Could the Warsaw Pact have beaten NATO?

[av8rmongo]

Tim raises an interesting point. Table-top gaming can't capture the spirit of the men we try to model. Even in this discussion most of the focus is on the hardware or doctrinal changes during this period. There islittle discussion of the internal turmoil going within the national armies. Given the new equipment and new doctrine could the American army of the 60's 70's or 80's have lived up to the task. Given the racial tensions, drug use or whateverhow "Fit" were they. Note: I don't know enough about how these things affected the US Army units in Europe but there were serious issues elsewhere so I would imagine Europe was not immune.

Paul

(edited for spelling)

[voltigeur]

voltigeur;

Did NATO in the wargames you mention ever win? If so how?

I did win playing the Americans and West Germans for both the late 70's and 80's. Obviously was easier to do under Airland Battle and having M1's and Bradleys. Tactics were the same so I'll recount the M60/M113 situation because it is the most challenging.

Keep in mind that NATO will usually be forced off the table by shear weight of numbers. The key for the NATO player is to force to Soviets to deploy early slowing thier advance to a crawl and get off the table with your command intact and able to do it again.

First I would look for hull down and defilade positions to defend from. I would set my battle plan exactly like the military spells out. For each platoon find a primary position to defend from, About 500 to 750 Meters back and left or right I would find and Alternate position. Not as good as the primary but would give me the same fileds of fire and observation as the Primary. Then a supplementary position for defense if anything went wrong. The biggest mistake NATO players make is that they don't make sure they have covered routes to redeploy on. No matter how perfect a posiion is, Don't use it if you can't drive out of it under cover.

I would find 2 sets of these for each of my 3 platoons. The key was to not get in a position where none of my platoons could engage on any turn. (That turns the game into a route. Unless the Russian player is a whimp ) Naturally a tank heavy task force is easier to play, than an Infantry one. But the tactics are the same. You use Infantry heavy teams where you have a very high concentration of built up areas and woods. Tank heavy in more open terrain where the fields of fire can be exploited. You want to engage with M60's about 1500 meters out for T62's. The infantry can only reach out 1000 meters with thier dragons and the M150 tow support can reach out 3000.

Under the rules I use a tank unit can only go 750 meters cross country in one turn. The first turn the M60's choose to fire twice and not move. That will stop one company dead in its tracks. The second turn choose fire and move.

When the first platoon (or 2 platoons) continue to redeploy on turn 3 the 3rd platoon should be able to fire. This was usually with missles from the infantry platoon so only one round would be issued. I would also fire the TOW support at this time aiming for any command tanks or IFV's I could get to.

By this point 2 companies should be in morale trouble. The 3rd company should still be too far away to shoot up the mech infantry platoon so the tanks can set up and cover the M113's

Repeat this again and the Soviet battalion will stop. Retreat off the table to keep from being destroyed by the second echelon.

The only time I was able to stay on the table with a Soviet force in this time period was on a 6X14 table. On my 5x5 I always had to retreat to not have my command destroyed.

Will edit for spelling when I get home.

[WHM]

voltigeur;

Very interesting that actual tank platoon tactics from the FM work on the tabletop.

Another question, when teaching tactics in USA/USMC did this include miniatures playing? If so just how big were the games, 1 to 1? Not sure by your previuos post if you were talking about games in the military or as a hobbyist.

I remeber Dunn-Kempf but also a article in ARMOR where miniatures were used as a wargame to teach tactics. I tried to do us and a couple of others, but frankly I don't think it went over well. You know the "playing with toy soldiers" thing. Though to be fair I think there has to be a technique to do it right.

Hell, we tried.

[CA-68]

I think a good point was raised earlier, and it hasnt been explored much...what if the Soviets did not launch the offensive, rather, what if NATO did? Real life (and certainly wargaming) prefers a prepared defense, and SAMs, AAA, and AT missiles are all defensive weapons...who has more SAMs and AA than the Soviets did? And before the "effectiveness" of Soviet made SAMs comes into question, lets look at the current war in Iraq, where barely literate fundamentalists are downing our helicopters with RPGs and small arms fire, neither of which was ever intended to destroy aircraft. It may not take western air power out of the fight, but it makes it a much more expensive (in terms of money and lives) proposition.

Could NATO still win? We would face the same problems as the Soviets would if they launched an offensive....resupply, replacement of lost men and machines, morale...
I think that might just be a big part of why neither side ever tried it. The attacker would almost certainly lose...Vietnam and Afghanistan proved this point to both sides.
Even today, in Iraq and Chechnya respectively, we are both still learning that an offensive can be costly at best, and disastrous at worst.

I think that in the 80s the advantage definately shifted to the west, before that, in the 70s, advantage W.P. But overall, i think we were much more closely matched than most would admit.

Today, Russia's economy is steadily improving, every year they are able to add more to their military budget, and older units are being replaced with much more advanced equipment and designs, like the T-90 (a tank i honestly believe is second only to Leo2, Challenger 2, and the newest M1A2s...and it isnt very far behind us) The replacement, albeit slow, IS happening. Instead of our M1s and Bradleys facing a horde of T62s and 72s, what if they faced instead T-80s, T-90s, and the newest IFVs, like BMP3?

Much as we learned from past lessons in Vietnam, or even now in Iraq, i am sure the Russian leaders have learned from their mistakes. I honestly wonder if the Cold War could warm up again? Maybe not against Russia...but China? or perhaps a not-yet formed alliance of middle-eastern nations?

Just like we kept the WP in check, maybe they were keeping us in check as well?

[Timothy OConnor]

Just like we kept the WP in check, maybe they were keeping us in check as well?

I think that's precisely what's happening in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan. At this point we're fighting a proxy war against certain nations that benefit from our being tied down in Iraq. We did the same to the Soviets in Afghanistan and it's obvious we weren't trying to defend the "freedom" and security of the Afghan people in doing so. After the Soviets withdrew so did we leaving the civilians to the tender mercies of brutal drug warlords (victors of the subsequent civil war) and later the Taliban who displaced the warlords (you know your in a bad situation when the tyranny of the Taliban is a better alternative.)

A good point brought up earlier is one of running costs and the cost of some AKs and RPGs vs an Apache. Compared to our costs the Iraqi insurgency is a relative bargin for our enemies. Besides which our costs are being covered through ruinous borrowing which adds interest on top. Also, the wounded insurgents will never receive the same level of care our veterans do which will extend the costs of the conflict for decades.

At some point war simply becomes too expensive to sustain. This has happened in the past with changes in military doctrine and technology. For example, the late renaissance and the mid-eighteenth century both saw the cost of war skyrocket, especially for certain types of troops and armies.

In other periods mass conscription and the interaction of technology and military doctrine made war less expensive (but never cheap). In Iraq, unless the US changes its deployment policy thousands of troops must be brought home in 2008 or else politicians face the prospect of extending deployments or drafting troops to meet requirements.

Methods of financing war and that burden relative to the size of an economy can also inhibit the outbreak of war or make it more attractive (eg when those costs are deferred or levied against a subjectated population...which often leads to future wars as with the Seven Years War and the subsequent American Revolution.)

So rather than focusing on T-80s vs M1s or Bradleys vs BMP-3s, maybe the most imporant issue for this question is this: what would either side gain in a war in Europe and at what cost? And given the nature of modern war, in what condition would those gains exist after the conflict? Might one simply be the proud new owner of a devastated economy, millions of refugees, disease, and famine?

Perhaps this is why most post-war conflicts have been limited to proxy fights with very limited objectives. Heck, in the mid-eighteenth century generals only offered battle when they felt confident of victory or were trapped into fighting because they knew the costs of both winning and losing were terrible.

And even though the late 18th and 19th century saw larger mass consciption armies the cost of war was still not lost on leaders. As Wellington said, "Next to a battle lost, the greatest misery is a battle gained."

Tim

[CA-68]

I never thought of it in financial terms from a political point of view...thats a very very good point. In the late 70s/early 80s, the Soviet economy was declining rapidly...and so was ours. Oil shortages and inflation would have made the prospect of war for either side at that time, very unattractive indeed!

Someone mentioned earlier the "fantasy scenario" of a Soviet invasion of the Middle East. This would have made a lot more sense. While the Soviets are able to get much of their own oil from Siberia, if they could have captured the middle east they could have controlled the primary oil supply for their enemies...namely, NATO.

I have often wondered how the government of any nation can fund a military, especially one the size of ours or the Soviet Union's...wasnt that one of the big reasons the USSR failed, the cost of maintaining their military had gone beyond their ability to pay them?

If i sit and think logically for a moment, there isnt much in the former W.P. we would have desired economically. Possibly a desire to "liberate" Poland or Hungary, who were only ever half hearted members of the W.P. to begin with, but this could hardly be considered an "economic incentive".The USSR showed how it would rapidly (and violently) quelch any uprisings in these countries. But we were in no hurry to help in this regard (Very likely due to a desire to avoid a large shooting war with the USSR) But, what if the Poles (or Hungarians, Ukranians, whomever) decided to fully commit to such a
course....militarily, politically. Poles (or Hungarians, East Germans...whomever!) vs Soviets circa 1978 could make for some interesting wargaming. At this stage, would NATO get involved? Or would we "quietly" support the attempts of the rebelling nation? (East Germans supplied with Stingers....)

I dont know that the Soviets would have gained economically by invading western Europe. Any gain they would have made would be offset or overshadowed by the cost of such an opertation, and then protecting their new assets ( i doubt we would just let them "have" West Germany)

What if they chose another target...Norway perhaps? A nation rich in resources, a nation from which the Soviet navy could operate, just that much closer to their Western adversaries. Could we repel a soviet invasion like this? What if it was in February?

But the middle east....yeah, i could see that being a tempting target, as kilroy mentioned.
Turkey into Iraq, Kuwait, and down into Saudi Arabia, we would not have been in a good position to oppose them (Turkey has long been a dumping ground for cast-off NATO equipment...not quite first rate stuff in their inventory) Nothing against the Turks, but i doubt they would have stopped a large scale Soviet advance.

In a manuver such as this, who would have opposed them? Iraq? Kuwait? Unlikely. Israel? What if the Soviet advance simply passed them by? (Getting bogged down fighting the Israelis during an offensive like this would be a deeply stupid move on the part of the USSR)

Looks like this might be a great variation on the dead-horse Fulda Gap, as far as gaming is concerned, if nothing else? Israelis vs Soviets? Turks vs Soviets? What would the NATO response have been? Perhaps a NATO offensive launched from Tunisia, supported by naval elements in the Med and Persian Gulf? Hrmm...maybe Israel is a must take for the Soviets, to prevent US forces using it as a staging area?

The hypothetical scenario that kilroy mentioned looks....wow...frighteningly logical? does anyone know if NATO ever considered this a possible course of action for the Soviets, and what our response might have been?

Looks like a lot more could have happened during the cold war than just the USSR flooding across Western Europe, for NATO and the WP to wind up facing off.

Kudos to kilroy, he really got me thinking, and to Mr OConnor for reminding me what the no 1 motivator for war has always been. $$$

[Timothy OConnor]

...the no 1 motivator for war has always been. $$$

Money can also inhibit the desire for war or other forms of conflict.

Over the summer various politicians were clamoring for trade protection legislation against China. China reminded them, very publically, that they were the second largest buyer of US government debt (ie they're funding ops in Iraq, our new drug program, etc.).

The politicians quickly went silent.

I recently bought a ton of Chinese models from GHQ but I don't see them in a direct conflict between the US and China (eg over Taiwan). I'm using them instead to to represent an emerging Chinese client state (eg some nations are working with China on oil production projects). A direct conflict would be too costly for both countries but that won't stop either from trying to influence the other.

This concept extends to unconventional war. Saudi Arabia was the home for the 9/11 terrorists and provides the vast majority of insurgent funding in Iraq. As one report stated, "Despite six years of promises, Saudi Arabia has failed to pursue wealthy individuals identified as sending millions of dollars to al Qaeda, the U.S. official in charge of tracking terror financing said in an ABC News interview on Tuesday." Stuart Levey, the under secretary of the Treasury, said, "If I could somehow snap my fingers and cut off the funding from one country, it would be Saudi Arabia." But our "ally in the war in terror" has more value to us as an oil source. So, we have a one-sided "peace" instead of war with Saudi Arabia which funds attacks against our soldiers in Iraq.

[kilroy]

Kudos to kilroy, he really got me thinking, and to Mr OConnor for reminding me what the no 1 motivator for war has always been. $$$

Allot of what I proposed probably happened. I didn’t really make ALL of it up. I Based allot of it on actual historic events. In 1979 the Shaw of Iran was deposed. The new government in Iran was anti everybody, and was very politically isolated. It would have taken the west Time to re-enforce Iran, because Iran probably would not have welcomed western assistance. We were after all the "great satin". In 1980 the Soviet Union Did In fact invade Afghanistan, and they did initially stage there forces in southern Afghanistan for a (possible) further invasion of Iran. And in the same year Iraq, a Soviet ally that the Soviet Union had recently supplied a butt load of T72s, Migs, and all kinds of military hardware, Invaded Iran from the Other direction.

The forces that the Soviets entered Afghanistan with in 1980 were far far FAR more than was necessary to take that country. But that level of forces was Ideal if they planned to keep going south.

Afghanistan is the Logical first domino that runs right thru the centre of the Middle East.
Remember, Afghanistan has absolutely nothing of value. No oil, no gold, nothing but Mud bricks and Opium Poppies. But what Afghanistan Dose have of value, Is a clear Shot at the rest of the Middle East. Because once you secure the southern mountain passes, (which is what the soviets did) you have a clear run right into Iran, and then Saudi Arabia.

Mostly the Hypothetical parts of my "scenarioâ€￾ were the ones where things happen differently than they actually did. My Scenario proposes that the soviets managed to protect their supply lines in Afghanistan sufficiently, and that they weren’t forced to strip forces from the Invasion army to protect their supply lines from the Mujahidin.

[av8rmongo]

Tensions caused by the Afghan invasion extended to the sea as well. The Soviet Union invaded in December '79, here's a Time article from Feb '80.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 17,00.html

This would make a great campaign scenario. Wasn't something like this done in the T2K RPG genre?

Paul

[voltigeur]

Very interesting that actual tank platoon tactics from the FM work on the tabletop.

The hardest part for the NATO player is knowing when to get out of a position. Stay too long you will get over run. Move out too soon and you will run out of table. The Soviet FM's say a Battalion should be able to advace 1.5 KM under fire. That is where we would call the game a draw. If you force the soviets to deploy and stop them under 1 KM you have won.

The biggest mistake is trying to withdraw in the open. I put a platoon behind an enbankment. Worked great till I tried to withdraw up hill in the open. Got turned into swiss cheese.

Another question, when teaching tactics in USA/USMC did this include miniatures playing?

No I never tried to play a game as part of training. I was limited in time so there was only once or twice that I used miniatures as visual aids. The military has these cheesy foam tanks. I would set those up and have guys ID them from 30 to 40 yards away.

I taught only the regimental tactics and below.

what if the Soviets did not launch the offensive, rather, what if NATO did?

There was some rumors that locked away somewhere was a plan to drive a wedge to Berlin in case the Soviets ever tried a land blockade. It wasn't made public because of fear of raising tensions.

[CA-68]

I was referring to the hypothetical parts of the scenario kilroy described, and using them to reinforce my own hypothesis (albeit far fetched) as to a Soviet invasion of the middle east, i was just trying to show a invasion that would result in direct conflict with NATO (Turkey). If they had invaded as kilroy suggested, would we have mobilised to oppose them? Of course! I just wanted to show an alternate route (lets say, they had no desire to get bogged down in Afghanistan) that they might have taken.

All of my scenarios were 100% hypothetical, excluding allusions to the occasional uprisings in Hungary and Poland. The whole argument of "NATO vs W.P." is hypothetical. We wont ever know for sure what would have happened if they invaded in 1970, or 1982, or whenever. Would some courses of action have been more successful than others? Certainly. But which ones? That is the way i look at it, and its about the only way we can examine it. Look at it from a best case (for us or them) and a worst case (once again, for us and them) point of view. Either side could have won, given correct timing, planning, and maybe some luck. What we do know is, obviously, neither side wanted to be on the offensive, and both became embroiled in costly, ultimately fultile efforts against people far less advanced than ourselves, and both occasions severely weakened our militaries and our economies. We managed to repair the damage, the Soviet Union did not.

[chrisswim]

I never thought of it in financial terms from a political point of view...thats a very very good point. In the late 70s/early 80s, the Soviet economy was declining rapidly...and so was ours. Oil shortages and inflation would have made the prospect of war for either side at that time, very unattractive indeed!


The economy in the 70s was difficult, OPEC raising petro prices in 73 affected the economy significantly in 73 &74. The economy from 82 on for most of the decade was very steady and strong. The world's largest economic expansion.

War is always unattractive for an economy in the long run. In the short-run it helps. But financing it and tax reveunes required or printing of money is all inflationary. In the long-run, it deplete resources. A hurricane's damage does not help the economy. It may help those in the repair & supply industry. But when you lose your home, it is gone. If insurance company pays for it. They lose the assets on their balance sheet, raise yours and everyone rates to pay for it... which we have seen in Florida. War is similar in the economics. Resources are depleted. Resources that would have gone to auto, TVs, etc go to build tanks & ships. Take a look at WW2. By the way, we are still paying for WW 2.

[CA-68]

I never thought of it in financial terms from a political point of view...thats a very very good point. In the late 70s/early 80s, the Soviet economy was declining rapidly...and so was ours. Oil shortages and inflation would have made the prospect of war for either side at that time, very unattractive indeed!


The economy in the 70s was difficult, OPEC raising petro prices in 73 affected the economy significantly in 73 &74. The economy from 82 on for most of the decade was very steady and strong. The world's largest economic expansion.

Isnt this "late 70s, early 80s"?

[Mickel]

By the way, we are still paying for WW 2.

WW I ruined the British economy, and it never really recovered. The Grand Fleet did not come cheap, and the enormous casualties (although the French were far worse off in that respect) meant it was hard to rebuild. WW II finished it off - certainly as an industrial powerhouse. If D-Day had failed, the only thing Britain could have provided was a base.

Where did the US fund the war from? I would have thought that the debt would be largely internal - ie the US people. Sorry, I don't really know too much about life on the home front in the US during that time.

Mike

[Cpl_Blakeman]

By the way, we are still paying for WW 2.

WW I ruined the British economy, and it never really recovered. The Grand Fleet did not come cheap, and the enormous casualties (although the French were far worse off in that respect) meant it was hard to rebuild. WW II finished it off - certainly as an industrial powerhouse. If D-Day had failed, the only thing Britain could have provided was a base.

Where did the US fund the war from? I would have thought that the debt would be largely internal - ie the US people. Sorry, I don't really know too much about life on the home front in the US during that time.

Mike

"Buy War Bonds!" I don't know how much this contributed but it did. I also know that many factories around the US were converted to produce equipment for the war effort.