Could the Warsaw Pact have beaten NATO?

[Timothy OConnor]

That's a tremendous help John! In my home grown rules I also prefer less detail and have merged aspects of "spotting" with aspects of trying to hit a target. This also puts a significat onus on the defender in that if he opens up he gets first shot but sometimes his shot might be relatively more difficult.

For example, an infantry stand not moving/firing and in concealment (ie ambushing) is very difficult to hit and will get the first shot against an advancing enemy. Assuming both have the same skill, if he's engaging enemy infantry stalking through concealment his initial shot will be harder than the enemy's in that he'll be firing at a "stalking" enemy while the enemy is firing at an enemy that's revealing his position by firing (an easier shot). But, it' still the first shot and still easier than the enemy firing at an ambushing stand. So, does he spring the ambush and hope to pin/suppress/or even kill the enemy stand before it gets to fire?

Or does he hold his fire and hope that even if the enemy opens up he can avoid its effects by "hiding well" (and then get a more effective shot since the enemy is no longer stalking through concealment but has stopped and given away his position by firing.)

Of course range is also an issue, so your data is very valuable to refining my model!

Thanks!!!!

Tim

[pmaidhof]

Timothy/John,
Spotting at long range is problematic. In a desert environment , I had the opportunity to run a quick demonstration for my platoon. We stationed one TOW vehicle to spot, and then tracked with both day and night sights two other vehicles that moved down range to 3,750m (2.2 miles). 3,750 was our max effective range.

While you could see it, and could confirm whether it was moving or not, I honestly could not tell if it was a HMMWV, and not some BRDM or other similar vehicle. Now obviously tanks are larger "targets", so it would not be as bad at that range, but then you get into identification whether friend or foe. The target HMMWV reported in that they had a tough time spotting us as we were stationary.

"It's a T-62. But is it an Iraqi T-62 or a Syrian T-62? Hey wait, the Syrians are our friends this time."

Shots are possible, but you'd better be sure of who you are shooting at.

[kgpanzer]

S/F Pete I seen that also and that is how alot of friendly fire happens

[DrBig]

http://www.network54.com/Forum/47209/me ... B4s+90%B4s

[dougeagle]

DrBig- Impressive article. I found that truly amazing. Gives me a better perspective of the whole 'NATO would win' if WW3 started, back in the '80's. The only thing that I'm still unsure of is how effective the Soviet 125mm guns actually were. In alot of the different modern rules for wargaming, the ranges for the 125mm seem to be quite less than that of NATO forces.
Is the 125mm gun really that underrated?
Or can the 125mm gun shoot at almost the same range as a NATO 120mm, but the Soviet doctrine states that the gun should be fired at around 1- 2 miles?

Just a thought

[jb]

Interesting article. I'm rather skeptical seeings how its only one artcle. I would truly like to see more on the matter...

[Timothy OConnor]

Wow! Great article! Certainly makes one reconsider how we've modeled weapon stats in various games. I've always wondered how modern rules designers come up with their numbers since so much is classified and in many cases there's little anecdotal info to go by. Perhaps they've suffered from a false sense of certainty when trying to model small differences in modern weapons, especially those never fully tested in battle.

[kgpanzer]

I thought it was an interesting article also and confirms with my knowlege
and workings with being a "threat" ** CENSORED ** regarding Soviet army doctrine
and abilities. Many gamers feel that the Russian armor is weak and underrated
but that is not the case and have not been for many years since the 1980's.

The tank armor the Russians have sold to 3rd world countries is not the
level quality that they use in both quality of armor and technical gadgets persay
that the tanks are using.

We have yet to fight true Russian tanks and Russian crews......however now
that the cold war is getting hot again we could see this happen at least the
what if's as we did since the days of the last cold war.

Cheers
Anthony

[kgpanzer]

not sure why the word _s p e c i a l i s t_ was censored on here?

[karlosbit]

It always amazes me how we actually believed we could of defeated the Warsaw Pact during any confrontation without the use of Nukes.

World War II was won because we could out produce the German Reich in Tanks, Aircraft and all the other military items needed to fight an on going war.

We took the lessons from the losers (The German Army) and built quality, whilst the russians stuck to what had won them the battle to Germany, quantity has a quality all of its own.

It was only with the introduction of mass produced ATGW systems and the ability of Attack Helicopters to be the so called fire breaks (halting any armoured penetration) for the ground troops to react, in the early 1980's that the scales started tippy from the Warsaw Pact forces winning to us fighting the Warsaw Pact into a stale mate.

Of course this is just my personnal opinion, feel free to argue with or against me.

Karl

[Schwerepunkt]

If the Soviet Union had invaded Europe through Germany, mobilization on NATO's part would have been extremely slow and American reinforcements would have had to pass through the Atlantic and the gauntlet of Soviet submarines. IMHO, the USSR would have been at the Channel before NATO knew what hit her.
The only way the NATO alliance could have stopped the USSR from say, 1945 to 1980 would have been to use tactical and perhaps even strategic nuclear weapons, to knock out Soviet supply lines and their three C component.
I served in Air Defense Artillery from 1971 to 1974, and we were very aware of Soviet aircraft capabilities. I am thankful the Soviets and NATO never found out or WWIII would have been the end of man.

[thenorthman]

I am not arguing one way or another.

I just want to mention that I find it FUNNY that in most of the "WWIII" books of "what ifs" always had the Soviets using tactical nukes first.

I guess they couldn't of had the US and NATO looking bad in their own ideas even though I believe it was US policy, in fact the US is the only nation to have used nukes in anger. (Personally I think THAT was required, but still interesting that we are.)

The one book that come to mind first is Team Yankee. They had the Soviets using them first. I can not remember how Red Army progressed, I just remember it being a good book. I guess I need to reread it this summer. I had just pulled it out a few weeks ago looking at it.

Sean