.com.unity Forums
  The Official e-Store of Shrapnel Games

This Month's Specials

Air Assault Task Force- Save $8.00
Air Command 3.0- Save $12.00

   







Go Back   .com.unity Forums > The Camo Workshop > WinSPMBT > Campaigns, Scenarios & Maps
Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 29th, 2020, 07:42 AM
Oche's Avatar

Oche Oche is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 241
Thanks: 395
Thanked 274 Times in 102 Posts
Oche is on a distinguished road
Default WW3 NATO vs WARPAC: What would have happened?

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO-...dex=85&t=3008s
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Oche For This Useful Post:
  #2  
Old February 29th, 2020, 10:12 AM
zovs66's Avatar

zovs66 zovs66 is offline
Second Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 512
Thanks: 503
Thanked 370 Times in 184 Posts
zovs66 is on a distinguished road
Default 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!
__________________
ASL
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to zovs66 For This Useful Post:
  #3  
Old February 29th, 2020, 12:29 PM

retiredgysgt retiredgysgt is offline
Corporal
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 81
Thanks: 1
Thanked 13 Times in 9 Posts
retiredgysgt is on a distinguished road
Default Re: WW3 NATO vs WARPAC: What would have happened?

I play early 80's US vs Soviets as the M1 is a game changer )
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old February 29th, 2020, 01:03 PM
DRG's Avatar

DRG DRG is offline
Shrapnel Fanatic
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: GWN
Posts: 10,180
Thanks: 2,187
Thanked 3,363 Times in 1,673 Posts
DRG will become famous soon enough
Default 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
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old February 29th, 2020, 01:21 PM

retiredgysgt retiredgysgt is offline
Corporal
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 81
Thanks: 1
Thanked 13 Times in 9 Posts
retiredgysgt is on a distinguished road
Default Re: WW3 NATO vs WARPAC: What would have happened?

Well I like to fight Somalia with 1st world nations soooo......
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old February 29th, 2020, 09:36 PM
Suhiir's Avatar

Suhiir Suhiir is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 2,464
Thanks: 357
Thanked 595 Times in 456 Posts
Suhiir is on a distinguished road
Default Re: WW3 NATO vs WARPAC: What would have happened?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oche View Post
Had to share this what if video, hope you enjoy it (i did ).
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.
__________________
Suhiir - Wargame Junkie

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Suhiir For This Useful Post:
  #7  
Old March 1st, 2020, 02:25 AM
FASTBOAT TOUGH's Avatar

FASTBOAT TOUGH FASTBOAT TOUGH is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Kingsland, GA.
Posts: 2,035
Thanks: 444
Thanked 831 Times in 607 Posts
FASTBOAT TOUGH is on a distinguished road
Fallout 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
__________________
"If something is not impossible, there must be a way of doing it." - Sir Nicholas Winton

"Ex communi periculo, fraternitas" - My career long mentor and current friend -QMCM/SS M. Moher USN Ret..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to FASTBOAT TOUGH For This Useful Post:
  #8  
Old March 1st, 2020, 04:58 AM
Mobhack's Avatar

Mobhack Mobhack is offline
National Security Advisor
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dundee
Posts: 5,429
Thanks: 130
Thanked 1,369 Times in 940 Posts
Mobhack is on a distinguished road
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old March 1st, 2020, 01:08 PM
Suhiir's Avatar

Suhiir Suhiir is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 2,464
Thanks: 357
Thanked 595 Times in 456 Posts
Suhiir is on a distinguished road
Default Re: WW3 NATO vs WARPAC: What would have happened?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mobhack View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Suhiir - Wargame Junkie

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2020, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.