F16s giving Nato a bigger edge in the air.

TornadoADV said:
The US Military actually outnumbered the Soviets in actual manpower and equipment. The Soviets loved to bloat their numbers by creating tons of half strength divisions that would get rolled into the frontline ones during heavy combat to replace losses. The USSR's hope would be to somehow keep the American REFORGER convoys from getting to NATO (they couldn't, FYI) and to prevent China from pushing up from the south. (The Dragon and the Bear were not friends at all in the 80's).

So the US would win, NATO is just there to slow down the Soviets.
The Warsaw pact outnumber NATO by about 3-1 in terms of manpower. In terms of tanks it was 30,000 v 70,000. Reforger only added 1 extra US corps and its was only the manpower that was moved by air, the equipment was already in place. The 1st national guard units wouldn't have reached Europe 28-38 days and they would have arrived with equipment that would be 1 generation back that would of limited effectiveness against soviet category 1 divisions, just about able to hold a category 2 division and out classed a category 3. If the soviets launched their surprise attack plan, which called for a cycling from peace to war in 72 hours, the Reforger warehouses could have been at risk of being overrun by ground forces or even more likely being hit by a soviet air assault regiment (paratroopers with ifvs and spgs). They would lose the regiment but not before they would have destroyed a significant quantity of equipment.

In addition to the Warsaw pact the soviets had and additional 9 category 1 divisions in the Eastern Ukraine, which could either attack towards the Persian gulf or moved to Europe and further 9 category 1 divisions in the far east facing China.China would be unlikely to attack because Chinese units would have to advance for weeks before they hit anything vital, the most probable circumstance in which China would attack if a Nato victory in the west became inevitable.
 

TornadoADV

Cobra King
Apr 10, 2009
207
0
0
albino boo said:
The mid 80s time frame is quite broad. If its 1983 then the Warsaw pact could have had a high chance of staging a decisive breakthrough and running to the Rhine in side of a week. The M60 and the Leopard 1 just didn't have enough stopping power to deal with massed T72s and there where not simple enough Chieftains to make a difference. When you get to 1987 the balance slips the other way, the deployment of Leopard 2s, M1 and Challengers 1s in large numbers made the Warsaw pact ground game look weak. In the same time the smaller Nato Air forces went up a generation from F4s to F16s giving Nato a bigger edge in the air.

TornadoADV said:
The US Military actually outnumbered the Soviets in actual manpower and equipment. The Soviets loved to bloat their numbers by creating tons of half strength divisions that would get rolled into the frontline ones during heavy combat to replace losses. The USSR's hope would be to somehow keep the American REFORGER convoys from getting to NATO (they couldn't, FYI) and to prevent China from pushing up from the south. (The Dragon and the Bear were not friends at all in the 80's).

So the US would win, NATO is just there to slow down the Soviets.
The Warsaw pact outnumber NATO by about 3-1 in terms of manpower. In terms of tanks it was 30,000 v 70,000. Reforger only added 1 extra US corps and its was only the manpower that was moved by air, the equipment was already in place. The 1st national guard units wouldn't have reached Europe 28-38 days and they would have arrived with equipment that would be 1 generation back that would of limited effectiveness against soviet category 1 divisions, just about able to hold a category 2 division and out classed a category 3. If the soviets launched their surprise attack plan, which called for a cycling from peace to war in 72 hours, the Reforger warehouses could have been at risk of being overrun by ground forces or even more likely being hit by a soviet air assault regiment (paratroopers with ifvs and spgs). They would lose the regiment but not before they would have destroyed a significant quantity of equipment.

In addition to the Warsaw pact the soviets had and additional 9 category 1 divisions in the Eastern Ukraine, which could either attack towards the Persian gulf or moved to Europe and further 9 category 1 divisions in the far east facing China.China would be unlikely to attack because Chinese units would have to advance for weeks before they hit anything vital, the most probable circumstance in which China would attack if a Nato victory in the west became inevitable.
Perhaps you didn't read what I said, I said the US outnumbered the Soviets. Not WARSAW, nor did I include NATO, this isn't even including the absolute advantage the US had over the Soviets in the sea and in the air at practically any stage of the Cold War.
 

Xdeser2

New member
Aug 11, 2012
465
0
0
Fiji

Who would nuke an island paradise with beautiful women?

Besides, it'd be the place for R&R from any faction who controlled it.

And then the hula dancers would bide their time, getting rich from the war, and then, when all the superpowers were exhausted, pay the top scientists to create an army of Mechs to Take over the WORLD MUHAHAHAHA....

...I Think I'm overthinking this a tad bit...