How do you imagine a superpower shooting war in the 80s?

[Ecthy]

Just started reading Red Storm Rising by Clancy and it seems a bit boring because it's all written from the perspective of military individuals rather than the political scene but that's just me.

I know many of you have read this book. Realistic? Seems a bit boring especially in Germany, lots of aerial activity but little pressing on the ground. At least so far (Iceland just got occupied tho, great fun that!)

Discuss the cold war and why commies are always bad.

[BeBMan]

I didn't read it, but I played the game!

Can we discuss only the cold war or also the cold war becoming hot?

Edit: and shouldn't this be in the history forum?

[Ecthy]

Of course also the cold war becoming hot, AND Germany winning WWII and being in cold war with the US hypothetically, AND cold war between humans and brain sucking locust aliens so Lancer can join in.

[BeBMan]

Ok

My ideas - cold war getting hot by the end of the 1970ies/beginning 80ies....

- overall: a lot more nasty for the west than it might be today

- USSR much stronger conventionally, and economically better off than later after years of war in Afghanistan

- Western forces not that technologically superior (advantages in certain fields on both sides)

- US home soil not "invulnerable" as in WWII

- result: heavy losses in continental Europe, Soviet advance

- option1: use of tactical nukes, with the possibility of getting an all out nuke war (bad)

- option2: long WWII style heavy warfare with serious US engagement in Europe (bad, but not as bad as 1)

IMO, in both cases both superpowers suffer heavily (the rest anyway), neither side can win decisively purely by conventional means. End: return to some sort of status quo (unless of course they took the "all out nuke war" option).

[Ecthy]

Do you think US supply over the atlantic ocean could be kept up? How well do you think would Western European economies fare in regard to production of supplies?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Do you think US supply over the atlantic ocean could be kept up?

I'd imagine some kind of a new "Battle in the Atlantic", with the western navies finally winning, but only after heavy losses due to Soviet subs. Soviet naval forces would operate far from their bases unless the USSR gets control of France/Iberian peninsula.

Finally, US economic power would be able to replace the losses, unless the USSR really manages to degrade this economic power (strategic bombing? - difficult; maybe missiles? - don't have to be nuclear)

How well do you think would Western European economies fare in regard to production of supplies?

No idea

[Proteus_MST]

The soviet battle plans ()which were uncovered during the 90s) for the european theatre during the 80s included a mass invasion.

AFAIR the soviet generals had planned 4 attack waves with millions of soldiers and took into account that the first 2 waves would encounter about 80-90% losses because of the technological superiority of the western forces but that the third and fourth waves would finally be able to break through the european lines.
Their prime target AFAIR was to reach the french atlantic coast as fast as possible [within only few days of fighting] (probably to prevent any resupply from america).

[Provost Harrison]

...and what about those pesky little islands off to the northwest?

[TheStinger]

Wouldn't the French have resorted to nukes themselves if threatened.

Would east german troops really fight aginst west. IIRC east german troops were among the best warsaw pact troops.

Resupply would have been difficult but not impossible in the 80's the UK navy was much larger and combined with French and the very large US navy would have destroyed technologicasly inferior soviet subs.

Also would Japan stand by and let the SU have complete dominace in europe, it was their 2nd largest market after the US.

SU inavsion of europe would be a very risk businnes for the commies.

[BeBMan]

..and what about those pesky little islands off to the northwest?

In such a scenario the UK was probably more in danger than in WWII even in a purely conventional conflict, since - in case the USSR had successfully advanced deeply into continental Europe - it also had the capability to do serious damage via bombardment and missiles, and probably also the ability to invade the UK successfully. If they really wanted to get Europe, IMO they must have had the goal to get the UK too, primarily to deny the US the chance to use it as transatlantic bridgehead or "unsinkable carrier".

I would however doubt that there were serious political plans for a Soviet conquest of such a scale. I mean you find a lot of military planning of both sides for all kinds of scenarios, but I don't think the USSR really wanted such a war politically during that time (maybe it was different under Stalin for example). If such a war could have developed from a certain crisis is difficult to say though....

[loinburger]

Eat bazooka, Ivan!

[BeBMan]

That's not a bazooka. That's a guy holding a green light sabre.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by BeBro
I didn't read it, but I played the game!

Can we discuss only the cold war or also the cold war becoming hot?

Edit: and shouldn't this be in the history forum?

are we talking about the board game?
It was actually pretty good, I still own it.

[BeBMan]

No the computer game (you command a nuclear sub there), pretty old, but cool. Not as good as Silent Service II though.

[lord of the mark]

Clanceys POD is a bit of a stretch (the USSR suddenly decides THEY need ME oil?) and the iceland stuff got pretty tedious.

A better take on the subject in a novel would be "The Third World War" by Hackett, which has a better POD, and (based on what was known then) a pretty realistic war. Of course it looks like in retrospect much of the Soviet Army was far weaker than it looked, so it may be that the Soviets wouldnt have gotten as far as in either Hackett or Clancy.