Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I dont believe so. There were so many stock piles in Germany and Western Europe there should not have been any problem.
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.
Again they wouldn't have been any help in 19752. 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.
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]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.
As you mention in 1975 these wouldn't have helped4. 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.
There is no doubt that the AH-1 would be very effective but there are two problems5. AH-1 Cobra
Would have proven a great ground support aircraft and combined with tow missles would have helped desimate the Soviet Tank Divisions.
Totally agree6. 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.
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.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).
True but the WP with extra numbers, being on the offence and control of the air would have limited the impact of the technical advantages8. 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.
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.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.
Agreed but only if NATO started to lose.All in all it would not have mattered, this war would have most likely turned Nuclear anyhow.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Clearly in 1975 the fact that they were being testeed wouldn't ahve been any help at all
Glider said:Again they wouldn't have been any help in 1975
Glider said:As you mention in 1975 these wouldn't have helped
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 control6. 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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
Glider said:Quality of Equipment
On land the Soviets had a number of advantages over NATO.
Infantry
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
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.
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 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.