How WWIII might have gone.

[stevep]

  All

  On a game site one of the posters, Czarina Julie, made mention of plans she was aware of for the US forces in Central Area in the 1980's.  This included ideas for counter attacking into Czechoslovakia as it was then and seeking to get the Czechs and Hungarians to defect.  She also seemed to suggest that they thought they could defeat a conventional attack.

  This was fairly new to me as most reports I had seen suggested that the NATO forces would have run out of munitions especially and been overwhelmed within a couple of days.  I did ask if I could post her comments here for discussion and she said yes and added some more links on info.  As she says need to know applied so what she was aware of was at a fairly low level and one of the link in the last post suggested that Soviet plans were for immediately large scale tactic use of nukes against NATO east of France and Britain - i.e. the nuclear capable powers - to cripple NATO facilities to either defend or reinforce the region. 

  Anyway the link is to page 2 of the thread Aod discussion thread, where the relevant discussion starts with Julie's post 21 at the top of the page.  Be interested to see what people, especially those with military experience think.

  Steve

[575]

Am I being one of the guys with military experience..

The scary thing being of course the WAPA relying on Nukes from day 1 which wasn't a given in 1980 or rather not common knowledge.

Being an AA SG I commanded 2 40mm Bofors radar guided guns. Usually a Platoon would have 3 guns each but ours had been cut down to 2 with the third in reserve as Mid-East experiences gave a 82-83% chance of downing an aircraft with 2 guns vs. 85% chance at 3 guns. Better preserve one gun for replacement or set up a fourth Platoon.
Besides we had shitloads of WWII 40mm Bofors guns though manually operated just to put up some lead in the air. Dependant upon mobilization of reserves.
The expectation was that chemical weapons would be used to neutralize the Airbase hence we always used some time in chemical protection during manouevres - which was dreaded.

1980 the Jutland Division still had only two active and one reserve bde. It had then half the Leopard I tank complement of the 6. Pz.Gr.Division it was to fight alongside in Schleswig-Holstein; come 1994 it would be almost at par with the WGermans Mech. Inf. Division.
Those div's were some 50% heavier in manpower than the Soviet/WAPA ones though carrying around their own logistics and workshops which had been shaven off the WAPA ones to be provided by Army HQ which was supposed to give the NATO formations and edge in having all the necessary kit around and not having to ask Corps or Army for it making units more versatile.

Sjælland would be defended by two Mech.Bde.s. Though post Cold War Polish plans envision a large scale invasion of Denmark by the Poles it is regarded as mostly a Polish pipe-dream originating in the 1960's. The Poles didn't have the transport capacity to move 6. Airborne Bde. or the Marine Bde. The Soviets are thought to have been unwilling to lend the Poles the necessary assets.
1980 was the time of Polish Solidarnosc strikes and seemingly regime unwillingness to crack down. My younger brother went to Warsaw in the mid-1980s and were told by the Railway workers of said city that they had welded Soviet military trains to the tracks.. Not much moving through Warsaw railroad yards.
Seems not only the Czech's were unrealiable.

In the Baltic the Danish Navy seems to have been playing hide and surprise the WAPA Navy units regularly like sneaking Subs under the ships and then firing flares when clear or having MTBs and Fighterbombers run attacks runs at them. Of course the WAPA also did their part and quite roughly so.
Everybody ought to know about the "Whisky on the Rocks" in 1981 apparently caused by Soviet bad navigation and Sweden fending off the Soviet rescue force with two artillery pieces and a Fire Direction Radar.
The WAPA Navies may have seemed impressive but didn't impress their Baltic neighbours.
Even Danish Navy fishery inspection ships had an ASW capability. The train ferries were also to be impressed as minelayers in internal waters - mines having been fitted with rail wheels to run from depots to the ports and into the ferries. Also dieselelectric locomotives would dub as spare auxillery machinery in warships if needed.

NATO depots had been building since 1960 in Jutland.
On the national level there was to be stored supplies for three months demands - not relying on shipments from the Far East and with local plants to be part of the supply chain. Think we had some 3-4 oil refineries in those days.

The Airforce felt convinced of NATO support and survival if possible in a nuclear environment - at least that was the official line. Our planes were using transistors the WAPA still had tubes to minimize the effect of EMP! - so the Airforce said.

As to the mentioned operational plans regarding Czechoslovakia this is a new one to me. Did some reading on Czech Cold War military earlier in the year - they didn't seem too happy about being party to the Soviet run show. That in itself could indicate that such plans had been drawn up should the possibility materialize.

Still the nasty thing would be the WAPA initial use of tac.nukes even if NATO airforces should regain superiority within less than a week.
At least then our Artillery men knew that their 8" tubes were nuke capable.. and the depots holdning these were just south of the FRG-Danish border where the Jutland Division would operate anyway.

Will think some more about this; something might come to mind.

[miletus12]

Dec 30, 2021 11:22:18 GMT stevep said:

  All

  On a game site one of the posters, Czarina Julie, made mention of plans she was aware of for the US forces in Central Area in the 1980's.  This included ideas for counter attacking into Czechoslovakia as it was then and seeking to get the Czechs and Hungarians to defect.  She also seemed to suggest that they thought they could defeat a conventional attack.

  This was fairly new to me as most reports I had seen suggested that the NATO forces would have run out of munitions especially and been overwhelmed within a couple of days.  I did ask if I could post her comments here for discussion and she said yes and added some more links on info.  As she says need to know applied so what she was aware of was at a fairly low level and one of the link in the last post suggested that Soviet plans were for immediately large scale tactic use of nukes against NATO east of France and Britain - i.e. the nuclear capable powers - to cripple NATO facilities to either defend or reinforce the region. 

  Anyway the link is to page 2 of the thread Aod discussion thread, where the relevant discussion starts with Julie's post 21 at the top of the page.  Be interested to see what people, especially those with military experience think.

  Steve

Reply at #22.

1. The RAF had limited tac-air campaigns in North Africa and Italy. They fought an 11 month tac-air campaign in France 1944 and 1945. The Russians, if I remember correctly fought a 47 month air campaign which was practically close air support and limited battlefield interdiction mission in format. They had very little "strategic bombardment". Nevertheless, I believe the Russians dropped something like 600,000 tonnes of munitions overall in air operations along the eastern front. The British dropped something like 490,000 tonnes in their strategic air campaign and something between 90-120,000 tonnes in tac-air operations. 

2. NATO warstocks were 2 weeks. 

3. NATO was prepared to go "special weapons packages" upon first WP use of chemical biological or nuclear weapons in any event at all. This was D1 of war. It was understood that oil pipe lines and pumping stations laid across Poland, airfields, and barracks and second echelon troop assembly areas would be hit with a full target service.  The West Germans were reluctant to see East Germany serviced, but Poland and Hungary were fair game. VII US was expected to lunge into Czechoslavakia to flank the expected Fulda gap thrust. There was a German component to that scissor that would have Praque as the communications hub and meet up. Would it have worked? I doubt it.

4. Whatever moonbeam planning both sides engaged in, it was understood that Ramstein was going to be nuked. Maybe USAF bases in the UK, too. At Alhorn, there were plans placed there to set up auxiliary RAF and USAF facilities. I doubt those would have worked, either.  

[stevep]

Dec 30, 2021 23:10:53 GMT 575 said:

Am I being one of the guys with military experience..

The scary thing being of course the WAPA relying on Nukes from day 1 which wasn't a given in 1980 or rather not common knowledge.

Being an AA SG I commanded 2 40mm Bofors radar guided guns. Usually a Platoon would have 3 guns each but ours had been cut down to 2 with the third in reserve as Mid-East experiences gave a 82-83% chance of downing an aircraft with 2 guns vs. 85% chance at 3 guns. Better preserve one gun for replacement or set up a fourth Platoon.
Besides we had shitloads of WWII 40mm Bofors guns though manually operated just to put up some lead in the air. Dependant upon mobilization of reserves.
The expectation was that chemical weapons would be used to neutralize the Airbase hence we always used some time in chemical protection during manouevres - which was dreaded.

1980 the Jutland Division still had only two active and one reserve bde. It had then half the Leopard I tank complement of the 6. Pz.Gr.Division it was to fight alongside in Schleswig-Holstein; come 1994 it would be almost at par with the WGermans Mech. Inf. Division.
Those div's were some 50% heavier in manpower than the Soviet/WAPA ones though carrying around their own logistics and workshops which had been shaven off the WAPA ones to be provided by Army HQ which was supposed to give the NATO formations and edge in having all the necessary kit around and not having to ask Corps or Army for it making units more versatile.

Sjælland would be defended by two Mech.Bde.s. Though post Cold War Polish plans envision a large scale invasion of Denmark by the Poles it is regarded as mostly a Polish pipe-dream originating in the 1960's. The Poles didn't have the transport capacity to move 6. Airborne Bde. or the Marine Bde. The Soviets are thought to have been unwilling to lend the Poles the necessary assets.
1980 was the time of Polish Solidarnosc strikes and seemingly regime unwillingness to crack down. My younger brother went to Warsaw in the mid-1980s and were told by the Railway workers of said city that they had welded Soviet military trains to the tracks.. Not much moving through Warsaw railroad yards.
Seems not only the Czech's were unrealiable.

In the Baltic the Danish Navy seems to have been playing hide and surprise the WAPA Navy units regularly like sneaking Subs under the ships and then firing flares when clear or having MTBs and Fighterbombers run attacks runs at them. Of course the WAPA also did their part and quite roughly so.
Everybody ought to know about the "Whisky on the Rocks" in 1981 apparently caused by Soviet bad navigation and Sweden fending off the Soviet rescue force with two artillery pieces and a Fire Direction Radar.
The WAPA Navies may have seemed impressive but didn't impress their Baltic neighbours.
Even Danish Navy fishery inspection ships had an ASW capability. The train ferries were also to be impressed as minelayers in internal waters - mines having been fitted with rail wheels to run from depots to the ports and into the ferries. Also dieselelectric locomotives would dub as spare auxillery machinery in warships if needed.

NATO depots had been building since 1960 in Jutland.
On the national level there was to be stored supplies for three months demands - not relying on shipments from the Far East and with local plants to be part of the supply chain. Think we had some 3-4 oil refineries in those days.

The Airforce felt convinced of NATO support and survival if possible in a nuclear environment - at least that was the official line. Our planes were using transistors the WAPA still had tubes to minimize the effect of EMP! - so the Airforce said.

As to the mentioned operational plans regarding Czechoslovakia this is a new one to me. Did some reading on Czech Cold War military earlier in the year - they didn't seem too happy about being party to the Soviet run show. That in itself could indicate that such plans had been drawn up should the possibility materialize.

Still the nasty thing would be the WAPA initial use of tac.nukes even if NATO airforces should regain superiority within less than a week.
At least then our Artillery men knew that their 8" tubes were nuke capable.. and the depots holdning these were just south of the FRG-Danish border where the Jutland Division would operate anyway.

Will think some more about this; something might come to mind.

  575,

  Interesting thanks.  I had forgotten about Solidarnosc/Solidarity.  Was fully expecting the Soviets to march in some time in the early 80's but the Poles managed to avoid that.  Polish dis-satisfaction would have been a definite problem for the Soviets, although if miletus12, comments about Poland being targeted with retaliatory nukes it could get more complex.

  Hadn't realised how much thought Denmark had put into using largely civilian assets to supplement their military capacity.  Also remember the Whiskey on the Rocks.  Amazing that's 40+ years ago now.

  Steve

[stevep]

Dec 31, 2021 2:22:49 GMT miletus12 said:

Dec 30, 2021 11:22:18 GMT stevep said:

  All

  On a game site one of the posters, Czarina Julie, made mention of plans she was aware of for the US forces in Central Area in the 1980's.  This included ideas for counter attacking into Czechoslovakia as it was then and seeking to get the Czechs and Hungarians to defect.  She also seemed to suggest that they thought they could defeat a conventional attack.

  This was fairly new to me as most reports I had seen suggested that the NATO forces would have run out of munitions especially and been overwhelmed within a couple of days.  I did ask if I could post her comments here for discussion and she said yes and added some more links on info.  As she says need to know applied so what she was aware of was at a fairly low level and one of the link in the last post suggested that Soviet plans were for immediately large scale tactic use of nukes against NATO east of France and Britain - i.e. the nuclear capable powers - to cripple NATO facilities to either defend or reinforce the region. 

  Anyway the link is to page 2 of the thread Aod discussion thread, where the relevant discussion starts with Julie's post 21 at the top of the page.  Be interested to see what people, especially those with military experience think.

  Steve

Reply at #22.

1. The RAF had limited tac-air campaigns in North Africa and Italy. They fought an 11 month tac-air campaign in France 1944 and 1945. The Russians, if I remember correctly fought a 47 month air campaign which was practically close air support and limited battlefield interdiction mission in format. They had very little "strategic bombardment". Nevertheless, I believe the Russians dropped something like 600,000 tonnes of munitions overall in air operations along the eastern front. The British dropped something like 490,000 tonnes in their strategic air campaign and something between 90-120,000 tonnes in tac-air operations. 

2. NATO warstocks were 2 weeks. 

3. NATO was prepared to go "special weapons packages" upon first WP use of chemical biological or nuclear weapons in any event at all. This was D1 of war. It was understood that oil pipe lines and pumping stations laid across Poland, airfields, and barracks and second echelon troop assembly areas would be hit with a full target service.  The West Germans were reluctant to see East Germany serviced, but Poland and Hungary were fair game. VII US was expected to lunge into Czechoslavakia to flank the expected Fulda gap thrust. There was a German component to that scissor that would have Praque as the communications hub and meet up. Would it have worked? I doubt it.

4. Whatever moonbeam planning both sides engaged in, it was understood that Ramstein was going to be nuked. Maybe USAF bases in the UK, too. At Alhorn, there were plans placed there to set up auxiliary RAF and USAF facilities. I doubt those would have worked, either.  

1)  Didn't realise that the Soviets used so much munitions in their air attacks.  Thanks.

2)  Was that full wartime use?  Also while that might have been the assigned amount I have heard suggestions that a number of powers were skimping on the stockpiles.

3)  Just to check I'm reading this right.  Your saying the plan was to use nukes - guessing that's what "special weapons packages" are - even if the Soviets only use chemical weapons in a tactical mode?  Also that while Poland and Hungary would be free use areas the Czechs wouldn't get attacked.  Was that anything to do with the plans for a counter attack into Czechoslovakia?  Agree that I think such an attack would be ambitious and unless it really caught the Soviets by surprise is likely to fail.

4)  Would agree here.

[miletus12]

Dec 31, 2021 12:22:30 GMT stevep said:

Dec 31, 2021 2:22:49 GMT miletus12 said:

Reply at #22.

1. The RAF had limited tac-air campaigns in North Africa and Italy. They fought an 11 month tac-air campaign in France 1944 and 1945. The Russians, if I remember correctly fought a 47 month air campaign which was practically close air support and limited battlefield interdiction mission in format. They had very little "strategic bombardment". Nevertheless, I believe the Russians dropped something like 600,000 tonnes of munitions overall in air operations along the eastern front. The British dropped something like 490,000 tonnes in their strategic air campaign and something between 90-120,000 tonnes in tac-air operations. 

2. NATO warstocks were 2 weeks. 

3. NATO was prepared to go "special weapons packages" upon first WP use of chemical biological or nuclear weapons in any event at all. This was D1 of war. It was understood that oil pipe lines and pumping stations laid across Poland, airfields, and barracks and second echelon troop assembly areas would be hit with a full target service.  The West Germans were reluctant to see East Germany serviced, but Poland and Hungary were fair game. VII US was expected to lunge into Czechoslavakia to flank the expected Fulda gap thrust. There was a German component to that scissor that would have Praque as the communications hub and meet up. Would it have worked? I doubt it.

4. Whatever moonbeam planning both sides engaged in, it was understood that Ramstein was going to be nuked. Maybe USAF bases in the UK, too. At Alhorn, there were plans placed there to set up auxiliary RAF and USAF facilities. I doubt those would have worked, either.  

1)  Didn't realise that the Soviets used so much munitions in their air attacks.  Thanks.

They lost upwards 45,000 aircraft in close air support missions, more than 29,000 thousand of them, which were Sturmoviks. The Russians were extremely active with what might be called direct close bombing or danger close of their own troops. German flak shot down hundreds of planes per operation. So did Russian AAA.

2)  Was that full wartime use?  Also while that might have been the assigned amount I have heard suggestions that a number of powers were skimping on the stockpiles.

The planning was for 2 weeks and then the war goes nuclear exchange or peace of result. The NATO planners had good accurate estimates of Warsaw Pact ammunition reserves and log-caps. The WP had to reach the Rhine in 100 hours or they were Winchester and probably free-range shoot-exes. That explains the "active defense" nonsense the armies planned to fight (die in place.) in the first plans I read, before air land battle and then Soviet style "deep battle" took the place of that nonsense, too.  

3)  Just to check I'm reading this right.  Your saying the plan was to use nukes - guessing that's what "special weapons packages" are - even if the Soviets only use chemical weapons in a tactical mode?  Also that while Poland and Hungary would be free use areas the Czechs wouldn't get attacked.  Was that anything to do with the plans for a counter attack into Czechoslovakia?  Agree that I think such an attack would be ambitious and unless it really caught the Soviets by surprise is likely to fail.

a. It was passed to the Russians to make them blink at rung 4 on the escalation ladder. The practical reality is that chemical weapons are a good way to reduce sortie rates as turnaround of aircraft in a poisoned environment is "difficult". Personnel protection is manageable via full protective suits; but aircraft are extremely vulnerable to corrosives. 

b. See maps.





There is one exploit path near Luberec. The other axis passed through Plzen. The two axes were to meet at Prague and then joy ride into the GSF. The problem is that the Americans have to split the seam along the Ore mountains to reach Luberec... passing into the DDR right into the Russians coming through the Fulda Gap. Then they have to turn north and South and hope the Czechs and the Hungarians rebel.    

Another map.

 

The Germans would follow the Plzen route straight to Prague, supposedly to link up, and then the circus motors north. Wolkenkuckuckskonzept. There was a tertiary through Austria that was to follow Ceske Budojovicke, but that meant invading Austria as a preliminary. As a concept, it was cloud-cuckoo-land.    

4)  Would agree here.

Quite

[575]

Another problem with the attack plan - you would just have to have the Americans to spearhead it; during summer of 1991 I and the missus drove the old Ford to Czechoslovakia for the summer holiday tour of reopened Eastern Europe.
Entering a Camping site in nothern Czechoslovakia - prior to the country splitting in two - around Usti na Labe we just entered the gate with an older woman hollering at us to get out!
The the site proprietor - might have gone private already but who knows - came around yelling she should look at the licence plate "they aren't Germans!" and allowed us in of course.
Proceeding to Hungary: there was a long queue of cars wanting to cross the border mostly German registered - we moved up as far as possible seeing one lane being open for the toll station. I just gave it a shot and rolled slowly ahead. Just at the station there was a small group of Hungarian Police/Costums officials who just wawed us through - Welcome to Hungary.
Just sayin!!!

[miletus12]

Some past scenarios.

If WWIII Would Have Happened in the 1980s NATO Would Have Lost

WWIII in Europe would be the most dangerous possible theater for a Third World War.

by Kyle Mizokami

Here's What You Need To Remember: While the World War III scenario in Europe was always unlikely, it was also the most dangerous. We now know that, instead of an escalation to nuclear war being a possibility, it was virtually guaranteed. The only question would have been to what extent—and whether or not human civilization would have survived it.

Last month in the National Interest we discussed NATO’s plan for World War III in Europe. The scenario, set in the late 1980s, assumed that the forces of the Soviet Union and the rest of the Warsaw Pact—namely East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary—steamrollered West Germany to defeat NATO. The plan assumed the western alliance would defend as far forward as possible while avoiding the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

Secondary article. NATO’s plan for World War III in Europe.

Revealed: How NATO Planned to Win World War Three in Europe
The high cost of stopping the Soviets.

by Kyle Mizokami
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed in 1949 to oppose Soviet expansionism in Western Europe. The end of the war saw the Soviet Union solidify its gains in Eastern Europe, garrisoning countries such as Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria and East Germany. NATO was a direct response to the raising of what Winston Churchill deemed the “Iron Curtain.”

At the time, American and Western European planners felt that if war were to break out between West and Stalin’s Russia, it would quite logically take place in Europe. The reality of nuclear weapons, however, meant that the two sides avoided direct confrontation and instead fought a series of proxy wars worldwide. That having been said, for the Soviet Union an invasion of Western Europe carried the biggest risk—and the biggest reward.

NATO’s strategic mission was to prevent the destruction of the alliance by military force. Essential to that were four wartime goals: gaining air superiority, keeping sea lines of communication open to North America, maintaining the territorial integrity of West Germany and avoiding the use of nuclear weapons. Were NATO to lose any of these four, the war was as good as over.

In 1988, NATO’s plan for the defense of Western Europe was the doctrine of forward defense, in which Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces were stopped as far close to the inner German border as possible. A defense in depth—which experience on the Eastern Front in World War II had proved superior—would have imperiled virtually the entire West German population and forty years of postwar rebuilding.

Well; we have discussed "die in place". It was never going to work unless the Soviet 1st, 2nd and 3rd echelon (steamroller) waves were disrupted at the 2nd and 4th echelon (supply and higher headquarters support.) by air or missile attack. That would include Pershing missile strikes into Poland.

[gillan1220]

In the late 1940s and the early 1950s, the U.S. planned to bomb 200 Soviet and Eastern Europe cities using B-29s, B-36s, and B-47s.