Glider
Captain
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.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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).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 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.
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 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 24/7Agreed 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 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.
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 draftSomething 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.
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.
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.
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.