Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: NATO vs. USSR 1980s, the winner is???
Desert Rat    6/30/2004 10:14:02 AM
I'm sure many of you have considered possible scenarios concerning an east-west conventional conflict in europe in the 1980s. It is my belief that if this scenario had been fought out the winner would have been the Soviet Union for the following reasons: Land;The Soviets would have been almost impossible for the NATO armies to stop, since there just weren't enough NATO troops avaliable. Even if the WHOLE U.S. army had been in europe (which would never hav happened), the Soviets still outnumbered us all so much that their numerical supperiority would have won through. Their 40 000+ armour reserve would have been unstopable after an attritional war of a few months after the modern tanks of both sides had been depleted. Supplies: The soviet Union was one nation and its allies were all supplied using identical (or highly similar) hardware. This was not true of NATO, each nation operating its own tank types. Whilst there was harmonisation of hardware in some fields (E.G. the M113 used by many NATO armies, the F16 by many airforces and the 5.56mm standard round), there were many exceptions. NATO did not even have enough munitions to supply its armies for a long protracted war, which the soviets did to an extent. The U.S. would never have sent its entire (or even more that 2/3 say) of its army to fight in Europe due to logistical problems and their commitment to the defence of the U.S. Without the whole US army, NATO in europe would be too small to stop the russkies. Sea: Supplies from the US in term of heavy equiptment would have to been shipped in across the Atlantic. Not a good place to be with Several dozen soviet subs lurking and a few hundred Tu-22 bombers on their way. The russkies probably wouldn't have closed off the convoys, but sinking 1/3rd or more of them would have been a real headache for NATO. Air: I firmly believe that NATO could have won air superiority, but how much would this have achieved? A famous soviet cartoon sums it up nicely. A soviet tank commander is in paris for the victory clebrations when he sees an old friend, who he goes over to talk to. " Comrade!" he says, " It is nice to see you again!" His friend replies " Yes comrade, but it is a shame so many of our friends are not here also." The first man agrees. " Yes, do you remember poor Yuri, killed in an air raid?" The second man Nods. " Yes, it was a pity we lost the air war." That was the general message of the cartoon anyway. Air power is very useful, but even today when it is considerably more effective that in the 1980s, you still need men on the ground to do the hard fighting. Please keep civil and on subject, remember we're talking a CONVENTIONAL conflict here, no nukes or other WMD'S. All comments welcome for discussion. Desert Ratt
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
ilpars    RE:NATO vs. USSR 1980s, the winner is???   6/30/2004 10:22:44 AM
At 1980, USSR was buying very large amounts of food from USA and Canada. In fact only USA and Canada had that amount of surplus of food to feed USSR. In a war how would they feed their people. Would they let them starve?
Quote    Reply

PuckaMan    RE:NATO vs. USSR 1980s, the winner is???   6/30/2004 10:23:18 AM
This has been done a considerable amount of times before, the general consensus, Soviet Intially, but it would peter out, and the NATO Air Supremacy would claw it back, with NATO ground forces pushing back (the key would be hold them up enough for more US/Canadian forces to arrive and deploy). A costly victory for NATO in the end, due to Air superiority and better technology. THEN, nukes/wmds would come into strategic play, and we're all cactus. Pucka
Quote    Reply

OplotMira    RE:NATO vs. USSR 1980s, the winner is???   6/30/2004 10:58:07 AM
The roaches would be the real winners of that conflict I am sure. Those critters are better at surviving residual radiation and fallout that humans. Sincerely OplotMira
Quote    Reply

Warhammer    RE:NATO vs. USSR 1980s, the winner is???   6/30/2004 12:11:34 PM
Brazil wins. They will be the only major power left after the war, which would eventually involve nukes when either side saw their life flash before their eyes. Remember, France has nukes, and when the Soviet divisions are rolling into Strasbourg, France would probably nuke the lines, if not Russian cities. Nuclear winter, sounds like perfect season in the former tropical, now temperate climate of South America. 180 million people, 8.5 million sq km of land to develop, and the most urban country in S. America, Brazil would have little problem dominating the hemisphere. Europe is gone, North America is pretty much gone, Russia is out of the picture, China would most likely recieve some of the US nukes. Israel was most likely hit by the Soviets, the rest of the Arab world was hit by Israel, Japan and S. Korea were taken out by the Soviets, Australia was most likely wiped out, but who is against Brazil? They are neutral for the most part, the US had no reason to target them, and unless the Soviets targeted them just to make sure everyone got some action, they would be the only major nation left alive in the world. It wouldn't be a pretty world, but in a few hundred years, Brazil would most likely have unquestioned supremacy in the world, minus any unforseen internal uprising, and other such problems. Africa might host a new empire, but that is unlikely, or at least it would be a slow process given their situation.
Quote    Reply

ilpars    4th World War - warhammer   6/30/2004 12:20:37 PM
3rd World War: NATO vs. USSR at 1980. 4th World War: Brazil led South America Alliance vs. Australia led Pacific Alliance.
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:NATO vs. USSR 1980s, the winner is???   6/30/2004 8:09:40 PM
Desert Rat, your assumptions are totally unrealistic. The Soviets did not even consider fighting a conventional war - they were planning to go nuclear right from the start. The initial strike against Europe was to consist of 400+ nuclear strikes with more follow up strikes later. Only then would the conventional forces move in continuously supplemented by nuclear and chemical weapons.
Quote    Reply

fall out    RE:4th World War - warhammer - ilpar   6/30/2004 8:50:52 PM
don't know how well we would fare in that, considering we had at the time a labour PM in who holds the world record for the quickest skulling of an entire yard glass of beer (yes im not shi$$ing you). ;)
Quote    Reply

PuckaMan    RE:4th World War 1983   7/1/2004 6:18:11 AM
That's only after 1983 fall out. Still, I reckon Hawke would have been a ripper leader duirng war time..... challenge Breznev or whoever to a drinking competition and become saviour of civilization. I don't think his record has been broken (yet)..... Pucka
Quote    Reply

Alexis    What about bows and swords ?   7/1/2004 6:36:12 AM
You give very good points about the balance of classical forces in the 1980s in Europe. I only have two reservations, and one general remark : - One should take into account the fact that the Soviet-controled nations in Central Europe were occasionnaly restive even during calm times (Prague 1968, Budapest 1956, Poland 1980s). In case of war, the USSR would have had to worry about those, and about how hard their troops would have fought. Or even : against whom they would have fought ? - Would air superiority have really mattered ? It should be remembered that precision bombing was already quite common among NATO forces in the 1980s, which it was not among Warsaw Pact forces. Sure it's not a magic wand, but it should not be underestimated. Finally, and most importantly, about the assumptions on which this thread rests, you say this is about a "CONVENTIONAL conflict here, no nukes or other WMD'S". Fine. It's an entertaining intellectual exercise. But if one is prepared to discuss the thread "Nukes have been deinvented, NATO vs USSR 1980s", why not discuss also "Motors and firearms have been deinvented, NATO vs USSR 1980s" ? It would be just as entertaining ... and just as realistic. So, if Soviet forces had invaded, and NATO forces had defended in the 1980s, with sword and bows only, who would have won ?
Quote    Reply

fall out    RE:4th World War 1983   7/1/2004 8:42:56 AM
same here for hawke being a good wartime leader, just think if wars were decided by drinking, either way it will be a night you do things you regret. ;)
Quote    Reply
1 2