StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2003-03-02 12:34am**

Joseph Stalin lives longer in this alternate time; just enough to radically change the course of events. In the year of maximum danger, when NATO was still young, the Red Army moves west and attacks.

The North American air-defense network has not yet been completed; the DEW line has not been built, the SAGE computers to direct the air-defense not installed. Eisenhower's strategic arsenal is still building up. The Soviet strategic arsenal remains very small.

Thoughts about what'd happen?

Posted: **2003-03-02 12:37am**

europe bleeds dry.

Posted: **2003-03-02 12:40am**

Lots of B-36 related Nuclear fun. Europe will be very bloody. Where going to see the US Army put it "get into trucks and head for Spain" plan placed into effect. The counter attack with be a far slower battle.

But The Soviet nuclear programs going to be devasted in the opening strikes, and they just dont have delivery systems with which to hit North America. As long as those production basis are secure, the west should win in the end. But its going to take a 25 million man army and massive use of NBC arms at all levels.

A big question would be what would China do? They might swarm back down into Korea again, though nuclear strikes should hold the lines. The country will be a big warhead sink, so loading up gas and bio will soon be a requirment.

Posted: **2003-03-02 12:40am**

Nasty, bloody, shitty campaign.

Posted: **2003-03-02 12:46am**

Europe becomes a shithole that makes sub-Saharan Africa look like Courscant.

Posted: **2003-03-02 01:09am**

Sea Skimmer wrote:A big question would be what would China do? They might swarm back down into Korea again, though nuclear strikes should hold the lines. The country will be a big warhead sink, so loading up gas and bio will soon be a requirment.

Unsure; it's possible they'll try invading the DPRK but their leadership knows that the gloves are off now. Plus, they weren't exactly fond of their losses with the Million Man March.

Posted: **2003-03-02 01:12am**

Eisenhower goes through with his notion that "A nuclear weapon is just a big pistol." Throughout Europe there are massive conflagrations involving nuclear warheads, with the United States and its allies making up for their lack of manpower with heavy equipment. I would think that the Soviet attack would peter out in the low countries, or possibly France, and the two sides would settle in for a long war, with nuclear exchanges being the primary threat to both sides.

Posted: **2003-03-02 01:13am**

phongn wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:A big question would be what would China do? They might swarm back down into Korea again, though nuclear strikes should hold the lines. The country will be a big warhead sink, so loading up gas and bio will soon be a requirment.
Unsure; it's possible they'll try invading the DPRK but their leadership knows that the gloves are off now. Plus, they weren't exactly fond of their losses with the Million Man March.

But even if they don't make another stab in Korea, northern Vietnam and Laos are quite venerable. I'd suspect all remaining French forces would be quickly pulled out with the help of the USN.

Posted: **2003-03-02 01:16am**

ww3, in other words.

Posted: **2003-03-02 01:19am**

Sea Skimmer wrote:
phongn wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:A big question would be what would China do? They might swarm back down into Korea again, though nuclear strikes should hold the lines. The country will be a big warhead sink, so loading up gas and bio will soon be a requirment.
Unsure; it's possible they'll try invading the DPRK but their leadership knows that the gloves are off now. Plus, they weren't exactly fond of their losses with the Million Man March.
But even if they don't make another stab in Korea, northern Vietnam and Laos are quite venerable. I'd suspect all remaining French forces would be quickly pulled out with the help of the USN.

The Indochina, yeah, they're going to become Chinese shortly. I doubt SAC is going to waste any resources hitting a French colony.

Posted: **2003-03-02 01:20am**

Master of Ossus wrote:Eisenhower goes through with his notion that "A nuclear weapon is just a big pistol." Throughout Europe there are massive conflagrations involving nuclear warheads, with the United States and its allies making up for their lack of manpower with heavy equipment. I would think that the Soviet attack would peter out in the low countries, or possibly France, and the two sides would settle in for a long war, with nuclear exchanges being the primary threat to both sides.

The Soviets where expected to grab at least France as well. And that's likely. The Allied forces in Germany where basically under orders to flee under a mass attack. And even if they stood they'd just die. With only air power, even with nukes, to oppose them before France, and not much in terms of ground forces there, the Soviet drive would keep going.

Posted: **2003-03-02 01:20am**

Master of Ossus wrote:Eisenhower goes through with his notion that "A nuclear weapon is just a big pistol." Throughout Europe there are massive conflagrations involving nuclear warheads, with the United States and its allies making up for their lack of manpower with heavy equipment. I would think that the Soviet attack would peter out in the low countries, or possibly France, and the two sides would settle in for a long war, with nuclear exchanges being the primary threat to both sides.

While we had a lot of nuclear weapons, it might not be enough to save the NATO ground formations in Europe: they could be overrun by sheer number of troops.

As for strategic nukes, we didn't have *that* many; they'd probably be expended in the first strikes and it'll take awhile to rebuild the arsenal.

Another note: no, Eisenhower did not consider nukes "just a big pistol."

Posted: **2003-03-02 01:24am**

phongn wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:
But even if they don't make another stab in Korea, northern Vietnam and Laos are quite venerable. I'd suspect all remaining French forces would be quickly pulled out with the help of the USN.
The Indochina, yeah, they're going to become Chinese shortly. I doubt SAC is going to waste any resources hitting a French colony.

I doubt we'd send anything but empty transports unless they head on for central Thailand. And then it would be ammo, supplies and maybe older aircraft and equipment. The fighting in the north of the country would probably be too dispersed for nukes to be worthwhile if they could be spared.

Posted: **2003-03-02 01:26am**

Sea Skimmer wrote:I doubt we'd send anything but empty transports unless they head on for central Thailand. And then it would be ammo, supplies and maybe older aircraft and equipment. The fighting in the north of the country would probably be too dispersed for nukes to be worthwhile if they could be spared.

Yeah, though Thailand hasn't recieved much of the Fun Toys they will get later (THAISAGE, etc.)

Uncle Ho is going to make life miserable for the invaders.

Posted: **2003-03-02 01:30am**

phongn wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:I doubt we'd send anything but empty transports unless they head on for central Thailand. And then it would be ammo, supplies and maybe older aircraft and equipment. The fighting in the north of the country would probably be too dispersed for nukes to be worthwhile if they could be spared.
Yeah, though Thailand hasn't recieved much of the Fun Toys they will get later (THAISAGE, etc.)

Uncle Ho is going to make life miserable for the invaders.

Yes. But unrestrained brutality and a large manpower commitment will deal with much of that. Plus, Ho just lost his supply source. That means its back to living off the enemy.

Posted: **2003-03-02 01:53am**

Yeah, sounds about right.

Curses, I had hoped more people would respond to this, maybe in the day more will.

Posted: **2003-03-02 02:02am**

phongn wrote:Yeah, sounds about right.

Curses, I had hoped more people would respond to this, maybe in the day more will.

It is pretty late for most of the boards members. More people likely will come. But I wouldn't hope for a real in depth discussion.

Posted: **2003-03-02 02:23am**

Sea Skimmer wrote: It is pretty late for most of the boards members. More people likely will come. But I wouldn't hope for a real in depth discussion.

Quite frankly not many people no much about this sort of thing

In 1954 did the Soviets have high altitude interceptors capable of killing American bombers?

Posted: **2003-03-02 02:42am**

Vympel wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote: It is pretty late for most of the boards members. More people likely will come. But I wouldn't hope for a real in depth discussion.
Quite frankly not many people no much about this sort of thing

In 1954 did the Soviets have high altitude interceptors capable of killing American bombers?

They had aircraft that might reach them. But they could not effectively engage against them. B-36's where basically immune to everything in existence. Flying in from the artic RB-36's had a free run of the country until SA-2 sites started showing up. B-47's where on hand in strength as well, and at night the B-50 was hard to beat. Soviet defense where about as advanced as those of the UK in 1940, only with some huge gaps in radar coverage

Stuart Slade wrote this on the balance of power in 1953

Stuart Slade wrote:

Balance of Power - 1953 There have been many debates about what would have happened if the US and China hadn't negotiated an end to the Korean War in 1953. Lets look at the balance of strategic power at that time to put the situation in context.

United States - Offensive

6 Heavy Bomb Wings with 185 B-36
4 Heavy Strategic Wings with 137 RB-36
7 Medium Bomb Wings with 329 B-47
4 Medium Strategic Wings with 99 RB-47
3 Medium Bomb Wings with 138 B-50
5 Medium Bomb Wings with 110 B-29
1 Medium Strategic wing with 38 RB-50 and 8 RB-29
5 Strategic Fighter Wings with 235 F-84G
20 Medium Air Refuelling Squadrons with 359 KC-97
8 Medium Air Refuelling Squadrons with 143 KB-29

Total stock of nuclear weapons - approximately 1,200 all fission devices

Its often assumed that the "strategic fighters" were intended to escort the B-36s. This isn't quite true. They were intended to "escort" them but in the sense of using nuclear weapons to blast a hole in the outer shell of the Soviet defenses. It was assumed that once the bombers were through the outer crust they could go more or less where they wanted.

United States - Defensive

600 F-86D, 37 F-89B, 31 F-89C, 109 F-94A, 356 F-94B. Large numbers of old piston engined fighters including F-47N and F-51D and H in the Air National Guard. Five Nike-Ajax battalions were formed but would not be operational until mid-1954.

Soviet Union - Offensive

1 Long Range Aviation Corps with 100 Tu-4A
18 Long Range Aviation Regiments with 1,100 Tu-4

The Tu-4A desigantion indicated that these aircraft were the only ones that were atmomic-weapons capable. At least some of these aircraft were configured to act as tankers. The Soviet Union had a stockpile of around 30 nuclear weapons in 1953, all fission devices.

Soviet Union - Defensive

Details are very unclear and contradictory but it appears that there were a mixture of around 1,000 fighters including MiG-15s and MiG-17s, Yak-23s and La-15s as jetfighters and La-11 piston-engined fighters.

A few things pop out of the pageon this. One is that the war is still largely a conventional one - the US has a ferocious atomic arsenal for its first blow but therafter bombing would be largely conventional. The Soviet Union has virtually no nuclear strike capability in terms of reaching the US.

Posted: **2003-03-02 02:45am**

Vympel wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote: It is pretty late for most of the boards members. More people likely will come. But I wouldn't hope for a real in depth discussion.
Quite frankly not many people no much about this sort of thing

In 1954 did the Soviets have high altitude interceptors capable of killing American bombers?

I don't think so. By the time anything got up there they'd be so low on fuel that there would be very little margin for interception. And at altitude the US heavy bombers probably could outmaneuver them enough to throw them off.

If that didn't work, the defensive fire probably would.

They wouldn't be invulnerable, but they'd have a good chance of penetrating with low attrition.

Posted: **2003-03-02 02:53am**

Early marks of Mig-17 Frescoes - none radar fitted, so they'll be largely limited clear-weather daytime intercepts only. Sukhoi might have had one of their kooky twin-engine pod designs which looks more like a light bomber than an interceptor out by then, but I'd have to check, and I'm not sure if they ever performed up to specs, nor were that many produced either.

Posted: **2003-03-02 02:54am**

I suppose that if I wanted to be more fair we could move things around so that the USSR gets the forces that Dropshot posulated they would...

Posted: **2003-03-02 03:25am**

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Early marks of Mig-17 Frescoes - none radar fitted, so they'll be largely limited clear-weather daytime intercepts only. Sukhoi might have had one of their kooky twin-engine pod designs which looks more like a light bomber than an interceptor out by then, but I'd have to check, and I'm not sure if they ever performed up to specs, nor were that many produced either.

Your thinking of the Yak-25 I belive. It first flew in late 1952. It was just entering service in 1954, couple bombing raids should take care of that.

This what you where thinking off?

http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/yak25rv-1-prev.jpg

The first Sukhoi jet to enter service was the seven, which flew in 1955, followed by the Su-9 interceptor which flew in 1956 and carried AA-1 missiles. neither had big wing pods. The Su-6 was a prop driven dive bomber. Pictures follow, seven followed by nine.

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/ar/fb/Su-7_t.gif

http://www.suchoj.com/ab1953/Su-9/images/Su-9_02.jpg

Posted: **2003-03-02 03:39am**

Sea Skimmer wrote: Your thinking of the Yak-25 I belive. It first flew in late 1952. It was just entering service in 1954, couple bombing raids should take care of that.

This what you where thinking off?

Ayup, Yak-25 it is. Thanks for the correction.

Posted: **2003-03-02 03:47am**

4 words: One Big Nuclear Wasteland

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The year of maximum danger: 1954

The year of maximum danger: 1954