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

[David Floyd]

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.

Yes, but as you yourself point out, numerical parity would have been politically impossible. What would NOT have been impossible, though, would have been something approaching numerical parity for NATO as a whole. Historically, actually, the NATO alliance as a whole has had more military manpower than the Warsaw Pact - obviously, though, much of it was not stationed at the decisive point, in Germany.

Another major problem with the numbers game was the pull out of the French. Without nuclear weapons - that is, without having the ability to independently deter aggression - would France necessarily have effectively pulled out of NATO? I think it might have been less likely. If French divisions had been added to the NATO OrBat in Germany, the numerical situation would have been somewhat alleviated, especially when additional US forces would have been added.

Could Great Britain have provided more ground forces? Personally, I doubt they could have done much more, although perhaps the BAOR could have been somewhat strengthened. The same can be said for Belgium, the Netherlands, and Denmark. I can't really see Italy providing major ground forces in Germany, or, for that matter, any of the "southern flank" NATO nations (if they existed at all, which depends on the year in question).

The biggest opportunity for military expansion, I'll say again, would have been Germany. Had NATO not had nuclear protection from the United States, and if the only counter to the conventional forces of the Warsaw Pact were conventional forces of their own, then I really can't see NATO nations opposing a bit more German military power. Naturally, Germany wouldn't have built a 2 million man army, or anything of the sort, but a modest increase wouldn't have been out of the question, IMHO.

Remember also that until 1972 most US troops were conscripts too, and in the 1960s troop quality suffered a great deal.

Very true, yet the quality of US troops, and the quality of their training, was still greater than that of the Soviet Union, and again, the US NCO corps was vastly superior. Further, much of the decline in troop quality was the result of Vietnam (same with the modernity of US equipment, at least for forces stationed in Vietnam). Would Vietnam have happened in our non-nuclear world? Who knows.

Furthermore, after the well know debacel of the Maginot line the NATO powers would not have been satisfied with a static defensive policy

Naturally, but the Maginot Line failed primarily because the Germans were vastly superior to the French in terms of concentrated mobility and tactical air power. I see no reason why NATO would NOT have concentrated armored and mechanized divisions in reserve, and I see no reason why NATO would have fought it out to the death on the East/West German border.

[Patroklos]

Defensive tactics does not equal sitting in concrete bunkers. Remember that in 1945 WWII there where numerous cases of German Corps (actually divisions by this time) taking on, halting, and mauling entire Soviet armies. And likewise Divisions (regiments) slapping Soviet Corps aroung like redheaded step children. And without any air support. The defense, especially with mobile forces operating under interior lines, is inherently superior.

And as for McArthur you all are far to intelligent to be spouting that same old line. Truman told McArthur to beat the Chinese, so McArthur asked for nukes. Call him crazy if you want, but if you want to argue that it was possible to defeat China without them go ahead (vicotry means back to they Yalou). Bieng a WWII general, he wasn't going to let his troops be mauled when he knew there were weapons out there that we were not using. Especially when given an impossible mission.

McArthur did advocate the simultaneous use of massed nuclear strikes on civilian targets in the Soviet Union in the case of general war. errrrr... Just like every other American general from 1950-89.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Naturally, but the Maginot Line failed primarily because the Germans were vastly superior to the French in terms of concentrated mobility and tactical air power. I see no reason why NATO would NOT have concentrated armored and mechanized divisions in reserve, and I see no reason why NATO would have fought it out to the death on the East/West German border.

Damn... and there was me thinking that the Maginot Line failed because the Germans just bypassed it, by going through the undefended gap (the Ardennes forest.)

[David Floyd]

Damn... and there was me thinking that the Maginot Line failed because the Germans just bypassed it, by going through the undefended gap (the Ardennes forest.)

Isn't that what I said?

If the French had concentrated their mobile forces, and had significant tactical air power, the German breakthrough probably would not have defeated France. On the other hand, if the Germans did not concentrate their mobile forces, and/or if they did not effectively use their tactical air power, it's quite likely they never would have even forced a decisive breakthrough at all.

[MrBaggins]

The French were relying on the Maginot Line, simply put, and concentrated the vast majority of their men there (and used it as a major supply and storage center.) They had no good defense when flanked.

The French didn't consider that an army could effectively traverse the Ardennes. If they had then they would have continued the Maginot Line through this area.

They considered that a static defense was sufficient... it wasn't that their forces were necessarily inferior (well, excluding the fact that they were French for a moment)... they just never attempted to engage the Germans.

[Patroklos]

There is also a good arguement that the French could have still pulled off a defense if they had utilized their tanks propery. They had more and better ones than Germany at the time, but they distributed them piecmeal to the infantry units instead of concetrating them. The French were screwd up any way you care to mention.

[David Floyd]

They considered that a static defense was sufficient... it wasn't that their forces were necessarily inferior (well, excluding the fact that they were French for a moment)... they just never attempted to engage the Germans.

They were in no position to engage the Germans, because they did not concentrate their armor (which they actually had more of), and because their tactical doctrine was woefully inferior.

Anyway, we shouldn't even be debating this. That the French lost due to a German breakthrough in the Ardennes is such a broad and academic fact that it doesn't even bear mentioning. Put another way, if you don't already know that, you shouldn't be talking about OTHER reasons for the French defeat

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Sava
Soviet submarine technology was also more advanced at some stages early in the Cold War...

if you want to support your assertions with something, be my guest... I'm just telling you what I have learned. If I am wrong, direct me to information so I can correct myself.

Now you are in my world and at no time was Soviet Submarine technology ahead of the US. They did not have a boomer untill 67. We had just finnish building our 3rd generation bommer in 67 with Poseidon C-3 missile. In 68 we finnish building the Sturgeon (637) class of Submarines and the Los Angeles class was on the drawing boards.

Your Mig-15 first flight 30 Dec. 1947. Enter service Aug. 48.
XP-86 first flight 1 Oct. 47. F-86A first flight 18 May, 1948. Enter service Feb., 49 just 3 weeks before the Mig-15 starting serving with the V-VS.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by David Floyd


They were in no position to engage the Germans, because they did not concentrate their armor (which they actually had more of), and because their tactical doctrine was woefully inferior.

Anyway, we shouldn't even be debating this. That the French lost due to a German breakthrough in the Ardennes is such a broad and academic fact that it doesn't even bear mentioning. Put another way, if you don't already know that, you shouldn't be talking about OTHER reasons for the French defeat

AOTH, you might say that had the French not been quite so... French, and built a more comprehensive wall then that maneuver wouldn't have been the trivial exercise that it turned out to be. Essentially you can't just leap to the conclusions (which might not have been applicable, due to a delay of the blitzkreig, and reinforcement by French forces) that you're making without pointing out the largest and most significant reason for its failure.

[David Floyd]

AOTH, you might say that had the French not been quite so... French, and built a more comprehensive wall then that maneuver wouldn't have been the trivial exercise that it turned out to be.

OK. I'd rather talk about reality, at least prior to our point of divergence (whatever point that is). If you want to talk about alternate history, had the French extended the Maginot Line, you could always start another thread

The original point dealt with the feasibility of NATO defensive tactics vs. the Soviet Union, and as far as I can tell, my point still stands.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by David Floyd
DS:



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.

Not after we built the M-60. The M-60 came into service 1960.
Remember the Marines with their M-60s kill every Soviet tank at the Kuwait airfield in the Gulf War without lost of a single US Tank.

[David Floyd]

I really don't think the M-60 would have been superior to the T-80.

While I don't have a ton of respect for Soviet doctrine, training, and operational ability, I have even less for the Iraqis

[Pax]

I think that in order for communism to work it has to have every resouce available so eventually they would have had to conquer the world or fall apart. Which they did.

And capitalists have new new markets so these ideologies would eventually have came into conflict if not for Nukes.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
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.

That is why we finnish the Korean war with a 15 to 1 kill ratio. Yep they were better than us.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by GePap


The US was never behind technologically to the soviets. The US may have been behind numerically for the entire cold war, but in tech we were always at least equal.

So i really don;t understand your assertion at all.

no we had more deliverable warheads the whole time. they had about 300 more icbms then us, but around 4000 less deliverables by the 80s.