WW3 NATO vs WARPAC: What would have happened?
 

Had to share this what if video, hope you enjoy it (i did :up:). Hope this fuels brainstorming for us scenario designers :fire:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO-...dex=85&t=3008s

Re: WW3 NATO vs WARPAC: What would have happened?
 

I have a bunch of 70s-90s Warsaw PAC vs. NATO, I plan on creating in 2020.

Thanks for the video!

Re: WW3 NATO vs WARPAC: What would have happened?
 

I play early 80's US vs Soviets as the M1 is a game changer )

Re: WW3 NATO vs WARPAC: What would have happened?
 

....and playing just before the M1 is a game-changer too...it just depends on how hard you want to work to win

Re: WW3 NATO vs WARPAC: What would have happened?
 

Well I like to fight Somalia with 1st world nations soooo......

Re: WW3 NATO vs WARPAC: What would have happened?
 

I really have to wonder how long the Soviets could maintain air superiority or parity. While their defenses would severely limit deep strikes I think their front lines would get hammered after the first week or so. It doesn't take that long to rebase aircraft and even with most NATO airfields severely damaged there are LOTS of civilian ones that I think we can safely assume the military would seize for the duration. While they wouldn't have pre-existing stockpiles of munitions they could probably be resupplied pretty much day-by-day, not optimal, but doable.

Interesting that virtually every "what if" I've ever seen assumes an initial successful a Soviet surprise attack.

Re: WW3 NATO vs WARPAC: What would have happened?
 

Several years back I posted many relevant declassified documents concerning a "Hot" Cold War. They actually might be in this thread. Below are some "big picture" and references to the more "tactical" issues. I feel it's important to understand the "big picture" to set the odds if you will. What we can't apply are the misconceptions that both sides had, i.e. from those earlier documents I posted was an assessment that the Russians didn't advance because of our technical advantage (Some cite this below.) specifically with our ATGW primarily the DRAGON and early TOW (To a lesser degree.) they thought the use of them combined with existing armor would've have adversely affected their advance and slowed it long enough for reinforcements to arrive from the U.S. etc.

Thankfully the Russians never found out how poorly, especially the DRAGON performed when firing across water etc. which we did know about and why TOW was rushed into service.

Of course there are many others factors such as we could track their SSBN's but at that time ours were much quieter. Three things are generally accepted into what brought the end of the Cold War
1. Massive spending on our part for defense.
2. "Star Wars" anti missile system (Reality was this would end up being a perception/propaganda issue as we were years away form getting it when the wall came down.) which was cancelled at the end of the Cold War.
3. The TRIDENT submarine which they could never track and could hit anywhere in Russia.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/d...138256.htm#top
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...aw-pact-forces
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...aw-pact-forces
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/su...nd-oppression/
http://www.kentstateuniversitypress....e-warsaw-pact/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kONMKmWQyE8
(Assuming war in 1989.)
http://insidethecoldwar.org/sites/de...ons—1982.pdf
(1982 Force levels and analysis.)
https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/2074...orched-europe/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...45.2014.950250

There's so much out here now then even a few years back-amazing.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: WW3 NATO vs WARPAC: What would have happened?
 

BAOR had about 3-4 days ammo supply fighting at full throttle, other NATO armies likely were similar.

So about day 4 or 5 is likely when the buckets of "instant sunshine" would be chucked, assuming the war being conventional only up to that point.

However the WARPAC doctrine was to nuke and slime from the get-go, so similar would be chucked backwards in all probability in that situation. Highly unlikely they would have tried a conventional-only assault. Not impossible but improbable.

Both sides knew the nuclear and chemical score. Which is undoubtably why MAD worked - fortunately for everyone.

Re: WW3 NATO vs WARPAC: What would have happened?
 

This is my take as well.
Both sides knew that it wouldn't stay conventional and neither wanted to suffer the consequences of total (i.e. nuclear) war.