Did nukes prevent WWIII? ...erm, up to now that is.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


Interesting assertion. Can you point out some source material to substantiate that the Soviets would have seriouslyembraced such a conflict? What would the motivation have been?

In 1948 Stalin mobilized the Soviet armed forcesbefore initiating the Berlin blockade. A very sizeable chunk of the Red Army was deployed not only to East Germany, but also to areas along the western borders of Checkslovakia and Hungary. Reserves were called up. The force he deployed was several times the size of the remaining Allied armies in western Europe, a force way beyond the size needed to conduct a defense.

[Sava]

"Checkslovakia"?

being a doctor, didn't you go to school for like 12 years?

Czechoslovakia

[David Floyd]

DS:

You make some good points, however, one thing I want to point out:

In terms of conventional weapons the USSR and its Warsaw Pact allies held a vast commanding lead in Europe from the end of WW2 until the end of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. In terms of quality Russian tanks were better than Allied tanks at the end of WW2.

This is certainly true, but I don't think it tells the whole story. Instead of comparing US and Soviet tanks on an individual basis, I think it makes more sense to compare them on a unit-by-unit basis. Now, obviously the US and Soviet Union never fought, however, the US and Germany did.

German tanks were, on an individual basis, significantly better than the M4 Sherman (well, any German model from the Panzer IVH on up). However, if you look at the performance of Panzer divisions vs. US Armored Divisions, that qualitative advantage did not translate into victory on the battlefield. Panzer divisions were smaller, politically constrained in some ways, and did not receive enough supplies.

I think the same would have been true for Soviet armored divisions. Certainly, Soviet divisions were smaller than American divisions. Soviet divisions would have been politically constrained as to their operations (and, for that matter, their doctrine was inferior to US doctrine anyway). I also find it highly likely that the US would have enjoyed a logistical advantage - first, they would have been on the defensive, and secondly, I think that NATO would have enjoyed superiority in the air, and would have been able to interdict Soviet supplies. The Soviet Navy could have tried to interdict US convoys, naturally, but I'm not sure that this would have been successful, and in any case, the US had a great deal of pre-positioned supplies and equipment in Europe.

US troops would also have enjoyed better training, and would have benefitted from superior intelligence.

So, yes, Soviet tanks were individually superior, at least until the 1980s, but I don't think that this individual superiority would have given them victory, any more than it gave the Germans victory.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Sava
"Checkslovakia"?

being a doctor, didn't you go to school for like 12 years?

Czechoslovakia

It's little known that the ability to spell Czechoslovakia is a major component of American medical degrees.

Not.

Besides which, given that the the thread isn't about spelling or grammar, I think the odd hurried typo is easily forgiven.

Whereas a lack of verifiable facts to back up one's opinions isn't. Getting a touch of kenobism in the joints, Sava?

Looks like the good Dr. has an antidote.

[Pax]

Don't forget country music

[Sava]

I just want to be a spelling Nazi!

[Pax]

Nuclear weapons prevented the U.S. and U.S.S.R, from going to war but do you think it will stop Pakistan and India from going at it.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd
DS:

You make some good points, however, one thing I want to point out:



German tanks were, on an individual basis, significantly better than the M4 Sherman (well, any German model from the Panzer IVH on up). However, if you look at the performance of Panzer divisions vs. US Armored Divisions, that qualitative advantage did not translate into victory on the battlefield. Panzer divisions were smaller, politically constrained in some ways, and did not receive enough supplies.

By 1944 the Allies had such overwhelming control of the air that it was rare for more than 30% of the motorized equipment of a German division to make it to the western front. I've often said that the tanks that won the war in the west were the P-51 and the P-48!

I think the same would have been true for Soviet armored divisions. Certainly, Soviet divisions were smaller than American divisions.

The Russiand often used corps like divisions.

Soviet divisions would have been politically constrained as to their operations (and, for that matter, their doctrine was inferior to US doctrine anyway). I also find it highly likely that the US would have enjoyed a logistical advantage - first, they would have been on the defensive, and secondly, I think that NATO would have enjoyed superiority in the air, and would have been able to interdict Soviet supplies.

In 1948 US planes were still superior to Russian planes, but the Russians had huge numbers of fighters in the west. In 1949 the new Russian MiGs were clearly superior to American jets. When piloted by Russian volunteers in Korea they usually bested Americans, but Chinese and North Korean pilots weren't as proficient.

The Soviet Navy could have tried to interdict US convoys, naturally, but I'm not sure that this would have been successful, and in any case, the US had a great deal of pre-positioned supplies and equipment in Europe.

The US didn't have that much pre-postioned equipment in Europe after the boys went home until the 1970s when the US had to begin to consider that the Soviet nuclear forces were finally nearing parity.

US troops would also have enjoyed better training, and would have benefitted from superior intelligence.

In 1948 the Soviet Union had humongous numbers of veterans.

So, yes, Soviet tanks were individually superior, at least until the 1980s, but I don't think that this individual superiority would have given them victory, any more than it gave the Germans victory.

You mean like overwhelming numerical superiority, such as the Soviets had on the eastern front from 1943-1945, might have swayed the decision?

[ErikM]

Originally posted by David Floyd
German tanks were, on an individual basis, significantly better than the M4 Sherman (well, any German model from the Panzer IVH on up). However, if you look at the performance of Panzer divisions vs. US Armored Divisions, that qualitative advantage did not translate into victory on the battlefield. Panzer divisions were smaller, politically constrained in some ways, and did not receive enough supplies.

Well, Allied tanks outnumbering Germans 10:1 was probably helpful, too.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Sava
"Checkslovakia"?

being a doctor, didn't you go to school for like 12 years?

Czechoslovakia

I was distracted by the dinner bell. The wife doesn't like to be kept waiting.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
Don't forget country music

Huh? Are you talking to me? Are you talking to me? I'm more of a classical music freak than Boris Gudinov! That's the truth. You can't handle the truth!

Hey, what ever happened to Boris? Not Oncle Boris, I mean the real Boris. I haven't seen anything posted by him in a while.

[David Floyd]

DS:

You mean like overwhelming numerical superiority, such as the Soviets had on the eastern front from 1943-1945, might have swayed the decision?

Sure, but I'm talking about the Western Front, where the numerical superiority was not as great.

In 1948 the Soviet Union had humongous numbers of veterans.

True, but they also had so many casualties from WW2 that they were no more capable of fighting a major war than France was after WW1.

As for your other points, I think that it really depends upon what year or timeframe you want to talk about.

I think that it's also the case that without nuclear weapons, the US would have maintained a much larger conventional military. Sure, Truman (and Eisenhower) were interested in cutting back, but they only cut back so far because they had the nuclear card to play, especially Eisenhower with his doctrine of massive retaliation. So, without these nuclear weapons, we're also looking at a much larger US conventional military.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd
DS:

I think that it's also the case that without nuclear weapons, the US would have maintained a much larger conventional military. Sure, Truman (and Eisenhower) were interested in cutting back, but they only cut back so far because they had the nuclear card to play, especially Eisenhower with his doctrine of massive retaliation. So, without these nuclear weapons, we're also looking at a much larger US conventional military.

The taxes required to amtch the Soviets tank for tank and plane for plane would have been so high as to virtually guarentee a Libertarian victory at the ballot box.

[David Floyd]

The taxes required to amtch the Soviets tank for tank and plane for plane would have been so high as to virtually guarentee a Libertarian victory at the ballot box.

The US didn't need to match the Soviets tank for tank and man for man. NATO, as a whole, had a much greater industrial and economic potential (and thus a much higher warmaking potential) than the Soviet Union had. Without nuclear weapons, I find it likely that NATO as a whole would have maintained larger conventional militaries, ESPECIALLY the US and Germany (and I also think German re-armament would have been quicker, if the need became apparent).

Further, even if we are assuming US vs. SU, the US still didn't need to match the Soviets on a one-for-one basis. The US would have been on the defensive, which means that it did not need exact numerical parity in order to emerge victorious. I would also argue that throughout the Cold War, US tactical doctrine remained superior to Soviet doctrine to such a degree that Soviet numbers might not have been as imposing as they appeared on paper. The US would also have possessed other "force multipliers", such as superior training and vastly superior NCOs - in the Red Army, NCOs were largely conscripts, serving IIRC 2 year terms of service, the same as other draftees, while the US NCO corps was much more professional and served for much longer periods of time.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd


The US didn't need to match the Soviets tank for tank and man for man. NATO, as a whole, had a much greater industrial and economic potential (and thus a much higher warmaking potential) than the Soviet Union had. Without nuclear weapons, I find it likely that NATO as a whole would have maintained larger conventional militaries, ESPECIALLY the US and Germany (and I also think German re-armament would have been quicker, if the need became apparent).

Further, even if we are assuming US vs. SU, the US still didn't need to match the Soviets on a one-for-one basis. The US would have been on the defensive, which means that it did not need exact numerical parity in order to emerge victorious. I would also argue that throughout the Cold War, US tactical doctrine remained superior to Soviet doctrine to such a degree that Soviet numbers might not have been as imposing as they appeared on paper. The US would also have possessed other "force multipliers", such as superior training and vastly superior NCOs - in the Red Army, NCOs were largely conscripts, serving IIRC 2 year terms of service, the same as other draftees, while the US NCO corps was much more professional and served for much longer periods of time.

The problem with your analysis is that numbers are much more comforting than less tangible things like superior training and defensive emplacements. Congress would have struggled a great deal with the desire to acheive numerical parity in every detail. Remember also that until 1972 most US troops were conscripts too, and in the 1960s troop quality suffered a great deal. Furthermore, after the well know debacel of the Maginot line the NATO powers would not have been satisfied with a static defensive policy, nor would many have been very comfortable with a more extensive German rearmnament.