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.
1975 NATO vs. Warsaw Pact
- Thread starter comiso90
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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
Captain
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.
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.
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.
I left it out because the small number of lightnings are almost insignificant compared to the size of the forces we are talking about.
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.
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.
WP countries had better AT weapons, APC's and air defence. The actual light arms I agree, were about the same.
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 German defences were the best in NATO but NATO is a lot bigger than Germany.
Agreed
Glider 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.
Glider said:
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:
Not when they are augmenting a larger force.
Glidier said:
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:
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:
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:
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:
And once radar is gone...
Thats is where NATO would get the advantage.
Glider said:
And the battlefield has been proven would have been Germany. That is why it is significant.
Glider
Captain
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.
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
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.
They wouldn't be argumenting anyone as they had their own corner to fight
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.
No, the systems I mentioned are within the Army structure and deployed as such in the field
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.
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.
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.
Yes you are correct, I just looked that. The German F-4s were not converted until the early 1980s.
I am sure that these countries modified there aircraft.
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.
Not sold on that either. It would have been a priority to take out those targets.
Later with better supression systems the kill ability dropped to about 5 to 10 percent with the SA-7.
I will concede though that the best chance the Russians had was in the 1970s. An interesting what if scenerio needless to say.
Yes you are correct, I just looked that. The German F-4s were not converted until the early 1980s.
Gliderr said:
I am sure that these countries modified there aircraft.
Glider said:
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:
Not sold on that either. It would have been a priority to take out those targets.
Glider said:
Later with better supression systems the kill ability dropped to about 5 to 10 percent with the SA-7.
Glider
Captain
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
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...
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.
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
Senior Master Sergeant
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.
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.
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
1st Lieutenant
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
Senior Master Sergeant
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #33
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
Captain
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?
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.
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
Captain
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.
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
Senior Master Sergeant
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?
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
Pacific Historian
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.
The IDF tanks performed well against the Syrian armor at night due to the superior gun sights and fire control systems.
It entered service in 1976.
mkloby
Senior Master Sergeant
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
Captain
I haven't mentioned the T80 or T72 or T64, at all, anywhere.
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.
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.
