Cold War Doctrine in Europe

Discuss those "what if" or "what would you do" scenarios you've been wondering about.

Moderator: ZS Global Moderators

Post Reply

So what will it be?

1. Eastern
1
25%
2. Western
3
75%
 
Total votes: 4

User avatar
The Twizzler
* * * *
Posts: 979
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 7:47 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: Dawn of the Dead
Return of the Living Dead
Location: Nashville, TN

Cold War Doctrine in Europe

Post by The Twizzler » Sun May 27, 2018 10:37 pm

So it's the beginning of the cold war and your are the general in charge (or committee) of establishing the type of field weapons to be deployed in a cold war you think may turn hot. Which strategy will you employ and why based off the historical Eastern vs Western historical realities of the time? I have chosen the 1980's as my time frame and assumed a Soviet attack and have excluded Nukes.
1. Eastern
Positives-
1. Most weapons will be amphibious, bridges are not necessary for front line forces.
2.Tanks and Artillery along with good scout vehicles will win the day
3. Anti air units (Sam and Auto Cannon units) are more important than total air superiority.
4. Inexpensive- Soviet Material was roughly half as expensive as Nato spec.
5. Speed is more important than armor
6. Quantity has a quality of it's own. (the Soviets don't throw anything away) you might see T-34's and T -25's heading to war
Negatives-
1. If you make a vehicle amphibious it means it has to weigh less which means less armor.
2. If anti air units can be either avoided, destroyed, or bypassed you have a problem
3. Soviet doctrine calls for and are designed for the big push. If( a big if :D ) this can be stopped they have neither the command structure nor the supply capability to sustain an attack.

2. Western
Positives
1. Probable Air superiority which relieves pressure on ground units
2. Land units are usually better armored and have better optics
3.Defense is almost always easier than offense
4. ATGM tech is better meaning longer attack distances and more effective attacks on heavy armor
5. In some areas possible Naval assistance
Negatives
1. Heavy numerical disadvantage probably 3 to 1
2. Units are slower both in speed and response
3. Enemy can cross rivers at will (a lot of rivers in Europe) you have to rely on bridges and bridge layers
4. Initial supply problems (soviets will hold the lead at the beginning)
5.Loss of Allies as the Soviets attack. They will surely take some territory due to numbers.
6. There was another country that fought the Soviets which prided quality over quantity. They lost.
"Oh Bother!" said Pooh, as he drew his dagger...

MPMalloy
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 4291
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 2:48 am

Re: Cold War Doctrine in Europe

Post by MPMalloy » Sun May 27, 2018 10:50 pm

Good assessment! :D I chose west. We wont be fighting on two fronts like that other country. :mrgreen:

Good job Twizzer. This is rather timely.

User avatar
Stercutus
* * * * *
Posts: 13267
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:16 pm
Location: Time Out

Re: Cold War Doctrine in Europe

Post by Stercutus » Mon May 28, 2018 10:37 am

I am choosing West and pursuing a Southern Invasion Strategy of the Caucasus on land followed by an intensive bombing and naval attrition plan while holding Central Europe and the Fulda Gap. Dismounted TOWS, attack helos and heavy bombers will decimate the invaders in the middle. Most of the armor is going South though where in the open terrain Soviet Tanks will quickly become Swiss cheese.

Once the Southern oil fields are seized I'll bomb Archangel out of existence and the forces surrounding it and then walk ashore. My Southern Army and Northern Army will meet in the middle seizing Vovlgrad, Norvograd and cutting Moscow off from the rest of the country. Then with the backing of Nato in Europe (looking for some liberated pickup teams as well) push towards Moscow which, completely surrounded, starving and in the dark will fall without a shot fired.

Bombing mostly targeting Soviet electrical energy resources and railroad transportation grid which are not plentiful or resilient, difficult to protect and are concentrated. They can fight but it will be in the cold, hungry dark.

I am going to go ahead and upgrade my MBT guns to 125mm early on. This is good for killing 2-3 T72s stacked up in a column per shot.

Ramp up production of Tomahawks, A-10s, Apaches, AWACS, Patriots and air superiority air craft. Without nukes this war is going to be won in the air.

Bring battleships out of mothball and send them to annihilate all Soviet shipping concerns as well as shelling any functioning ports.

There was another country that fought the Soviets which prided quality over quantity. They lost.
True but their strategy was flawed. That and they never shut down the Allied ports. The flow of munitions from the US to the Soviets was astonishing.


After war is over give Russia trillions of dollars to rebuild economy. They then modernize and use their massive newly liberated labor pool to drive what is left of US manufacturing out of business.
These days of dust
Which we've known
Will blow away with this new Son

But I'll kneel down wait for now
And I'll kneel down
Know my ground

TheWarriorMax
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 12:39 am
Location: Straya

Re: Cold War Doctrine in Europe

Post by TheWarriorMax » Tue May 29, 2018 12:27 am

I choose Canada
I will nuke the middle east, the UN HQ and then take over the world and leave everyone alone...
"And how can a man die better,
than facing fearful odds,
for the ashes of his fathers,
and the temples of his gods".

Buy "The Kingdom of Saudi Australia" on kindle:

https://tinyurl.com/y9jhv6y4

User avatar
The Twizzler
* * * *
Posts: 979
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 7:47 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: Dawn of the Dead
Return of the Living Dead
Location: Nashville, TN

Re: Cold War Doctrine in Europe

Post by The Twizzler » Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:28 pm

As the Op I have to say I would go with East. In this era the Soviets along with the Warsaw pact countries would have an overwhelming numbers advantage in heavy weapons. The heavy armor would be almost impossible to stop. Even the most nationalistic western generals at the time thought the Soviets would stream through the Fulda Gap. The West Germans even had a plan for surrender at the front, let the Russians take a substantial portion of the country and then behind enemy lines use hidden atgms and spotter forces to direct fire on the invaders. I also said to expect probable air superiority for Nato but that really only applied to the US, Germany, and to some extent French forces, and the US had less planes in Europe than the Germans. The rest of Nato had really not invested in either capable air material (Italy, Spain) or had capable planes but to few (looking at you UK, Nordic countries). Along with tanks the Soviets definitely had ( the Russians still do have) better anti air ground deployed forces. This doesn't even take into effect the political problems. The Italians and to a lesser extent the French both had sizable open communist parties and that doesn't even include the individual Brits infected (as they said at the time) with the British disease (communist sympathizers). I don't think the east would defeat the west in the western hemisphere or the UK but in continental Europe at this time I can not say the same.
Thoughts?
"Oh Bother!" said Pooh, as he drew his dagger...

User avatar
woodsghost
* * * * *
Posts: 3103
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Cold War Doctrine in Europe

Post by woodsghost » Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:20 pm

The Twizzler wrote:As the Op I have to say I would go with East. In this era the Soviets along with the Warsaw pact countries would have an overwhelming numbers advantage in heavy weapons. The heavy armor would be almost impossible to stop. Even the most nationalistic western generals at the time thought the Soviets would stream through the Fulda Gap. The West Germans even had a plan for surrender at the front, let the Russians take a substantial portion of the country and then behind enemy lines use hidden atgms and spotter forces to direct fire on the invaders. I also said to expect probable air superiority for Nato but that really only applied to the US, Germany, and to some extent French forces, and the US had less planes in Europe than the Germans. The rest of Nato had really not invested in either capable air material (Italy, Spain) or had capable planes but to few (looking at you UK, Nordic countries). Along with tanks the Soviets definitely had ( the Russians still do have) better anti air ground deployed forces. This doesn't even take into effect the political problems. The Italians and to a lesser extent the French both had sizable open communist parties and that doesn't even include the individual Brits infected (as they said at the time) with the British disease (communist sympathizers). I don't think the east would defeat the west in the western hemisphere or the UK but in continental Europe at this time I can not say the same.
Thoughts?
I am not, nor have I ever been a soldier. My reading leads me to agree with you, but I really don't know. I just strongly suspect WARSAW would have owned continental Europe.

Also, communist vehicles, from what I understand, are a mixed bag. Sure, many are amphibious, but they are also cheaply constructed with spotty QC and either leak or break down all the time. The virtue, according to an Egyptian friend who has had experience with communist and US vehicles, is that communist stuff is easy to repair and get it going again. US gear runs forever until it quits, and then it needs very specialized people to get it running again.

Just some thoughts.
*Remember: I'm just a guy on the internet :)
*Don't go to stupid places with stupid people & do stupid things.
*Be courteous. Look normal. Be in bed by 10'clock.

“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” -Bilbo Baggins.

User avatar
Stercutus
* * * * *
Posts: 13267
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:16 pm
Location: Time Out

Re: Cold War Doctrine in Europe

Post by Stercutus » Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:56 am

As the Op I have to say I would go with East. In this era the Soviets along with the Warsaw pact countries would have an overwhelming numbers advantage in heavy weapons. The heavy armor would be almost impossible to stop
The US annihilated the Russian Equipment in the Gulf War. Look at the battle of 73 Eastings for tank on tank results. You might think "poorly trained, poorly led troops"; but what were the Russians? Besides which the Iraqis had something the Russians did not have which was ten years of combat experience in war fighting. The Iraqis had overwhelming advantages in equipment and got their ass handed to them.
These days of dust
Which we've known
Will blow away with this new Son

But I'll kneel down wait for now
And I'll kneel down
Know my ground

User avatar
The Twizzler
* * * *
Posts: 979
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 7:47 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: Dawn of the Dead
Return of the Living Dead
Location: Nashville, TN

Re: Cold War Doctrine in Europe

Post by The Twizzler » Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:37 pm

That's true it was quite a lopsided victory against Soviet material a few counterpoints though.
1. the material they received were the downgraded export versions, sort of the like the M1's we sell to Egypt compared to the M1A and M1A2's we use.
2. Iraq was really founded as a country in 1920. Since then I count 8 wars against other countries (they've had a few insurrections inside the country against themselves (Kurds, Tribesmen) I didn't count these) . Their Victory record is an astounding 0-8 (Iran Iraq war was a draw). They have never won a war, not one, ever. I have won just as many wars as all the previous Iraqi governments combined have. :?

I think it has a lot more to do with their lack of loyalty to the idea of the state and the tendency Arab goverments have, to foul every simple thing up, when fighting any non Arab government. This, along with poor leadership and poor training results in you know what.
:words:

Stercutus wrote:
As the Op I have to say I would go with East. In this era the Soviets along with the Warsaw pact countries would have an overwhelming numbers advantage in heavy weapons. The heavy armor would be almost impossible to stop
The US annihilated the Russian Equipment in the Gulf War. Look at the battle of 73 Eastings for tank on tank results. You might think "poorly trained, poorly led troops"; but what were the Russians? Besides which the Iraqis had something the Russians did not have which was ten years of combat experience in war fighting. The Iraqis had overwhelming advantages in equipment and got their ass handed to them.
"Oh Bother!" said Pooh, as he drew his dagger...

User avatar
Stercutus
* * * * *
Posts: 13267
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:16 pm
Location: Time Out

Re: Cold War Doctrine in Europe

Post by Stercutus » Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:21 pm

I am not sure about the loyalty to the Soviet State and especially that of their allied partners in Eastern Europe in the 1980s. Things fell apart awfully fast and some breakaway provinces will never stop fighting even the current government. Almost like a reverse domino effect that the US struggled with for decades. I'd say some of the Eastern Bloc would have not deployed and others surrendered to the first NATO unit they encountered, even switching sides, especially if it were an offensive war.
These days of dust
Which we've known
Will blow away with this new Son

But I'll kneel down wait for now
And I'll kneel down
Know my ground

MPMalloy
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 4291
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 2:48 am

Re: Cold War Doctrine in Europe

Post by MPMalloy » Wed Jun 06, 2018 12:18 am

Stercutus wrote:I am not sure about the loyalty to the Soviet State and especially that of their allied partners in Eastern Europe in the 1980s. Things fell apart awfully fast and some breakaway provinces will never stop fighting even the current government. Almost like a reverse domino effect that the US struggled with for decades. I'd say some of the Eastern Bloc would have not deployed and others surrendered to the first NATO unit they encountered, even switching sides, especially if it were an offensive war.
I could totally see his happening.

User avatar
The Twizzler
* * * *
Posts: 979
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 7:47 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: Dawn of the Dead
Return of the Living Dead
Location: Nashville, TN

Re: Cold War Doctrine in Europe

Post by The Twizzler » Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:48 pm

Sorry, I have been away for a while. I had computer issues. I would agree that some of the eastern European countries might want to just surrender or claim neutrality instead of fighting. The same might be said of western or at least western aligned forces as well. Nobody, counter argued the previously mentioned popularity of communist parties in western Europe in the era. I didn't live in Europe at this time so I can't really say. Anyone have any thoughts?
Also, I would just say wanting to throw off the Soviet yoke and being able to are two very different things.History is re pleat with armies forced to go to war under a larger power. Also, there are a lot of old grudges in Europe (see the Balkans or Poland/Germany as an example) which could be used by clever country to further their own aims.
"Oh Bother!" said Pooh, as he drew his dagger...

User avatar
Stercutus
* * * * *
Posts: 13267
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:16 pm
Location: Time Out

Re: Cold War Doctrine in Europe

Post by Stercutus » Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:03 am

I was stationed in Germany in the 80s (actually was there when the wall came down). Maybe they just told me so because I am an American but everyone thought Communists were a joke. I never met one who self identified as communist either.



It was kind of shocking to us since we were out in the field when the wall came down. This is pre cell/internet days. We got on the Autobahn to go in for a shower and PX run and there were Eastern European cars everywhere. They would honk horns, smile and wave at the American Army truck. We had no clue until we got to the base and picked up a paper. After the wall came down and Easterners poured over the border every Easterner I met was nice to me. None had good things to say about their old regimes.


That is just Germany. I traveled to several other countries but did not interact with the locals much.
These days of dust
Which we've known
Will blow away with this new Son

But I'll kneel down wait for now
And I'll kneel down
Know my ground

User avatar
The Twizzler
* * * *
Posts: 979
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 7:47 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: Dawn of the Dead
Return of the Living Dead
Location: Nashville, TN

Re: Cold War Doctrine in Europe

Post by The Twizzler » Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:09 pm

I bet that was a real kick in the pants.
Men we are here to defend the West from the evils of communism and...
Excuse me sir, the other side gave up
Oh, I see, well nevermind then :lol:

Good points mentioned before. I was just a kid at the time so I had no real sense of the moods of the Europeans at the time. It really takes some one who was there to put it in proper perspective.
"Oh Bother!" said Pooh, as he drew his dagger...

User avatar
Stercutus
* * * * *
Posts: 13267
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:16 pm
Location: Time Out

Re: Cold War Doctrine in Europe

Post by Stercutus » Mon Jun 11, 2018 12:00 am

I will say that of the few communists that were there some were dedicated. There were a few bombings and kidnappings and that kind of thing. This peaked in the 70s and was on the decline in the 80's.

Image

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction

The ironic use of the MP5 as a symbol was notable. Most Western European countries had a cell.
These days of dust
Which we've known
Will blow away with this new Son

But I'll kneel down wait for now
And I'll kneel down
Know my ground

Post Reply

Return to “What Would You Do?”