# 1975 NATO vs. Warsaw Pact



## comiso90 (Sep 1, 2007)

1975... NATO vs. Warsaw Pact.

Would the quality of the Western power's equipment offset the numerical superiority of the East in a conventional war?

Navy: I believe the U.S, Navy and her allies would of quickly throttled anything the Soviets could have mustered on the open ocean. The Russian submarines would have been a terrific nuisance but little more.

Air Superiority: It would have been close. There were a hell of a lot of MIG 21's

Land: In a quick war, the Western powers in Europe would have been reduced to the island nation of England in 2 months. The longer NATO held out the better chance they would have had.

Without nukes, I think the Ruskies could have steam rolled to Spain.


1985, the A-10 and helicopters would have made a huge difference


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 2, 2007)

I would have to give the advantage in many area's to the Warsaw Pact.

The US was still reeling from the defeat in Vietnam, and the change in doctrine and eqmt. that was apparent in the 80's, had not materialized.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 2, 2007)

I know you stated in the thread that it was 1975 but I am going to include the whole 1970s because I think war was immenant throughout that whole time period.

Numerically the Soviets and her allies would have the advantage that is deffinatly true.

I think in the end NATO had some advantages that could have offset the numerical superiority of the Soviets.

*1. AWACS (okay the E-3 Sentry did not enter service until 1977 but it was first flown and tested in 1975 so I am including it).*
Most Soviet aircraft relied on Ground based Radar for vectoriing to targets. The AWACS and its ability to track a such a vast amount of targets would have given an advantage to the NATO aircraft.

*2. F-15 Eagle (again it did not enter service until 1976 but it was being tested since 1972 so I will include it.)* 
The F-15 combined with the AWACS system would have quickly given air superiority to NATO.

*3. F-14 Tomcat* Was in service since 1974 and with its Pheonix missiles and combined with the F-15 would have done nice work of the Soviet Bombers.

*4. A-10 (same as the F-15 was in service in 1977 so I will include again.)*
The A-10 would have been a great force multiplier and taken away some of the advantage the Soviets had in numerical advantage.

*5. AH-1 Cobra*
Would have proven a great ground support aircraft and combined with tow missles would have helped desimate the Soviet Tank Divisions.

*6. NATO NCO Leadership*
Lets face it NCOs lead soldiers and make it happen. The US military along with its allies have the best NCOs in the world. The Soviets never really saw the value of the NCO.

*7. Tactics*
Soviet tactics were based of overwelming firepower and numerical superiority. Better tactics which NATO had would have overcome a numerical force. This has been proven before. Look at Operation Desert Storm when the 4th largest army in the world was destroyed by a smaller force with better technology (which NATO had in the 1970s) and better tactics (which NATO had in the 1970s).

*8. Mobility*
The Soviet Army was still largly based off of towed artillary and so forth. NATO had made the step to Self Propelled Artillary, a much larger and more mobile force with Helicopters and Air assault. 

Additionally with NATO being on the defensive and her mover mobile military could have chosen when and where to fight the Russians during this advance and made for easier counter attacks.
All in all it would not have mattered, this war would have most likely turned Nuclear anyhow.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 2, 2007)

Deradler, but isnt it true that in the mid 70's, there were some supply issues that kept many aircraft grounded? This also was applicable to being able to support sustained operations.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 2, 2007)

I dont believe so. There were so many stock piles in Germany and Western Europe there should not have been any problem.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 2, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I dont believe so. There were so many stock piles in Germany and Western Europe there should not have been any problem.



I vaguely remember back in 1981 when Reagan took office, the secy of defense saying something to the effect that whole squadrons of the "new" F15 could have been grounded in a sustained war for a lack of spare parts (referring to the 70's), and his new budget would be bringing the supplies up to adequate levels.

And that also was true for others of the newer systems introduced in the 70's.


----------



## Glider (Sep 2, 2007)

I am afraid that I am sticking with 1975 as its the year of the thread and that the 70's were a period of change. Its probably not to far from the truth to say that 1975 was the last period when the Soviet forces stood any chance of success. By 1980 NATO was a totally different opponent compared with 1970.
On that basis I am afriad that in 1975 my money would be on the Russians.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I know you stated in the thread that it was 1975 but I am going to include the whole 1970s because I think war was immenant throughout that whole time period.
> 
> Numerically the Soviets and her allies would have the advantage that is deffinatly true.
> 
> ...



Clearly in 1975 the fact that they were being testeed wouldn't ahve been any help at all



> *2. F-15 Eagle (again it did not enter service until 1976 but it was being tested since 1972 so I will include it.)*
> The F-15 combined with the AWACS system would have quickly given air superiority to NATO.


Again they wouldn't have been any help in 1975



> *3. F-14 Tomcat* Was in service since 1974 and with its Pheonix missiles and combined with the F-15 would have done nice work of the Soviet Bombers.


The F14 would have been a huge benefit in ensuring that the reinforcements from the USA arrived. The biggest single threat to the supply vessels were long range aircraft carrying A/S missiles.[/QUOTE]


> *4. A-10 (same as the F-15 was in service in 1977 so I will include again.)*
> The A-10 would have been a great force multiplier and taken away some of the advantage the Soviets had in numerical advantage.


As you mention in 1975 these wouldn't have helped



> *5. AH-1 Cobra*
> Would have proven a great ground support aircraft and combined with tow missles would have helped desimate the Soviet Tank Divisions.


There is no doubt that the AH-1 would be very effective but there are two problems
a) Only the USA had these or equivalent helicopters and there would have been large area's without this kind of assistance
b) They would have been operating under Russian controlled skies which would have limited their effectiveness. 



> *6. NATO NCO Leadership*
> Lets face it NCOs lead soldiers and make it happen. The US military along with its allies have the best NCOs in the world. The Soviets never really saw the value of the NCO.


Totally agree



> *7. Tactics*
> Soviet tactics were based of overwelming firepower and numerical superiority. Better tactics which NATO had would have overcome a numerical force. This has been proven before. Look at Operation Desert Storm when the 4th largest army in the world was destroyed by a smaller force with better technology (which NATO had in the 1970s) and better tactics (which NATO had in the 1970s).


While I agree with the view that NATO tactics were far more effective I disagree that the Russian ones wouldn't have worked. Desert Storm cannot be used as an example for a lot of reasons. Terrain, cover, technology, training, the fact that the WP would have been attacking, often with better or at least equivalent equipment, you name it. In most large scale exercises, the Red forces won. 



> *8. Mobility*
> The Soviet Army was still largly based off of towed artillary and so forth. NATO had made the step to Self Propelled Artillary, a much larger and more mobile force with Helicopters and Air assault.


True but the WP with extra numbers, being on the offence and control of the air would have limited the impact of the technical advantages



> Additionally with NATO being on the defensive and her mover mobile military could have chosen when and where to fight the Russians during this advance and made for easier counter attacks.


By having to respond to russian advances theNATO would have been limited in its choice of battle areas. Politics would ahve stepped in here. For instandce the USA and UK approach was to retire and use AT missiles to funnel and destroy the attackers. The Germans wanted to fight further up to the front as its their country that would have been invaded and lost.



> All in all it would not have mattered, this war would have most likely turned Nuclear anyhow.


Agreed but only if NATO started to lose.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 2, 2007)

Glider said:


> I am afraid that I am sticking with 1975 as its the year of the thread and that the 70's were a period of change. Its probably not to far from the truth to say that 1975 was the last period when the Soviet forces stood any chance of success. By 1980 NATO was a totally different opponent compared with 1970.
> On that basis I am afriad that in 1975 my money would be on the Russians.



I would side w/ NATO.




Glider said:


> The F14 would have been a huge benefit in ensuring that the reinforcements from the USA arrived. The biggest single threat to the supply vessels were long range aircraft carrying A/S missiles.


Absolutely. I don't see how the Warsaw pact would maintain control of the skies against the air superiority assets of the USAF, USN, USMC - plus all NATO allies.



Glider said:


> There is no doubt that the AH-1 would be very effective but there are two problems
> a) Only the USA had these or equivalent helicopters and there would have been large area's without this kind of assistance
> b) They would have been operating under Russian controlled skies which would have limited their effectiveness.


Again, why would the skies be assumed to be Soviet controlled? Cobras would be popping tanks like balloons. TOWs would be raining upon WP armored columns. Don't forget, it's not as if the Warsaw Pact would suddenly concentrate all their forces w/o NATO responding. Granted, they would have numberic superiority on the deck, but I wouldn't see them securing control of the skies.





Glider said:


> While I agree with the view that NATO tactics were far more effective I disagree that the Russian ones wouldn't have worked. Desert Storm cannot be used as an example for a lot of reasons. Terrain, cover, technology, training, the fact that the WP would have been attacking, often with better or at least equivalent equipment, you name it. In most large scale exercises, the Red forces won.


Better or equivalent equipment? Just a couple examples... Soviet tanks were/are still universally regarded as substandard. From what I understand regarding the avionics and electronic suites in their aircraft - they have been long performed below the abilities of western aircraft. Again, why I find it difficult to imagine the WP just seizing control of the skies. 

I could be off base, but I don't think a large scale Warsaw Pact offensive could have been sustained politically within many of the WP member states. I have a friend that was invited to the US as a political refugee from Poland. They believe that it would be almost impossible for a large scale invasion of the west to be sustained internally in Poland without a domestic catastrophe breaking out.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 2, 2007)

Glider said:


> Clearly in 1975 the fact that they were being testeed wouldn't ahve been any help at all



As I said, I am not sticking with 1975 because I dont see why a war would be limited to 1975...




Glider said:


> Again they wouldn't have been any help in 1975



Read above...



Glider said:


> As you mention in 1975 these wouldn't have helped



Again above...




Glider said:


> There is no doubt that the AH-1 would be very effective but there are two problems
> a) Only the USA had these or equivalent helicopters and there would have been large area's without this kind of assistance
> b) They would have been operating under Russian controlled skies which would have limited their effectiveness.



Disagree. The US Army allready had well over a 1000 Cobras in service by 1975, with several hundred of them allready based in Germany.

I also dont agree that the Russians would have air superiority. 

[qutoe="Glider"]By having to respond to russian advances theNATO would have been limited in its choice of battle areas. Politics would ahve stepped in here. For instandce the USA and UK approach was to retire and use AT missiles to funnel and destroy the attackers. The Germans wanted to fight further up to the front as its their country that would have been invaded and lost.


Agreed but only if NATO started to lose.[/QUOTE]

I can only speak for the US forces but each unit in the US Army allready had specific areas of responsibility in Germany (footprints, for instance my fathers unit's footprint was the Fulda Gap) for them to defend from. 

NATO had the advantage of owning that terrain and knowing how to defend from of it. I dont see this disadvantage that you are talking about.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 2, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Absolutely. I don't see how the Warsaw pact would maintain control of the skies against the air superiority assets of the USAF, USN, USMC - plus all NATO allies.



Dont forget that the 1970s to the 1990s Germany had the most extensive Air Defense Network in Europe to help along with that.



mkloby said:


> Better or equivalent equipment? Just a couple examples... Soviet tanks were/are still universally regarded as substandard. From what I understand regarding the avionics and electronic suites in their aircraft - they have been long performed below the abilities of western aircraft. Again, why I find it difficult to imagine the WP just seizing control of the skies.



Agreed


----------



## Glider (Sep 2, 2007)

I think this has the probability of being a good thread. Anyway, taking things one at a time.


F14’s
These were of course at sea and all the efforts of the NATO navies would be taken up with ensuring that the reserves arrive in Europe. For this role the F14 will have a major role but, they would not be able to help over Europe.

Over Europe
The standard aircraft over Europe would be the following
F4’s mainly USAF and UK significantly better than the Mig 21(German ones lacked Sparrows and were limited to short range engagements)
F5 a good match for the Mig 21
F104 a significant disadvantage against the Mig 21
F100 at a significant disadvantage to the Mig 21
Mirage III a good match for the Mig 21 

On balance the quality of aircraft was about equal but the Soviet Forces had a significant advantage in numbers. It would be wrong to assume that NATO could control the air. 

This is turn puts the ability of the helicopter to survive at risk. Its also wrong to assume that the Soviet Helicopters were a walk over. 
The Mil 24 was a dangerous attack helicopter. It lacks finesse certainly, but it is dangerous. 
The Mil 8 transport helicopter was also very heavily armed whilst able to carry a significant load.

Quality of Equipment
On land the Soviets had a number of advantages over NATO. 
Infantry
The BMP was the leader in the field of the APC, only the Marder was in the same league and even here, only the BMP could take on a tank with any chance of success. At a second level the BTR60PB was as good as the M113 which was the normal equipment in NATO
AT Weapons
WP troops were generally better equipped with AT weapons. It varied by country, but most NATO countries were not as well equipped. The UK, France and Germany were probably the best equipped in NATO. 

Tanks
The T62 was a good match for the M60 and later Centurian, in use in much of NATO. The T55 was a good match for the M48.
The Leopard 1 and Chieftains were better than the Russian Tanks
Again the WP countries have the advantage on numbers.

Air Defence
To protect the army in the field the WP forces were well in advance of almost all Nato countries, only Germany could match them.


----------



## trap one (Sep 2, 2007)

_Over Europe
The standard aircraft over Europe would be the following
F4’s mainly USAF and UK significantly better than the Mig 21(German ones lacked Sparrows and were limited to short range engagements)
F5 a good match for the Mig 21
F104 a significant disadvantage against the Mig 21
F100 at a significant disadvantage to the Mig 21
Mirage III a good match for the Mig 21 _

In addition the UK had lightnings which were very similar to Mg 21 in performance but all the NATO A/C had better MMI and training. The problem would be the numbers and with the pk of the missiles in service at the time an F4 would be capable of killing 4/5 max. IIRC the numbers were 1 NATO to 6 Soviet.

For me the NATO strike assets were far better in the all weather but no where near as plentiful in clear weather numbers. 

_On balance the quality of aircraft was about equal but the Soviet Forces had a significant advantage in numbers. It would be wrong to assume that NATO could control the air. _

Disagree with this quality wise NATO was better but WP had the numbers so WP would I believe have control their side and local over the areas that they were advancing in. As WP tactics was to reinfoce success.


_Air Defence
To protect the army in the field the WP forces were well in advance of almost all Nato countries, only Germany could match them._

I disagree with the W German SAM belt being better to the WP. In numbers and variety ie low medium and high SAM systems the WP had more and greater variety. Also the Army AD systems were going forward with the advancing troops and they would have possed an extreme threat to all NATO LL ops.


----------



## Glider (Sep 2, 2007)

I certainly agree with your posting. Training was better n NATO but the WP had numbers.
I apologise re the German matching the WP air defence I was thinking of the Gepard at the time.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 2, 2007)

I think the US was in a similar but better position that it was for Korea. In 1975 the US had a whole slew of combat trained and tested Army, Navy, AF, and Marine personnel (millions?), including an infestation of pilots, that could be called upon and brought up to speed quickly. In addition, there had to be lots of F-4s, A-4s, A-7s, (no thuds), A-6s, etc. that could be made combat ready quickly (maybe not Mil-Spec, but fightable). The F-4 was still a formidable fighter and was readily available in quantity. By that time, the AIM-7 and AIM-9 had improved significantly and would have made a major impact. With these upgraded weapons, the F-4 was probably still the best fighter in the world. Also, the October war was over and the west was well aware of the latest Soviet SAM technologies and had developed effective countermeasures. Unlike Korea, the Soviet Union had very limited, if any, combat experience and the 11 to 1 kill ratio of Korea could be expected to be met or exceeded. The Soviets would not have maintained any air superority. With airspace control, precision guided weapons would have made short work of all infrastucture support like bridges, roads, and fuel dumps, of the Soviets. Nato forces were at a considerable disadvantage in anti-armor weapons and tanks but overpowering air power and combat experience would have neutralized most of the advantage of the Soviets. Also, the Huey Cobra was available and its anti-tank capability would make a difference.

I think Nato would hold its own.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 2, 2007)

If you look at the Yom Kippor in 73 war then Soviet SAMs and the ZSUs downed many Isreali planes and the Sagger popped a number of tanks.
The Fishbed was plentiful and a good match for most NATO fighters. 
The Soviets would have gone chemical very early so no help there.

I doubt that a convetional war ever worried the Soviets and only NBC did. 

I wonder in relation to anti tank warfare if NATO had more guided missiles than the WP had tanks!


----------



## trap one (Sep 2, 2007)

[_I think the US was in a similar but better position that it was for Korea. In 1975 the US had a whole slew of combat trained and tested Army, Navy, AF, and Marine personnel (millions?), including an infestation of pilots, that could be called upon and brought up to speed quickly. In addition, there had to be lots of F-4s, A-4s, A-7s, (no thuds), A-6s, etc. that could be made combat ready quickly (maybe not Mil-Spec, but fightable)._ 

Davparlr 
Most of these US reservests would take time and not all of them would have been available to NATO. If a Cold War had kicked off then the Far, Middle East and Asia would probably be involved. 

_The F-4 was still a formidable fighter and was readily available in quantity. By that time, the AIM-7 and AIM-9 had improved significantly and would have made a major impact. With these upgraded weapons, the F-4 was probably still the best fighter in the world. _

But still not using AIM9L or AIM7M which were the first of their repective models to have a pk of better than 0.5 so still looking at 1 A/C with 5 kills against 6 Mig 21s. The Math speaks for itself!

_Also, the October war was over and the west was well aware of the latest Soviet SAM technologies and had developed effective countermeasures. Unlike Korea, the Soviet Union had very limited, if any, combat experience and the 11 to 1 kill ratio of Korea could be expected to be met or exceeded. The Soviets would not have maintained any air superority. _

With airspace control, precision guided weapons would have made short work of all infrastucture support like bridges, roads, and fuel dumps, of the Soviets. [/I]

NATO at this point had very little Combat Experience. Yes the USAF had only just finished Vietnam but the rest of the NATO air forces were un blooded. The first of the Flag ex's were only just being opened to NATO and very few crews had flown those 1st ten missions. So combat losses would be high until they learnt.


_Nato forces were at a considerable disadvantage in anti-armor weapons and tanks but overpowering air power and combat experience would have neutralized most of the advantage of the Soviets. Also, the Huey Cobra was available and its anti-tank capability would make a difference.

I think Nato would hold its own._

I know that a lot of faith has been placed in the AH1 but it can't be all places all the time. Certainlythe F111 would be able to make it to the rear areas and kill the target but the Buccaneers were only just getting ECM and the rest of NATO didn't have these live saving pods.

I think NATO would have suffered and had to go nuke to stop the WP.


----------



## comiso90 (Sep 2, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I know you stated in the thread that it was 1975 but I am going to include the whole 1970s because I think war was immenant throughout that whole time period.



I specifically mentioned 1975 for many of the reasons u pointed out. Like i said in the opening, helicopters and the A-10 would helped tons. I think 1975 is interesting because it seems to be when the West was most vulnerable. Things were a lot different in 1985.






DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> *6. NATO NCO Leadership*
> Lets face it NCOs lead soldiers and make it happen. The US military along with its allies have the best NCOs in the world. The Soviets never really saw the value of the NCO.


Absolutely true and to that I'll add that the west prized the autonomous decision making ability of field commanders and pilots. The eastern block had to seek approval from ground control HQ to fart. This is not only a disadvantage when it came making decisions, it made the bad guys especially vulnerable to strikes against command and control 



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> *7. Tactics*
> Soviet tactics were based of overwelming firepower and numerical superiority. Better tactics which NATO had would have overcome a numerical force. This has been proven before. Look at Operation Desert Storm when the 4th largest army in the world was destroyed by a smaller force with better technology (which NATO had in the 1970s) and better tactics (which NATO had in the 1970s).



While I dont disagree with u, I wouldnt be so quick to compare the Soviet Army to the Iraqi Army. Our equipment was 20 years newer than the Iraqi's. A T-64 or T-72 tank will stand a better chance against a M-60 than a T-55, T-64, T-72, T-82 against a Abrams




DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> *8. Mobility*
> The Soviet Army was still largly based off of towed artillary and so forth. NATO had made the step to Self Propelled Artillary, a much larger and more mobile force with Helicopters and Air assault.



I'm not sure about that. The soviets had zillions of APC's that were better than ours. They may have relied more heavily on towed artillery but since the were built for attack, not defense, they had outstanding mobility. I'd rather be in a BMP than a M-113 or LVTP (I never understood the M-113, it looks like something out of WW1.) Also, I believe more of their APC's had the AT-4 SPIGOT than ours had TOWs (a guess).

And since were in 1975, Apache and A-10 are not a factor.

Russian/FSU Armored Fighting Vehicles





DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Additionally with NATO being on the defensive and her mover mobile military could have chosen when and where to fight the Russians during this advance and made for easier counter attacks.
> All in all it would not have mattered, this war would have most likely turned Nuclear anyhow.



Yep...

Roughly:


1945 - 1960 The West (I'm a big fan of the T-34 but I think the Russians were exhausted in 1945)
1960 - 1970 A Tie
1970 - 1980 Warsaw Pact
1980 - 1990 NATO

.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 3, 2007)

Glider said:


> F14’s
> These were of course at sea and all the efforts of the NATO navies would be taken up with ensuring that the reserves arrive in Europe. For this role the F14 will have a major role but, they would not be able to help over Europe.



Why would they? With aerial refueling they could be over Europe if needed.



Glider said:


> Over Europe
> The standard aircraft over Europe would be the following
> F4’s mainly USAF and UK significantly better than the Mig 21(German ones lacked Sparrows and were limited to short range engagements)



Are you sure about that? I am sure the Germans bought Sparrows as well and given the situation of an armed conflict with the Soviets they would have recieved them in short order had they not. 

Just like all West German aircraft were modified to carry Atomic Bombs so that in a worst case scenerio they could use the stockpiles in Germany at places such as Rammstein.



Glider said:


> On balance the quality of aircraft was about equal but the Soviet Forces had a significant advantage in numbers. It would be wrong to assume that NATO could control the air.



No it would not. Soviet avionics and radar equipment was far behind that of the NATO forces. 

What advantage do you have, if you can not see your enemy?

Also as others put out, dont forget the RAF Lightning.



Glider said:


> This is turn puts the ability of the helicopter to survive at risk. Its also wrong to assume that the Soviet Helicopters were a walk over.
> The Mil 24 was a dangerous attack helicopter. It lacks finesse certainly, but it is dangerous.
> The Mil 8 transport helicopter was also very heavily armed whilst able to carry a significant load.



Agreed but NATO would have available 1000s of UH-1 Hueys, 1000s of AH-1 Cobras, 100s of CH-53s.

Also the US allready had been fighting a war with wide spread Helicopter Use in Vietnam. They had time to perfect there tactics. The Soviets had not...



Glider said:


> Quality of Equipment
> On land the Soviets had a number of advantages over NATO.
> Infantry



I disagree that the Infantry was better equipped. I would say 1975 time range the infantry was about equally equipped but better? No...




Glider said:


> The BMP was the leader in the field of the APC, only the Marder was in the same league and even here, only the BMP could take on a tank with any chance of success. At a second level the BTR60PB was as good as the M113 which was the normal equipment in NATO



Agreed



Glider said:


> Tanks
> The T62 was a good match for the M60 and later Centurian, in use in much of NATO. The T55 was a good match for the M48.
> The Leopard 1 and Chieftains were better than the Russian Tanks
> Again the WP countries have the advantage on numbers.



And with combined aerial support (because I dont agree with you that the Soviets would get air supperiority) that advantage in numbers is not so much an advantage anymore.



Glider said:


> Air Defence
> To protect the army in the field the WP forces were well in advance of almost all Nato countries, only Germany could match them.



And 90 percent of WPs Air Defence is not even in the equation because it is back in the rear to defend there own countries from NATO air attacks.

The WP would be flying into a Air Defence network over Germany that was only second to Moscow and Hanoi.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 3, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> And since were in 1975, Apache and A-10 are not a factor.
> 
> 
> 
> .



Okay then we will throw in the AH-1 Cobra, UH-1 Huey, A-1 Skyraider, and A-4 Skyhawk.


----------



## comiso90 (Sep 3, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Okay then we will throw in the AH-1 Cobra, UH-1 Huey, A-1 Skyraider, and A-4 Skyhawk.



The ZSU-23 would be protecting the coloumns from Sandy.
ZSU-23-4 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I believe the soviets had greater ground to air preparedness than we did.


The Hind was no slouch.


UR assumeing that the good guys have Air Superiority. In 1975, I think the Ruskies could have driven to Spain in under 5 months.

.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 3, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> UR assumeing that the good guys have Air Superiority. In 1975, I think the Ruskies could have driven to Spain in under 5 months.
> 
> .



I disagree.

NATO had better aircraft with better avionics and radar equipment in the aircraft.

I also dont believe that the Soviets had anything to counter F-4G Wild Weasel which would have taken out the Soviet Radar.


----------



## Glider (Sep 3, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> _Re the F14's not being available over Europe_, Why would they? With aerial refueling they could be over Europe if needed.



Because they would be needed to ensure that the reserves arrived from the USA. Everything depended on the reserves arriving and they would be under grave threat. 



> _Re the German F4's not being equipped with Sparrow _Are you sure about that? I am sure the Germans bought Sparrows as well and given the situation of an armed conflict with the Soviets they would have recieved them in short order had they not.


Absolutely certain. They were without the Sparrow and were supposed to be a dogfighting aircraft. As for updating them this did happen but you know as well as I that it takes time to fit this kind of equipment and train the crews to fight in this manner.



> _Re the quality of the aircraft on each side _No it would not. Soviet avionics and radar equipment was far behind that of the NATO forces.


If you are talking about the USAF, RAF and parts of the German airforce then I agree with you. However, NATO is larger than that. I would certainly back the Mig 21 against the F104 which equipped a large proportion of the NATO forces. As for the F100 which was still in use in some numbers, they would hav a massive advantage. 



> Also as others put out, dont forget the RAF Lightning.


I left it out because the small number of lightnings are almost insignificant compared to the size of the forces we are talking about.



> Agreed but NATO would have available 1000s of UH-1 Hueys, 1000s of AH-1 Cobras, 100s of CH-53s.


No. NATO had a good number of Cobra's ( I think it was around 750) but these would have been spread over the whole of Europe. I am not belittiling the Cobra, I totally agree it would have been the most effective weapon available to NATO but it would have been operating in a hostile environment and wouldn't have been as effective as people believe.
The Huey is a good, no excellent, transport helicopter but it cannot double up as a fighting machine as well as carrying troops in the same manner as the Mil 8.



> Also the US allready had been fighting a war with wide spread Helicopter Use in Vietnam. They had time to perfect there tactics. The Soviets had not...


True, but we are back to the basic disagreement in that I believe that the WP would have control of the air or at least local control where they needed it. The losses in Vietnam of helicopters were very significant and the Russian air defences were far more dangerous than anything they had faced before.




> I disagree that the Infantry was better equipped. I would say 1975 time range the infantry was about equally equipped but better? No...


WP countries had better AT weapons, APC's and air defence. The actual light arms I agree, were about the same.



> And 90 percent of WPs Air Defence is not even in the equation because it is back in the rear to defend there own countries from NATO air attacks.


The WP air defence of the front line was unmatched by any army in NATO. Each infantry company had SAM 7's, Each Regiment had ZSU 23-4's and SAM 6 missiles. These were supported by SAM-4's at divisional level and these were supported by SA 2 and SA 3 missiles.
The 1973 war proved how effective these weapons can be.



> The WP would be flying into a Air Defence network over Germany that was only second to Moscow and Hanoi.



The German defences were the best in NATO but NATO is a lot bigger than Germany.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 3, 2007)

Glider said:


> Because they would be needed to ensure that the reserves arrived from the USA. Everything depended on the reserves arriving and they would be under grave threat.



Agreed




Glider said:


> Absolutely certain. They were without the Sparrow and were supposed to be a dogfighting aircraft. As for updating them this did happen but you know as well as I that it takes time to fit this kind of equipment and train the crews to fight in this manner.



Disagree. The US had stockpiles of missiles in Rammstein, Spangdalahm (spelling?), Hahn, Rain Main, etc.

These could have been used by the Germans as well and hell any other NATO country if needed.




Glider said:


> If you are talking about the USAF, RAF and parts of the German airforce then I agree with you. However, NATO is larger than that. I would certainly back the Mig 21 against the F104 which equipped a large proportion of the NATO forces. As for the F100 which was still in use in some numbers, they would hav a massive advantage.



Yes but the main forces had better equipment and you are forgetting how much of an advantage NATO avionics and radar was.

That is a huge advantage in a conflict.

It has been proven that Soviet aircraft releid more on ground based radar and if that is gone they can not see there enemy. 




Glider said:


> I left it out because the small number of lightnings are almost insignificant compared to the size of the forces we are talking about.



Not when they are augmenting a larger force.




Glidier said:


> No. NATO had a good number of Cobra's ( I think it was around 750) but these would have been spread over the whole of Europe. I am not belittiling the Cobra, I totally agree it would have been the most effective weapon available to NATO but it would have been operating in a hostile environment and wouldn't have been as effective as people believe.



No disagree. The only real user of the Cobra was the US Army at the time and they would have had there Cobras based in Germany which is not a very large country.

Why do I keep bringing up Germany? Because it has been proven as well it would have been the battlefield that NATO would have fought the WP on.




Glider said:


> The Huey is a good, no excellent, transport helicopter but it cannot double up as a fighting machine as well as carrying troops in the same manner as the Mil 8.



No it can double up. It is called the Huey Gun Ship.

The Mi-8 is not a very good aircraft. We worked with them in Kosovo and it was outclassed in all events. It can carry a good number of soldiers but when it is loaded its performance drops tremendously. It also lacks in maneuverability.

It would have been fodder just as much as the Huey.




Glider said:


> True, but we are back to the basic disagreement in that I believe that the WP would have control of the air or at least local control where they needed it. The losses in Vietnam of helicopters were very significant and the Russian air defences were far more dangerous than anything they had faced before.



The Russian defenses in the home land yes? 

There mobile Air Defense was very formidable but once taken out by the F-4G's would be negligable.




Glider said:


> The WP air defence of the front line was unmatched by any army in NATO. Each infantry company had SAM 7's,



Which have been proven to only have a 50:50 chance of hitting an aircraft, hell even a helicopter. Trust me I have dealt with SA-7s.

Now if you want to talk about SA-14s, SA-16s, and SA-18s then they had an advantage but I am not sure if they had SA-14s, 16s and 18s in this time frame.



Glider said:


> Each Battalion had ZSU 23-4's and SAM 6 missiles. These were supported by SAM-4's at divisional level and these were supported by SA 2 and SA 3 missiles.
> The 1973 war proved how effective these weapons can be.



And once radar is gone...

Thats is where NATO would get the advantage.



Glider said:


> The German defences were the best in NATO but NATO is a lot bigger than Germany.



And the battlefield has been proven would have been Germany. That is why it is significant.


----------



## Glider (Sep 3, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Disagree. The US had stockpiles of missiles in Rammstein, Spangdalahm (spelling?), Hahn, Rain Main, etc.
> 
> These could have been used by the Germans as well and hell any other NATO country if needed.


Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. The German F4F didn't have the capability to launch Sparrows. All the cableing etc had been taken out to reduce weight. Amongst other changes, they also had no air to air refuelling capability and a simplified APG 120 radar.



> Yes but the main forces had better equipment and you are forgetting how much of an advantage NATO avionics and radar was.
> 
> That is a huge advantage in a conflict.


What you say is true, but the avionics on an F104, F5a, F100, are probably worse than those fitted on the later Russian Mig 21's. The F5E and Mirage III had similar avionics. The Lighning and F4 had better electronics



> It has been proven that Soviet aircraft releid more on ground based radar and if that is gone they can not see there enemy.


Again true but that has more to do with training than the electronics. For instance India doesn't have any problems operating Russian aircraft in a 'Western' manner. 


> _Re the use of Lightnings _Not when they are augmenting a larger force.


They wouldn't be argumenting anyone as they had their own corner to fight



> The only real user of the Cobra was the US Army at the time and they would have had there Cobras based in Germany which is not a very large country.
> 
> Why do I keep bringing up Germany? Because it has been proven as well it would have been the battlefield that NATO would have fought the WP on.


You are of course correct when you say that only the US had the Cobra, but are not correct when you imply that NATO would fight in Germany. Italy, Greece, Norway and Turkey are all very important, would have been involved and of course the USA had forces in these areas as well.



> [The Russian defenses in the home land yes?


No, the systems I mentioned are within the Army structure and deployed as such in the field



> There mobile Air Defense was very formidable but once taken out by the F-4G's would be negligable.


I am afraid the USAF wouldn't even come close to having enough F4G's to take out all the anti air structure. Even if they did destroy all the LR search radar, the Russian ZSU23-4 and SAM 6 had either self contained search/tracking radar or manual guidance. Less effective certainly, but not to be ignored if you were attacking the front line.



> Which have been proven to only have a 50:50 chance of hitting an aircraft, hell even a helicopter. Trust me I have dealt with SA-7s.
> 
> Now if you want to talk about SA-14s, SA-16s, and SA-18s then they had an advantage but I am not sure if they had SA-14s, 16s and 18s in this time frame.


To be honest I am suprised that they hit 50% of the time, I would expect a figure of around 5-10%. The point is though that an attacking aircraft would be open to a lot of SA-7's and those 10%'s add up, plus of course the ZSU 23-4, SA 6 etc. The NATO airforces would soon have racked up an unacceptable loss ratio.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 3, 2007)

I am still not sold on your arguement. I believe that overall better equipment, much better training, and a larger volunteer force would have prevailed in the end.

I will concede though that the best chance the Russians had was in the 1970s. An interesting what if scenerio needless to say.



Glider said:


> Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. The German F4F didn't have the capability to launch Sparrows. All the cableing etc had been taken out to reduce weight. Amongst other changes, they also had no air to air refuelling capability and a simplified APG 120 radar.



Yes you are correct, I just looked that. The German F-4s were not converted until the early 1980s.




Gliderr said:


> What you say is true, but the avionics on an F104, F5a, F100, are probably worse than those fitted on the later Russian Mig 21's. The F5E and Mirage III had similar avionics. The Lighning and F4 had better electronics



I am sure that these countries modified there aircraft.



Glider said:


> You are of course correct when you say that only the US had the Cobra, but are not correct when you imply that NATO would fight in Germany. Italy, Greece, Norway and Turkey are all very important, would have been involved and of course the USA had forces in these areas as well.



The brunt of the Soviet attack would have been into Germany. The US and most of the allies ie UK, France, and Germany would have been doing the bulk of there fighting in Germany.



Glider said:


> I am afraid the USAF wouldn't even come close to having enough F4G's to take out all the anti air structure. Even if they did destroy all the LR search radar, the Russian ZSU23-4 and SAM 6 had either self contained search/tracking radar or manual guidance. Less effective certainly, but not to be ignored if you were attacking the front line.



Not sold on that either. It would have been a priority to take out those targets.




Glider said:


> To be honest I am suprised that they hit 50% of the time, I would expect a figure of around 5-10%. The point is though that an attacking aircraft would be open to a lot of SA-7's and those 10%'s add up, plus of course the ZSU 23-4, SA 6 etc. The NATO airforces would soon have racked up an unacceptable loss ratio.



Later with better supression systems the kill ability dropped to about 5 to 10 percent with the SA-7.


----------



## Glider (Sep 3, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am still not sold on your arguement. I believe that overall better equipment, much better training, and a larger volunteer force would have prevailed in the end.



I am glad to say that we never found out.

An aside, our Captain appeared on a TV programme in 1974 to do with the ability of the NATO navies to stop the USSR subs from destroying the reserves trying to get to Europe.
He was asked 'would you be able to stop the subs' and his reply was interesting, he didn't say yes or no. What he said was 'We will have a bloody good try and if we don't, I don't expect to be here to debate it.'

My parents weren't to thrilled with that


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 3, 2007)

Glider said:


> I am glad to say that we never found out.
> 
> An aside, our Captain appeared on a TV programme in 1974 to do with the ability of the NATO navies to stop the USSR subs from destroying the reserves trying to get to Europe.
> He was asked 'would you be able to stop the subs' and his reply was interesting, he didn't say yes or no. What he said was 'We will have a bloody good try and if we don't, I don't expect to be here to debate it.'
> ...



I hear you.

I do however think that the NATO navies at the time could have stopped the Soviet subs or atleast made a real good go at it.

Either way it would not be easy...


----------



## timshatz (Sep 3, 2007)

Good thread. Good ideas all around. Now I'll toss my .02 in.

Think the crucial question is going to be time (Going on the assumption that the WP is trying to take all of Europe and not just make it the Rhine). Specifically, how long will it take to get the resupply convoys accross the Atlantic. I can't see any decent reserve reinforcement to Europe in less than 30 days(and that is pushing it but this assumes they get some waring of the war coming on and the mobilization process starts before Europe goes hot). That means the front line forces have to hold out for a minimum of one month. Is it logical to think they can? 

Do not see the Soviet Subs as the biggest threat. They've never had a rep as being aggressive or effective. On top of that, the Nato Sub Fleet would be out looking for them up in the Atlantic north of Iceland. It's a natural choke point. Going to be hairy up there if your a Soviet Sub driver. 

Long range aviation missling ports, convoys and staging areas would be a greater threat. But that is definitely an IMHO call. 

US, British and French Carrier aviation/battle groups are going to be the ace in the hole. Where they are deployed and on what kind of mission is going to be very important. If they are taken off ship and shoved into the fighting in Europe, I see them as dissapearing into the attrition that the battle will become. If they are used as strike forces to take out given targets (usually strategic in nature), they could be highly effective. 

But back to the time thing. After the WP cranks up and heads west, it's going to be a question of who can re-supply more, faster. The WP runs mostly by rail, so those will be the first things hit by Nato counter strikes. Bridges, marshalling yards, ect. The Soviets will go after the Air and Sea bridge from the US (nothing they can do about England to the Continent). But as noted above, I don't think it'll work. 

If Nato does pull it off (and this is a big IF), it will be an incredible near run thing.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 3, 2007)

A few notes. Why is everyone assuming that the WP is pulling off some surprise offensive??? The invasion would require a massive military buildup, and would have been received with a buildup on the NATO side - with a corresponding US response. The US wouldn't be caught with the pants down and very minimal forces in Europe.

The ZSU-23-4: the the AA godsend. Note that it's max effective, 2 clicks, makes it not the all capable beast as some make it. Many pilots I know that have flown against them have VERY little praise for it. Supposedly it's extremely inaccurate. Also, it is COMPLETELY vulnerable to, again for example, an AH-1 launching a TOW.

Also - that was the most generous comarison of soviet tanks to western equipment I've yet to see.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 3, 2007)

mkloby said:


> A few notes. Why is everyone assuming that the WP is pulling off some surprise offensive??? The invasion would require a massive military buildup, and would have been received with a buildup on the NATO side - with a corresponding US response. The US wouldn't be caught with the pants down and very minimal forces in Europe.



Agreed. The forces that the WP had on the East. German Border and any other border as a matter of fact were not eneogh to launch an offensive.

The Build up would have been noticed by that time and NATO would have responded.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 3, 2007)

Why the knock on the 104 it was a great delivery platform for air to ground , and not at all a bad dogfighter it was a "boom and zoom " fighter and not turning fighter you can't shoot what you don't see . With the right training methods it was a superb aircraft and certainly set the standard for reliability in the 60;s and 70's usually in the 90% area. Please name another fighter that could get in and out of situations with the ease of the 104 .


----------



## mkloby (Sep 3, 2007)

Glider - Regarding the BMP-1 IFV, it was not the only armored vehicle fitted w/ powerful AT weaponry. Actually, it is not considered critical to arm an IFV with heavy AT capability. Their mission is not to slug it out with tanks. The US, for example, employs forces in a different matter that it isn't essential for an IFV to carry heavy AT wpns. The USMC doesn't even have an IFV; it's not essential and has MANY detractors.

Glider you also forget to mention USN and USMC F-4s also. The whole of USN CAG's would not be holed up in protecting supply efforts.


----------



## comiso90 (Sep 3, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Also - that was the most generous comarison of soviet tanks to western equipment I've yet to see.



I agree with Gliders assessment of the Armor but we have to ad the T-72. :
>>
_Tanks
The T62 was a good match for the M60 and later Centurian, in use in much of NATO. The T55 was a good match for the M48.
The Leopard 1 and Chieftains were better than the Russian Tanks
Again the WP countries have the advantage on numbers._

>>



*Here is an answer on another forum:*
boris the romanian RE:M-60 vs. Soviet Tanks 4/27/2005 5:11:01 AM
The only M-60 variant to have any significant advantages over contemporary Soviet models is the M-60A3. It had a better FCS and the best thermal sight of its day. But even the A3 would have been very hard pressed against the Soviet T-80, T-72, T-64, and even T-62 and T-55/54. The first three Soviet tanks all had much better mobility and armoured protection, especially the T-80B/BV and T-72A/B, and firepower (while the L-7 was more accurate at range, under 2000m 2A26/46 could more than hold its own and fired much more powerful (and, surprisingly, very accurate) HEAT rounds. APFSDS ammunition was acceptable (DU 3BM-29/32 could punch through more than 500mm at 2000m, more than enought to go through two M-60s in much the same way as M-829A1 went through two T-72s). Still, M-60A3 is the second best Western tank of its generation (after Chieftain), having better armour than Leopard 1, and all were far superior to AMX-30.

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/2-13432.aspx

>>

Here is a good discussion..
NATO vs. Warsaw Pact - World Affairs Board

.


----------



## Glider (Sep 3, 2007)

mkloby said:


> A few notes. Why is everyone assuming that the WP is pulling off some surprise offensive??? The invasion would require a massive military buildup, and would have been received with a buildup on the NATO side - with a corresponding US response. The US wouldn't be caught with the pants down and very minimal forces in Europe.


Fair comment and no doubt there would have been some warning but there were things the WP could do to limit the warning. The question is would the polititions have the balls to make the call in time? 



> The ZSU-23-4: the the AA godsend. Note that it's max effective, 2 clicks, makes it not the all capable beast as some make it. Many pilots I know that have flown against them have VERY little praise for it. Supposedly it's extremely inaccurate. Also, it is COMPLETELY vulnerable to, again for example, an AH-1 launching a TOW.


Again a fair comment, but you should consider that the Israeli AF who are no slouches, suffered very heavy losses at the hands of the ZSU 23-4 and SAM 6. It would be a brave AF commander who could promise that their AF could do better than the IAF in 1975.
In its day it was amongst the best of the mobile AA systems and 1975 was the day. Modern radar warning/decoy systems have the better of it but in 1975 these were the exception not the rule, plus of course they were nowhere near as effective.


> Also - that was the most generous comarison of soviet tanks to western equipment I've yet to see.



I admit that I have been expecting someone to say something about that before now. 
Its a complex subject but briefly the main advantages of the M48/M60 tanks had over the T55/T62 were the rangefinders. They were far more accurate and enabled accurate fire to be undertaken at longer ranges. This advantage was at its best in the open fields/desert environment but Europe isn't like that. 
The normal range would be 1500-2000 yards if your lucky. At this range the speed at which you could bring the gun onto the target is more important. The optical sights used in the M60/M48 and the ranging machine gun used in the Centurion take a long time and were often ignored. Certainly, crews of the British Centurions with the 105 and Chieftain were taught not to use the range finder at these ranges but to fire three shots as quickly as possible at three different trajectories. Such were the ballistics, one was a certain hit.
Its worth noting that the Israeli Army did a similar approach and their Centurions were not fitted with the Ranging Machine Gun.
The Soviet 100mm was able to penetrate the M48/M60 and M47 series tanks and the 115mm on the T62, almost anything, even the Chieftain at shorter ranges. The M48/M60 tanks were also a lot bigger than the T55/T62 with all the disadvantages that came with it.
Things improved when Laser Rangfinders started to be fitted in NATO tanks but again, these were the exception not the rule in 1975. I think I am right is saying that only the Chieftain had them as standard in 1975 but could be mistaken.
The T55/T62 did have other disadvantages but these were fairly small due to the way the WP deploy their tanks. However, It goes without saying that the WP had a huge numerical advantage in Tanks plus their troops were better equipped with AT weapons than most NATO armies, although that did vary a fair bit.


----------



## Glider (Sep 3, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Glider - Regarding the BMP-1 IFV, it was not the only armored vehicle fitted w/ powerful AT weaponry. Actually, it is not considered critical to arm an IFV with heavy AT capability. Their mission is not to slug it out with tanks. The US, for example, employs forces in a different matter that it isn't essential for an IFV to carry heavy AT wpns. The USMC doesn't even have an IFV; it's not essential and has MANY detractors.


I think you will find that in 1975 the BMP 1, was the only APC to have heavy AT weapons. 
You are of course correct in saying that it isn't essential and there are detractors including the British Army, but there are fans of this approach, including the current US Army. 
In 1975 the vast majority of NATO armies had the humble M113 with its single HMG with the exception of the German and French Armies.



> Glider you also forget to mention USN and USMC F-4s also. The whole of USN CAG's would not be holed up in protecting supply efforts.



I did, I must admit, forget the USMC air wings that would deploy to support the Marine troops on the ground. Any USN assets would I believe have stayed on the carriers unless there were any reserves. 
Knowing that everything depended on the reserves getting to Europe, I do not believe they would have removed fighters from the carriers. Thinking about it, they may have removed some of the strike aircraft but that would give the Russian Navy a chance to join in and I really don't see it.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 3, 2007)

Why are we talking about the T-80? Unless I'm wrong - it didn't enter service until the mid 80s!

Regarding the T-72s lack of armor - did not the Israeli Merkavas and M60s utterly destroyed T-72s in lebanon??? The engagements I believe were generally "close" ranges.

Do you have any source for the claim that WP troops were better equipped with AT weapons than NATO armies?


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 3, 2007)

Glider, don't forget that that some fierce tank battles were fought in the Golan heights, which offered limited visibility in many instances due to the nature of the terrain.

The IDF tanks performed well against the Syrian armor at night due to the superior gun sights and fire control systems.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 3, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Why are we talking about the T-80? Unless I'm wrong - it didn't enter service until the mid 80s!



It entered service in 1976.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 3, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It entered service in 1976.



What's your source? I'm not an expert on armor by any stretch. Some sources state initial production as 1978 for the basic T-80, which was also not nearly as capable or well protected as T-80B and later models. There were also supposedly not many of the T-80 built, with the majority of the upgraded T-80s developed and built in the 80s and on.

Wiki does claim that it was little more than a T-64 w/ a turbine... but you know wiki. All sources to seem to indicate it did not have the upgraded armor and other components.


----------



## Glider (Sep 3, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Why are we talking about the T-80? Unless I'm wrong - it didn't enter service until the mid 80s!


I haven't mentioned the T80 or T72 or T64, at all, anywhere. 



> Regarding the T-72s lack of armor - did not the Israeli Merkavas and M60s utterly destroyed T-72s in lebanon??? The engagements I believe were generally "close" ranges.


I haven't mentioned the T72 but if your asking me a question, The T72's do not lack armour. As you rightly said the engagements were at close ranges, if they hadn't been then the M60 at least would have been in trouble but saved by its (by then) superior rangfinders. 
In 1975 the tanks did not have the sophisticated rangefinders that existed in 1982.



> Do you have any source for the claim that WP troops were better equipped with AT weapons than NATO armies?



You can look it up yourself and as I have said, it depends on the country you are talking about, it varied a lot. For example in 1975

USA
The standard light infantry AT weapon was the M72 66mm LAW which was found wanting in Vietnam, having difficulty in destroying PT76's which is a light recce tank. A British marine described it to me as being almost better than nothing when up against armour, but it was good for busting bunkers.

The next level up was still the 90mm Rec rifle which was very obsolete and just about to be replaced with the Dragon AT missile.

For Heavy AT work the US Army had the TOW missile a first class weapon but at the time was only available on the back of a jeep or on an open mount on top of a M113. More advanced mountings came later.

Russia
The RPG7 was the standard light weapon and this had a good balance between portability and effectiveness. 
The WP countries had a good selection of AT missiles Sagger, Swatter, some of which are man portable, often carried in small armoured cars giving them mobility and protection 

UK
We had the M72 LAW as mentioned above. The next level up at platoon level was the Carl Gustav a Swedish AT weapon that was very effective and more powerful and longer ranged than the RPG 7. Above that was the Milan AT Missile at Battalion Level and above that was the Swingfire Missile normally on a FV438. This was one of the most powerful AT missiles of its time with a very long range.


----------



## Glider (Sep 3, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Glider, don't forget that that some fierce tank battles were fought in the Golan heights, which offered limited visibility in many instances due to the nature of the terrain.
> 
> The IDF tanks performed well against the Syrian armor at night due to the superior gun sights and fire control systems.



As mentioned earlier, in 1973 the IDF did not have better fire control. They did have better night vision, but not fire control there is a difference and at night, vision is everything.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 3, 2007)

I thought that the Egyptians and Arabs had better night vision. I must have gotten that backwards.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 3, 2007)

Glider - Granted, US forces were pioneering new weapons and capabilities and seemed to be searching for capable light/medium AT weapons, which culminated in AT-4 and the SMAW fielded in the 80s. However, TOWs were even able to be fired by infantry on a tripod mount. It was, and still is capable of wrecking any tank out to 3750m. Various German vehicles were also armed with TOWs and other heavy AT weapons.

Being as that is what formed the US main capability to bust armor (heavy AT), not the lighter weapons, I'm not sure why you classify US forces as wanting in terms of AT capability - unless you can show numbers to indicate a lack of TOWs and other weapons available to NATO forces.

I was actually thinking more along the lines of the weapon systems and their numbers available and distributed throughout the forces in 1975 rather than the assortment of different systems each had in service - since you said they were better "equipped."


----------



## The Basket (Sep 3, 2007)

From what I read...the Syrians had IR night vision in 73...and the Isrealis nothing! I think the Yom Kippor war answers most of the questions but misses one point...the Isrealis were better tankees than the Syrians. 

The MiG-21 flown by a competent pilot was certainly not cannon fodder. I would call it even against any Western fighter of the times. Man not the machine. The Soviets really needed the MiG-23 about now in big numbers. But they missed that one. 

Individual losses mean absolutely nothing to the Soviets so even if the kill ratio was poor then the Soviets can still win any battle of attrition. A NATO drive to Moscow is not on. British tanks on the Red Square!

Don't forget the weather. A nice winter war in awful weather to stop any NATO air technological advantage. And remember that the Soviets would choose to attack when NATO was at it weakest. Gulf War 1 would have been nice.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Sep 3, 2007)

I think what it all comes down to was speed of deployment; yes, there was a lot of hardware pre-positioned in Europe, but not enough. Not enough against the massive amounts of materiel the Warsaw Pact could throw against NATO. I had a friend in the US Army (TOW battalion, M-113's) in Germany in the mid-80's, and he said everybody just considered them to be a "speed-bump" when it came to a serious attack by the Warsaw Pact through the Fulda Gap. We would definitely slow them down, but the ultimate outcome was a given . . . Soviet/Warsaw Pact forces (in 1975) would probably have made it to the Atlantic coast, with some serious tactical bombing strikes against Britain and Spain, before the US could bring substantial forces to bear. In this situation, the carriers would have been the main line of defense (all of them), as they would have been the first serious offensive hardware to get to the theatre in a reasonable amount of time. Trying to fly M-60's and AH-1's on C-5's to Britain would've taken way too long. Look at Desert Shield: it took months, not weeks (or even days), to build up the forces in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia necessary to invade Iraq, a third-world country; Soviet forces would've been much tougher. By then, the war in Europe would've been over.

In any war, logistics has been the key; one of the main reasons we won WWII was our superior logistics. That would have been our one weak point in WWIII: the Soviets were already in-theatre, and we weren't.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 3, 2007)

I agree with SoD Stitch on this one.

Absolutely no way the WP could build up forces in total secrecy and then attack with total surprise.

The WP main objective would be conquest of mainland europe before the America can send reinforcements. Only a huge tank army fully ready can do this. And sticks out like a sore thumb.

Could WP invade UK to stop American forces reaching there?
Another BoB would have been needed. Also Soviet subs would have tried to sink as many supply ships as possible.


----------



## trap one (Sep 3, 2007)

Worst case senario was if the WP faked the yearly rotation of forces. IIRC it happen twice a year and was of great concern because both sides had great dumps of prepositioned equipment for Armies. If the rotation just brought the men in then the WP had an early start on the build up. The teroy being the first with the mostest will win.

Also UK had 3 bases of Hunters for A-A augmentation at that time these 4 gun fighters would stand up as point defence in the UK.

I feel that the point for SA7 23mm 37mm 57mm 85mm AA guns is being missed yes the pk is low but there were so very many of them.

F4G's and F105G's never exceeded 7 squadrons in the whole world at any one time. Yes USN/USMC had A6/A4 with Shrike/Standard but again the pot was only holding limited numbers. The point being only so many shooters with only so many missiles. Against so very many radars and guns being laid viually.

CV battle groups would have ben initially protecting convoys and only when battle of Atlantic won would they be able to be used againt WP.

F104 in A-A role great in interceptor. So-So as mass dogfighter. But a lot of F104's woulf have been dual tasked. So whilst in A-A they would not be available to support troops/strike deep.

Every senario ever played had multi areas of attack by WP. All of which would have dedicated reinforcements and all would be screaming for more.
So a list would be
North Norway
Baltic
Germany/France/Holland/Belgium
Austria (maybe)
Italy (from Balkans)
Greece (from Balkans/Romania)
Turkey (from Southern USSR/Romania/Bulgaria)
Med (from Lybia/Syria/Eygpt)
Pacific
Atlantic/UK (Initially fornd N Cape then through Baltic)
Finland/Sweden (Possibly over flight or through N territories to attack N Norway)


----------



## Glider (Sep 4, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Glider - Granted, US forces were pioneering new weapons and capabilities and seemed to be searching for capable light/medium AT weapons, which culminated in AT-4 and the SMAW fielded in the 80s. However, TOWs were even able to be fired by infantry on a tripod mount. It was, and still is capable of wrecking any tank out to 3750m. Various German vehicles were also armed with TOWs and other heavy AT weapons.
> 
> Being as that is what formed the US main capability to bust armor (heavy AT), not the lighter weapons, I'm not sure why you classify US forces as wanting in terms of AT capability - unless you can show numbers to indicate a lack of TOWs and other weapons available to NATO forces.


A small point but valid. I didn't classify the US Army as being wanting I just gave you the facts and you came to the right conclusion (well the one I believe).
The only effective AT weapon the US Army had in 1975 was the TOW and that was only mounted on very vulnerable mounts. A Jeep only carried around 4 rounds and the version mounted on the M113 made it a very big very lightly armoured target. The humble infantry man was basically on his own.
Most other countries had other weapons RPG7, Carl Gustav, Milan AT missiles Sagger missiles, and other weapons that were effective and man portable. Yes the TOW could be launched from a ground mounting, but you wouldn't want to try to carry it anywhere. 
Point of interest US Special Forces used the Carl Gustav.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 4, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> I think what it all comes down to was speed of deployment; yes, there was a lot of hardware pre-positioned in Europe, but not enough. Not enough against the massive amounts of materiel the Warsaw Pact could throw against NATO. I had a friend in the US Army (TOW battalion, M-113's) in Germany in the mid-80's, and he said everybody just considered them to be a "speed-bump" when it came to a serious attack by the Warsaw Pact through the Fulda Gap. We would definitely slow them down, but the ultimate outcome was a given . . . Soviet/Warsaw Pact forces (in 1975) would probably have made it to the Atlantic coast, with some serious tactical bombing strikes against Britain and Spain, before the US could bring substantial forces to bear. In this situation, the carriers would have been the main line of defense (all of them), as they would have been the first serious offensive hardware to get to the theatre in a reasonable amount of time. Trying to fly M-60's and AH-1's on C-5's to Britain would've taken way too long. Look at Desert Shield: it took months, not weeks (or even days), to build up the forces in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia necessary to invade Iraq, a third-world country; Soviet forces would've been much tougher. By then, the war in Europe would've been over.
> 
> In any war, logistics has been the key; one of the main reasons we won WWII was our superior logistics. That would have been our one weak point in WWIII: the Soviets were already in-theatre, and we weren't.




Agreed and that is one of the reasons for the large Reforger Training Exercises in Germany back in the 80s. You should have seen it, the whole damn country! All of Germany was a training field site.


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 6, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I know you stated in the thread that it was 1975 but I am going to include the whole 1970s because I think war was immenant throughout that whole time period.
> 
> Numerically the Soviets and her allies would have the advantage that is deffinatly true.
> 
> ...



I would agree with this. Despite all the numerical superiority of the Warsaw Pact the training and equipment of NATO would of triumphed (especially with the fact that the build up of the number of troops necessary would not of gone un-noticed by NATO and they would of countered prepared). With this I believe that they would eventually be able to hold the assault.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 6, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Agreed and that is one of the reasons for the large Reforger Training Exercises in Germany back in the 80s. You should have seen it, the whole damn country! All of Germany was a training field site.


I worked it it was amazing we get a 141 in every 20 minutes swap crews, fuel and go, destinations all over Germany ,Holland and Belgium . 130's galour Flights of 30- 40 Harriers at a time , F4's if it was in the inventory we got it. I was sent back twice TDY to Goose for Reforger . Even let us keep the all the messes and clubs open 24/7


----------



## timshatz (Sep 6, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> I would agree with this. Despite all the numerical superiority of the Warsaw Pact the training and equipment of NATO would of triumphed (especially with the fact that the build up of the number of troops necessary would not of gone un-noticed by NATO and they would of countered prepared). With this I believe that they would eventually be able to hold the assault.



Agree with the training aspect. Nato's was better. Agree also that it was practically impossible to do a buildup of that size without the West catching on to it. 

But I think the WP would've made it to the Rhine (especially in the north where the terrain tends to be flatter). This is not to say the battle would've been easy for the WP, but they would've made it. Not so in the south and middling parts of Germany. Much harder to move.

After making it to the Rhine in the north (and being held up 30-50 miles into West Germany), I tend to think a lull would've occured. Both sides would've shot off their ready weapons/ammuntion and a lull would've occured. 

How long this would've lasted is based on who can resupply effectively, fastest. WP gets it together first, the rest of Germany falls and maybe France and the Low Countries get invaded. Nato gets it done first and the counterattack out of the US sector (probably heading northeast) occurs.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 6, 2007)

Something to ponder regarding the post Vietnam war US Army........

There must have been more than a few officers, NCO's and Sargents who did have some time spent in Vietnam and had recent combat experience under their belts. The WP did not.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 6, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Something to ponder regarding the post Vietnam war US Army........
> 
> There must have been more than a few officers, NCO's and Sargents who did have some time spent in Vietnam and had recent combat experience under their belts. The WP did not.


The US military was sucking back and reloading after Viet Nam they had the best tools . They were not the professional military they have become without the draft


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 7, 2007)

timshatz said:


> But I think the WP would've made it to the Rhine (especially in the north where the terrain tends to be flatter). This is not to say the battle would've been easy for the WP, but they would've made it. Not so in the south and middling parts of Germany. Much harder to move.



I agree. I too believe this would have happened however I think at that point NATO would have started to beat the WP back after a short Lull which allowed NATO forces to regroup and reinforce.

You all should read the book by Tom Clancy, *Red Storm Rising*. Ofcourse it is fiction and the book can not be believed but it is a really good book about the Soviet Invasion and will get your brains ticking on this what if scenerio.


----------



## comiso90 (Sep 7, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You all should read the book by Tom Clancy, *Red Storm Rising*. Ofcourse it is fiction and the book can not be believed but it is a really good book about the Soviet Invasion and will get your brains ticking on this what if scenerio.



Yes! At first impression its easy to dismiss as "pop literature" but no freaking way. Mr. Clancy and research staff did their homework. Red Storm Rising is a great catalyst for thought.

Although this thread is about 1975 , not 1986. Big difference.

I've often heard that the moral of the American fighting man was at it's lowest just after Viet Nam ... does that mean that our nemesis’s moral was high?


----------



## timshatz (Sep 7, 2007)

There are several books about a WP invasion of West Germany. "Red Storm Rising" is one of them and it is pretty good. There is another one written by John Hackett, that covered it in a more analytical style. Called "The Third World War". Not a fun read but an interesting one at times. Written by a general, not by a writer. Here's a link:

Amazon.com: Third World War: The Untold Story: Books: John Hackett

He has it going nuclear (if memory serves me) after about two weeks.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 7, 2007)

I have that book by John Hackett.

It was actually a good read.


----------



## timshatz (Sep 7, 2007)

Good read yes, entertaining, not really. But if you want the military aspect without action (personalities), read this one. 

Personally, I like both but prefer Hackett's stuff. Unless I'm on a beach with a little drink with an Umbrella in it, then, Clancy has it all over him.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Sep 7, 2007)

timshatz said:


> Good read yes, entertaining, not really. But if you want the military aspect without action (personalities), read this one.
> 
> Personally, I like both but prefer Hackett's stuff. Unless I'm on a beach with a little drink with an Umbrella in it, then, Clancy has it all over him.



Yeah, I struggled through Hackett's book, also; however, I bought _Red Storm Rising_ the day it came out and finsihed it in 48 hours (I'm a slow reader). I'm a hardware junkie, so I enjoyed the technical details of battle, though I found one or two "mistakes".


----------



## Aussie1001 (Sep 8, 2007)

What about Nukes has anyone considered this. If i recall correctly Russia did have the most nukes...... What about ICBM's these would have played a huge even primary role. In the event of an actual war i would rate everything other than ICBM's of secondary importance the real war would be who could get more nukes off at the other.....
1 nuke could liquidate a massive soviet tank formation and at the same time easily knock off the hardened air shelter that aircraft relied on to keep them safe...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 8, 2007)

Both sides had eneough nukes to destroy the world 100 times over.

Russia had the most nuclear bombs while the United States had the most ICBMs.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 8, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Both sides had eneough nukes to destroy the world 100 times over.
> 
> Russia had the most nuclear bombs while the United States had the most ICBMs.



I saw something the other day regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis. Although over a decade before our scenario, it is now believed that in the early 60s the US had roughly a 10 to 1 superiority in ICBMs.

I am not sure what estimates are for nuclear parity in 1975, however.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 8, 2007)

I dont think it changed that much a decade later.

It seams that the Soviets wanted more to rely on large bomber formations with nuclear bombs while the US was more prepared to use ICBMs.

Lets not kid ourselves though, the USSR had eneogh ICMBs to destroy the world a good times over as well.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Sep 10, 2007)

Aussie1001 said:


> What about Nukes has anyone considered this. If i recall correctly Russia did have the most nukes...... What about ICBM's these would have played a huge even primary role. In the event of an actual war i would rate everything other than ICBM's of secondary importance the real war would be who could get more nukes off at the other.....
> 1 nuke could liquidate a massive soviet tank formation and at the same time easily knock off the hardened air shelter that aircraft relied on to keep them safe...



Actually, I seriously doubt we would've used ICBM's, they're more of a deterent (or should be) than a useful weapon. I think what you meant to say was IRBM (Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missle), like the old Pershing IA and Honest John tactical missles. All of the ICBM's we had at that time were already aimed at fixed targets, like Army bases and Air Force bases; it would have been extremely difficult to re-target the second-generation ICBM's we had back then which had analog systems (like the Minuteman II's III's) for tactical targets, like a tank formation, whereas IRBM's were designed for just such a scenario.


----------



## timshatz (Sep 10, 2007)

I remember reading some time ago (had to be 20 years) that many of the wargames in the Mid to Late 70s had the thing going nuclear. The first shots were tac nukes used by the west to stop Soviet Armor formations. After that, it got kinda "iffy" (if the Soviets respond, if they go after the US, if the tac nukes are effective, ect, ect). 

Most of them ended up with a general exchange of weapons. I think the theory was, from the Soviets side, in for penny, in for a pound and they start throwing the big stuff around fairly soon, two to three weeks into it. The response was immediate and premeditated. Like switching on a machine (or similar to the way the First World War got started with everyone thinking they were the victim).

All of it came down to the West not being able to stop the land forces of the WP with Conventional weapons.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Sep 10, 2007)

timshatz said:


> I remember reading some time ago (had to be 20 years) that many of the wargames in the Mid to Late 70s had the thing going nuclear. The first shots were tac nukes used by the west to stop Soviet Armor formations. After that, it got kinda "iffy" (if the Soviets respond, if they go after the US, if the tac nukes are effective, ect, ect).
> 
> Most of them ended up with a general exchange of weapons. I think the theory was, from the Soviets side, in for penny, in for a pound and they start throwing the big stuff around fairly soon, two to three weeks into it. The response was immediate and premeditated. Like switching on a machine (or similar to the way the First World War got started with everyone thinking they were the victim).
> 
> All of it came down to the West not being able to stop the land forces of the WP with Conventional weapons.



You're right; generally speaking, once you start tossing nukes around, even tactical nukes, there's usually no stopping the escalation. It'll get outta hand in hurry . . .


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 10, 2007)

Anyone here remember when the neutron bomb was going to be deployed and the Soviets called it the ultimate capitalist weapon..... "It kills people and leaves property intact"


----------



## timshatz (Sep 10, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Anyone here remember when the neutron bomb was going to be deployed and the Soviets called it the ultimate capitalist weapon..... "It kills people and leaves property intact"



When you think about it, they're probably right. I mean, it costs you 200 million to make the bomb, (just guessing here) including development cost. Drop the sucker and you get a several tens of billion dollar city with only moderate blast damage and no people. 

Pretty good ROI (Return on Investment). I'm suprised the bunch over at Goldman Sachs hasn't made one and dropped it in Manhattan!


----------



## SoD Stitch (Sep 10, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Anyone here remember when the neutron bomb was going to be deployed and the Soviets called it the ultimate capitalist weapon..... "It kills people and leaves property intact"



Yeah, I remember that; it was a Reagan weapon. I think they were talking about an IOC of '85 or so.


----------



## rogthedodge (Sep 12, 2007)

Don't forget both UK and France both had (and still have) independent ICBM nuclear weapons. 

Agree with the escalation scenario above but NATO could have gone tactical nuke in a matter of days - 1 week from the start of hostilities.

UK's ICBMs were intended to be fired after the Soviets launched theirs but the UK as well as France would have had a 'line in the sand' beyond which any Soviet incursion would have to be answered.

It was unstated European policy that the US wouldn't be able to stay out of a European war (still is!).


----------



## timshatz (Sep 12, 2007)

Good point about the French. They are smart enough to know the Comrades weren't going to stop at the Rhine. Hop, skip and a jump and they're in Paris. After two world wars on their turf, I would think they would want to fight this one "forward", aka, German Territory. That goes for tac nukes especially.

But, being the French, they'll probably argue about it until the Tangos are rolling up the Champs d'Elysee.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Sep 14, 2007)

so wadda you think would all the tank formations and aircraft meant anything ? or would armageddon happen.....


----------



## timshatz (Sep 14, 2007)

Aussie1001 said:


> so wadda you think would all the tank formations and aircraft meant anything ? or would armageddon happen.....



After Nato shoots it's bolt and the Soviets are still coming...it's mushroom time.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Sep 14, 2007)

timshatz said:


> After Nato shoots it's bolt and the Soviets are still coming...it's mushroom time.



Hard to say . . . I could see the US holding back on pulling the nuclear trigger and just letting Soviet forces have Europe in order to avoid having the US nuked. It's hard to believe the US would've sacrificed themselves just to try save Europe; as soon as we would've launched a tactical nuke, things would've escalated pretty quickly after that to the strategic level. It would've been a form of nuclear suicide for the US to initiate a tactical nuclear attack in Europe.


----------



## timshatz (Sep 14, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> Hard to say . . . I could see the US holding back on pulling the nuclear trigger and just letting Soviet forces have Europe in order to avoid having the US nuked. It's hard to believe the US would've sacrificed themselves just to try save Europe; as soon as we would've launched a tactical nuke, things would've escalated pretty quickly after that to the strategic level. It would've been a form of nuclear suicide for the US to initiate a tactical nuclear attack in Europe.



That is actually a pretty good line of reason. Hadn't heard the arguement of the US using nukes in NW Europe countered in such a way. Always heard it would go nuclear after Nato was worn down.

Good arguement, good thought. 

Good post.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 14, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> Hard to say . . . I could see the US holding back on pulling the nuclear trigger and just letting Soviet forces have Europe in order to avoid having the US nuked. It's hard to believe the US would've sacrificed themselves just to try save Europe; as soon as we would've launched a tactical nuke, things would've escalated pretty quickly after that to the strategic level. It would've been a form of nuclear suicide for the US to initiate a tactical nuclear attack in Europe.



I serously doubt the US would have stood aside.

We were a founding member of NATO and would have honored our treaty. Also allowing Europe to fall under the Iron Curtian would have had lasting effects on the US due to trade and economic issues and possibly later military issues.


----------



## comiso90 (Sep 14, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I serously doubt the US would have stood aside.
> 
> We were a founding member of NATO and would have honored our treaty. Also allowing Europe to fall under the Iron Curtian would have had lasting effects on the US due to trade and economic issues and possibly later military issues.



I agree. The decision to "commit nuclear suicide", was made the moment we signed the treaty.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Sep 14, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I serously doubt the US would have stood aside.
> 
> We were a founding member of NATO and would have honored our treaty. Also allowing Europe to fall under the Iron Curtian would have had lasting effects on the US due to trade and economic issues and possibly later military issues.



Yes, we were; but I still think our National Command Authority would've chosen self-preservation over honor and commitment. Who do you think our Commander In Chief is? First foremost, he is a politician; politicians don't commit suicide when they can sacrifice something else (like all of Europe) to save their skin.

If it's a choice between death honor, or learning to live with an enemy just on the other side of the Atlantic, I think they would chose the latter.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 14, 2007)

I dont think so...


----------



## timshatz (Sep 14, 2007)

Tough call. I see his point. Think about it if Carter had been in Presidency. Figure the Soviets do a major league propaganda run at him before sending the tanks across the boarder. He saw himself as so much of a peacemaker that he might bite. He couldn't make a decision to save his life.

I could see Carter going belly up.


----------



## rogthedodge (Sep 15, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> Hard to say . . . I could see the US holding back on pulling the nuclear trigger and just letting Soviet forces have Europe in order to avoid having the US nuked. It's hard to believe the US would've sacrificed themselves just to try save Europe; as soon as we would've launched a tactical nuke, things would've escalated pretty quickly after that to the strategic level. It would've been a form of nuclear suicide for the US to initiate a tactical nuclear attack in Europe.



Again I think you're over-looking European nuclear capability (beyond the dual-key weapons)

Let's say Russia piles across the border, NATO forces delay them for 2/3 days but don't stop them. France has little choice but to commit its tactical nuclear weapons at their 'line in the sand' - let's say the Rhine. It's conceiveable the UK would too.

If the Russians don't stop and their 3/4 wave passes the Rhine, or respond swith a deep nuclear strike into the NATO back lines France would launch it's ICBM's. Likely the UK too.

Even if the UK holds off 'til the last moment to use ours are the Russians going to leave their missiles on the ground waiting for the French strike? Doubt it - they'd launch and are likely to launch all their missiles - at which point the US has to launch.

UK/France combined have (and had) enough nuke capability to make global nuclear conflict certain devastating. The US had (and has) little choice when it gets to that stage. 

Until SDI / ABM systems are 100% reliable the US could not stay out of such a conflict


----------



## timshatz (Sep 17, 2007)

I see both sides of the arguement. It is a very tough call. 

For a long time, I went on the accepted idea that a WP move in Western Europe ended in a general nuclear exchange. But I think Stitch's idea has merit. Especially considering the political climate of the mid to late 70s. MAD was a generally accepted proposition and nobody wanted to be nuked out of existence. 

On the other hand, once France initiated a general nuclear release, the US and England keeping out of it becomes irrelevant. It is doubtfull the WP would see such an act as an isolated event by one nation. General policy for WP would've been an attack by one of the NATO nations would've been considered an attack by all the nations. So France initiating the exchange might've brought about a full scale nuclear exchange. 

This is tricky.


----------



## Haztoys (Sep 17, 2007)

I would think ..Europe would have anuff nukes at that time to make a mess of the USSR.. ? 

What did Europe have nuke wise at that point in time ...?


----------



## rogthedodge (Sep 17, 2007)

from wiki:

France

_A land-based component was added in August 1971 with the commissionning of the 18-silo IRBM launch site at Plateau d'Albion in the Vaucluse region. Later, the land element was augmented with the mobile short-range Pluton and Hadès missiles, designed to be launched from the front lines at approaching Soviet armies. Since it was deemed that a full-scale Soviet invasion of Europe was unlikely to be stopped by conventional forces, these weapons were meant as a "final warning" (ultime avertissement) which would tell the enemy that further advance would trigger a full-scale nuclear attack on its main cities. The Pluton, introduced in 1974, was retired in 1993 and its successor, the Hadès, was produced in limited numbers in the 1990s and placed in storage in 1995 (the last missile was dismantled on June 23, 1997). The Albion site, approaching obsolescence and deemed no longer relevant following the fall of the Soviet Union, was shut down in 1999.

The sea-based component of the triad entered service in December 1971 with the commissioning of Le Redoutable, France's first ballistic missile submarine. Since then, the sea-based deterrent has expanded to a force of four submarines, at least two of which are on patrol at any time_

UK

_The Resolution class submarines were the first British strategic ballistic missile submarines, carrying the Polaris missile. They were first commissioned in the 1960s and decommissioned in the 1990s.

Five boats were planned but only four were completed (Ramillies was to have been the fifth vessel). Traditional battleship names were used, signifying that they were the capital ships of the time.

Vickers Armstrong in Barrow-in-Furness constructed Resolution and Repulse and Cammell Laird in Birkenhead constructed Renown and Revenge. The construction was unusual in that the bow and stern were constructed separately before being assembled together with the American-designed missile compartment.

The design was a modification of the Valiant Class Fleet Submarine, but greatly extended to incorporate the missile compartment between the fin and the nuclear reactor. The length was 130 metres, breadth 10.1 metres, height 9 metres and the displacement 8,400 tons submerged and 7,600 tons surfaced. A Rolls-Royce pressurised water reactor and English Electric turbines gave them a speed of 25 knots and they could dive to depths of 275 m. Sixteen Polaris A3 missiles were carried, in two rows of eight. For emergencies there was a diesel generator and six 21 inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes located at the bow, firing the Tigerfish wire-guided homing torpedoes. The submarines put to sea with a crew of 143.

The first to be completed was HMS Resolution, laid down in February 1964 and launched in September 1966. After commissioning in 1967 she underwent a long period of sea trials culminating in the test firing of a Polaris missile. Fired from the USAF Eastern Test Range off Cape Kennedy at 11:15 on February 15, 1968. Resolution commenced her first operational patrol on June 15, 1968, beginning 28 years of Polaris patrols. The class were part of the 10th Submarine Squadron, all based at Faslane Naval Base, Scotland._

IE more than enough to attack Russia ensure a full-launch response


----------

