who would have won World War III?

[Vympel]

Nuclear: None wins.
Conventional: Warsaw Pact wins. Nato Forces sucked in the
early eighties.

Actually...Nato Forces in the eighties did not suck.. They were heavly armored and well trained(Oh how do I remember the monthly drills on Spangdalum Air Force Base) They had the advantage of training on the very lands in which they were expected to defend, therefore knowing the best places to hide and to defend/attack from...the Soviets had to invade thru unfamiller territory. Still there were not enough NATO forces to stop the Russians without going Nuclear. Though the Russians would have to pay a steep price in blood.

Early eighties and eighties are two different things. You have a much more formidable NATO force in 1989 (I think the forces peaked in June before the wall came down) than in 1980. The Soviets also had some trump cards- in particular the T-64- whose production finished in 1981 with 13,000 produced. T-80 production was beginning. In contrast, the M1 production run was only just starting- and the original model had thinner armor and a smaller gun (the 105mm couldn't penetrate T-64 armor from the front).

NATO training was of course superior- and they were on 'home turf' but for some 50 years of staring at each other with mean looks on their faces you can be sure the Soviets knew the lay of the land perfectly.

[Thunderfire]

The quality of the geman troops is questionable at best.
Mostly conscript forces with only basic training. I expect the
germans to fall apart fast. The quality of US forces in the
area is better but not that much. The russian will have some
of their best troops in the area and the trainling level of the NVA
is a way above the bundeswehr.

[m112880]

German troops would have held togetther. They would have been fighting for their homes. Even during War World 2 at the very end the Germans frought had. Just ask any Russian about the Battle for Berlin.

[D.Turtle]

I can say one thing about us Germans:
If they would have invaded, every man in Germany would be fighting against them.
And I mean FIGHTING. Every meter, every town, every corssroad would have been only taken with massive losses. As m112880 sayid: Ask any Russian about the Battle for Berlin and almost the entire offensive against Germany on the Eastern front.
One other thing (which I find interesting): Taking out Air bases in Germany wouldn't have been that effective, as almost the entire Autobahn system could have been used as landing strips for planes. Then simply have a couple of fuel trucks waiting ad you have an airbase.
Also remember that Germany had some of the best MBTs in the world (actually still have). Don't ignore us, we can fight too

If you guys want a relatively realistic Scenario as to what could have happened in WW3 during the 80's (only conventional), read "Red Storm Rising" from Tom Clancy.

[MKSheppard]

In contrast, the M1 production run was only just starting- and the original model had thinner armor and a smaller gun (the 105mm couldn't penetrate T-64 armor from the front).

Actually, we developed special ammo for our 105s that gave it the power
of the experimental British 110mm and German 120mm during the 70s
when they were deciding on what gun to use for the next generation
of MBTs through a series of target shoots.

[Sea Skimmer]

Nuclear: None wins.
Conventional: Warsaw Pact wins. Nato Forces sucked in the
early eighties.

Actually...Nato Forces in the eighties did not suck.. They were heavly armored and well trained(Oh how do I remember the monthly drills on Spangdalum Air Force Base) They had the advantage of training on the very lands in which they were expected to defend, therefore knowing the best places to hide and to defend/attack from...the Soviets had to invade thru unfamiller territory. Still there were not enough NATO forces to stop the Russians without going Nuclear. Though the Russians would have to pay a steep price in blood.

Early eighties and eighties are two different things. You have a much more formidable NATO force in 1989 (I think the forces peaked in June before the wall came down) than in 1980. The Soviets also had some trump cards- in particular the T-64- whose production finished in 1981 with 13,000 produced. T-80 production was beginning. In contrast, the M1 production run was only just starting- and the original model had thinner armor and a smaller gun (the 105mm couldn't penetrate T-64 armor from the front).

NATO training was of course superior- and they were on 'home turf' but for some 50 years of staring at each other with mean looks on their faces you can be sure the Soviets knew the lay of the land perfectly.

Actually more then half the T-64's frontal armor could be pierced by 105 fire.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I didn't bother to read all the replies, but in response to the original question~

It entirely depends upon the time period. If we are talking about the height of the Cold War, U.S.S.R. takes it hands down. US and NATO intelligence knew that the Russians could raise a reserve army of over 20 million in just a few months. The Russian standing army already out numbered the entire US army + reserves + all NATO armies combined. The only important theatres of war would be the US, Europe, and Asia. Using the Chinese as allies, South Central Asia and the Middle East would be an easy grab.

Height of the Cold War? In the early '60's they have the conventional and tac missile advantage, but the strategic nuclear balance is 5 to 1 in America's favor. Additionally once you get to the '70's Soviet planners were worried about a possible Sino-Soviet war, and this is one of the reasons Nixon extended a hand to the regime. We might not have been buddies, but we both might have wanted to see Brezhnev go down.

Tac missiles blast the Soviets to hell before they cross the Causcaus into the Middle East and before they make more then 50 km acroos the East German border.

The Russians could do the same thing the Americans did to the Japanese as far as the Pacific goes, hop around any hardened defense points and destroy the air bases. With the US Pacific fleet busy with the Russians, the islands would be cut off from support and reinforcements.

NATO/American fleets outclassed the Soviet fleet well. We also had far more experience with amphibious landings and amphibious infantry tactics then they did. Their island-hopping campiagn falls flat due to Soviet military inexperience and tactical nukes.

Europe would likewise be a cake walk. Britian might pose a slight problem, but cut off from the rest of the world, it would starve to death if the Russians and the Warsaw Pact didn't simply overwelm them. The US might take Cuba at first, but cut off and alone, it would suffer the same fate Germany did in both World Wars.

In a conventional war, Soviet armor and infantry divisions plow through NATO lines. In the real world, they are blasted to hell by tac nukes before they make 50 km into Western Europe.

North and South America and East Asia is not "highly alone". Furthermore, mumblings about "conventional war" between the powers is deeply meaningless. The NATO powers accepted Soviet conventional land superiority because the NATO playbook called for tactical weapons to be used immediately against Soviet offensives into Western Europe. Since their development and strategy were based around nuclear war, the conception of possible conventional wars is a farce and wholely meaningless.

What peeves me is the fact that people seem to think that the US only built nuclear weapons to respond to a Soviet nuclear attack. The US would have used its nukes if Russia never even touched theirs! The US realized post WWII that they could never defeat the various Communist states throughout Europe, Asia, and Africa by conventional means. The US and allies simply did not have the manpower, material, money, or means to raise a conventional army of equivelent size and transport it to the battlefield. Their first response to a conventional attack by the Soviets and their allies would be to annialate their armies in the Warsaw Pact with the hundreds of tactical nukes they had in border nations, and launch every ICBM they could get off the ground at Russian bases throughout Asia and Europe. While this most certainly would have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions, if not billions, it was their one slim hope of actually beating the U.S.S.R. in a war.

As if the Russians didn't develop strategic nukes for any reason? To apply "who's fault" and "who's the aggressor" type white-black moral colors to military strategy, especially in the Cold War, is infantile and absurd.

[Stuart Mackey]

Sure, but they cannot actually damage the infrastructure or seriously disrupt your workforce, which is what counts.

Shipping and seaports are a rather vital parts of the US economic infrastructure. And with the world releying on fewer and fewer ships, sinking even two or three would have a major impact. However it would not be hard to nail twenty or thirty with a realtivly small investment in mines and freighters.

I most often seen Chiense ocean going sealift placed as 8000, a small division, more like 12,000 if you count there LCM's which could likely cross over to Taiwan all right but not any further.

However at least for a Taiwan invasion China could build a corps worth of sealift within two years. Really they dont need anything more complex then a bunch of Ropucha's, hell a bunch of Polnochny's and Alligators would work. Just bolt on a modern CIWS mount and your ready to go.

All that building might be noticed, and if they did attempt it a war is not something that the chinese economy can stand for long, esp if you main enemy is destroying your factorys. Presuming the US would fight for Taiwan.

The US economy can't take war on this scale for long either, not without signficant mobilzation anyway. I dont think the populace would go for that over Taiwan.

Anyway, the loss of Taiwans huge computer chip indsutry for even a few months would be very bad for the world as a whole. I belive somthing like 90% of the worlds graphics cards come from that country.

Granted that seaports are nesseary, but if we are talking about general war, seaports can be secured as can the approches to them, thats what you have minesweepers for.
The fact remains that America's industrial capacity is such that China could not hope to compete in the medium to long term. China could have localised short term succeses but thats all. America's productive capacity and ability to effectivly cripple China's industry and America's sea control mean that China is doomed for much the same reasons as Japan/Germany were doomed in WW2. America's losses can be replaced.
If the Chinese felt that to get Taiwan they must attack America, well you get the 9/11/Pearl Harbour effect. Also I dont think that disrupting the flow of Gforce Ti's is going to stop the war potential of America, nor will chips, overall, in a general war.

My feeling overall is that China will not risk war with America while they cannot effectivly deterr America from retaliating. There is simply too much to loose, for very little gain, at the moment and in the forsseable future.

[David]

Height of the Cold War? In the early '60's they have the conventional and tac missile advantage, but the strategic nuclear balance is 5 to 1 in America's favor. Additionally once you get to the '70's Soviet planners were worried about a possible Sino-Soviet war, and this is one of the reasons Nixon extended a hand to the regime. We might not have been buddies, but we both might have wanted to see Brezhnev go down.

Tac missiles blast the Soviets to hell before they cross the Causcaus into the Middle East and before they make more then 50 km acroos the East German border.

Did you even read the first post? One of the conditions of this supposed WWIII was that it would be conventional.

NATO/American fleets outclassed the Soviet fleet well. We also had far more experience with amphibious landings and amphibious infantry tactics then they did. Their island-hopping campiagn falls flat due to Soviet military inexperience and tactical nukes.

The Soviets were just as well trained as any military on the planet. Many of their forces were better trained than the American forces. After the Cold War some of their camp trainers were even asked to come to the United States to help train American special forces. In case you haven't forgotten, by the time between the 1970's and 1980's, all the people with the amphibious landing experience were in their 50's and 60's. Also, the original post stated that nukes would not enter into the equation.

In a conventional war, Soviet armor and infantry divisions plow through NATO lines. In the real world, they are blasted to hell by tac nukes before they make 50 km into Western Europe.

Isn't that what I just said?

North and South America and East Asia is not "highly alone". Furthermore, mumblings about "conventional war" between the powers is deeply meaningless. The NATO powers accepted Soviet conventional land superiority because the NATO playbook called for tactical weapons to be used immediately against Soviet offensives into Western Europe. Since their development and strategy were based around nuclear war, the conception of possible conventional wars is a farce and wholely meaningless.

Again, that is what I just said. Please re-read my post.

As if the Russians didn't develop strategic nukes for any reason? To apply "who's fault" and "who's the aggressor" type white-black moral colors to military strategy, especially in the Cold War, is infantile and absurd.

You must be smokin' some good shit because you didn't understand a word of my post. After reading dozens of books and watching as many movies made during and after the Cold War, it seems to me that the general public assumes that the only reason the US built a nuclear arsenal would be to respond to a direct Russian nuclear attack. I was commenting on the fact that the true purpose of a huge American and NATO arsenal was to offset the large Russian and Warsaw Pact armies. Since you basically just agreed with everything I said in my original post, I have no idea why you are arguing with me.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If conventional conflict broke out between NATO and the Warsaw pact circa 1980, who would win?

It would have gone nuclear immediately.

But that wouldn't have been WWIII. WWIII was between 1936-1992, and was waged between Communism and the West. The West Won.

The war you postulate would simply have been the Final Campaign in an alternate WWIII, what we call the Cold War, or the Fifty Years War.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You must be smokin' some good shit because you didn't understand a word of my post. After reading dozens of books and watching as many movies made during and after the Cold War, it seems to me that the general public assumes that the only reason the US built a nuclear arsenal would be to respond to a direct Russian nuclear attack. I was commenting on the fact that the true purpose of a huge American and NATO arsenal was to offset the large Russian and Warsaw Pact armies. Since you basically just agreed with everything I said in my original post, I have no idea why you are arguing with me.

That was the purpose of our tactical arsenal that was built up during the Eisenhower administration.

[Setzer]

If conventional conflict broke out between NATO and the Warsaw pact circa 1980, who would win?

It would have gone nuclear immediately.

But that wouldn't have been WWIII. WWIII was between 1936-1992, and was waged between Communism and the West. The West Won.

The war you postulate would simply have been the Final Campaign in an alternate WWIII, what we call the Cold War, or the Fifty Years War.

Humor me, for whatever the hell the war would be called.

[Darth Wong]

Tom Clancy wrote a novel about a conventional WW3, didn't he?

[TrailerParkJawa]

Yes, it was called Red Storm Rising. It was a pretty good read. I still have it in my book case, although its worse for wear now.

[phongn]

The war you postulate would simply have been the Final Campaign in an alternate WWIII, what we call the Cold War, or the Fifty Years War.

OTOH, Marina, it's likely that surviving historians will probably call it WW3, anyways, not inclusive of the rest of the Cold War/Fifty Years War.

Of course, I have seen you argue for a renumbering of the whole "World War" thing, no?

[Sea Skimmer]

Tom Clancy wrote a novel about a conventional WW3, didn't he?

Yes, Red Storm Rising as noted already. Larry Bond provided massive amounts of assistance though, which Clancy points out in forward.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Yes, Red Storm Rising as noted already. Larry Bond provided massive amounts of assistance though, which Clancy points out in forward.

I've grown to enjoy Bond's books more than Clancy's. Red Phoenix was my favorite Bond novel.

[Sea Skimmer]

The Soviets were just as well trained as any military on the planet. Many of their forces were better trained than the American forces. After the Cold War some of their camp trainers were even asked to come to the United States to help train American special forces. In case you haven't forgotten, by the time between the 1970's and 1980's, all the people with the amphibious landing experience were in their 50's and 60's. Also, the original post stated that nukes would not enter into the equation.

The Soviets where well trained at the lowest and highest levels. However everything in-between was crap, and what good officers they at the platoon through regimental levels where unable to do anything to put there talents to use. Soviet battle drills and low level tactics where hopelessly predictable. In training exercises western observes frequently noted that tanks would drive in the tracks of those that had last used the range. This made the siteing of defensive positions and minefields far too easy.

The inflexibility of there strategy and tactics left them extremely venerable to any disrupting in the chain of command, and unable to deal with a defense which did not present a solid known line of opposition. If one could win the reconnaissance battle and then force the leading unit to deploy early, as AirLand called for, the Soviet tank hoard would lose its momentum and that would be the end of it.

Now of course in the 60's and into the late 70's there was insufficient conventional firepower to stop an attack but by the early 80's there was, and the air war was becoming pretty hopeless. That was not a winning combination for the Union.

[Sea Skimmer]

The war you postulate would simply have been the Final Campaign in an alternate WWIII, what we call the Cold War, or the Fifty Years War.

OTOH, Marina, it's likely that surviving historians will probably call it WW3, anyways, not inclusive of the rest of the Cold War/Fifty Years War.

Of course, I have seen you argue for a renumbering of the whole "World War" thing, no?

Last I saw it she had the world up to World War VII or so. Though of course one could also argue that both WW1 and WW2 where not world wars as the vast majority of the know world saw no or little fighting.

Going from that perspective only a few ancient wars and the Cold war would qualify.

[TrailerParkJawa]

The inflexibility of there strategy and tactics left them extremely venerable to any disrupting in the chain of command

Clancy added this element to Red Storm Rising, when describing the tank battles in Germany. Command tanks were special targets to be taken out first.

[Illuminatus Primus]

What were the World Wars Marina's listed?

[Stuart Mackey]

If conventional conflict broke out between NATO and the Warsaw pact circa 1980, who would win?

It would have gone nuclear immediately.

*Rene*You stupid woman! *Rene*

Conventional conflict, ie no nucs, ie NATO's generals must prove they can do more than order techs to taget citys with ICBM'S, ask for more money and look important.

[phongn]

If conventional conflict broke out between NATO and the Warsaw pact circa 1980, who would win?

It would have gone nuclear immediately.

*Rene*You stupid woman! *Rene*

Conventional conflict, ie no nucs, ie NATO's generals must prove they can do more than order techs to taget citys with ICBM'S, ask for more money and look important.

Stuart, the original post said that a conventional conflict broke out - not that either side (for whatever reason) is limited to non-NBC weapons only. It's a rather silly argument, IMHO, to say "no-nukes" when it's pretty clear that they'd be used.

[Stuart Mackey]

It would have gone nuclear immediately.

*Rene*You stupid woman! *Rene*

Conventional conflict, ie no nucs, ie NATO's generals must prove they can do more than order techs to taget citys with ICBM'S, ask for more money and look important.

Stuart, the original post said that a conventional conflict broke out - not that either side (for whatever reason) is limited to non-NBC weapons only. It's a rather silly argument, IMHO, to say "no-nukes" when it's pretty clear that they'd be used.

It was my impression that it would be a no-nuke war hence the use of the words 'conventional war'.

[MKSheppard]

Stuart, the original post said that a conventional conflict broke out - not that either side (for whatever reason) is limited to non-NBC weapons only. It's a rather silly argument, IMHO, to say "no-nukes" when it's pretty clear that they'd be used.

Actually, No......US doctrine was moving away from the crutch of NUKES
to prop up decaying US ground forces....as we rebuilt our forces in the 80s,
we moved away from the paradigm of "holding the territory we had before
the war" military model to "deep penetrations of enemy territory with massed
divisions".....in short, in the 80s, we were planning on taking the war
through East Germany and into Poland if possible, to push the Bear as far
back as possible....WITHOUT nukes.