1975 NATO vs. Warsaw Pact

[Glider]

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]

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

 

[mkloby]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I have that book by John Hackett.

It was actually a good read.

 

[timshatz]

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]

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".