Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Its 1988 and mechanized warfare in the fulda gap goes nuclear.
MrCarrot    12/16/2008 10:47:35 AM
Hi guys something that has always fascinated me but is largely underepresented in fiction and analysis is the nuclear ORBAT and nature of deployment of the opposing forces. For instance in Red Dawn Rising, or the BBC's WW3 both fun fictional scenarios stop either preventing a nuclear attack or at the start of one. Now this differs slightly from the over analyzed ICBM salvos/first strike etc. scenarious. What happens when 50% of your nuclear armed strike fighter package (F3s, F15s) etc. are engaged in normal warfare scenarios? How quickly could nato and the warsaw pact get birds on the ground re-armed and rolling before ICBMs and SLBMs start raining down? How effective would interception packaged be when a great deal of the numbers are tasked with dealing with anti-CAS operations etc. So in short how damaging would actual open warfare be on the efficiency related units to peform a MAD role? And what would a mid 80s time table actually look like (or is it all just pushing the red button and emergancy action messages go out 30 mins later 25% of everyone is dead)?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3
verong       12/19/2008 11:27:19 PM

From a NATO point of view nuclear weapons were much more likely to be used in the REAR...WTO airfields and a number of marshaling yards in Poland, plus fuel storage areas and command & control nodes...the goal was to NOT use nuclear weapons on the BRD.

 

And that is a nice story people like to tell, the average life expectancy of the new Lt. is "X" minutes/seconds or the average life expectancy of a major unit is 30 minutes, but really after 1972/75 the life expectancy of a major NATO and after 1968 the life expectancy of a major WTO unit was days or weeks...their "death" was SUPPOSED to be due to conventional attrition.  Neither the WTO or NATO expected an early first use of nuclear weapons in "The Next War in Europe"

 

Again that begs  the question asked..."Why would you pull a Tornado off a conventional strike role?" 

 

NOTE: We weren't going to supply those units in the event of theatre nuclear exchange...after Germany and Poland were irradiated, probably the fighting spreads to France &/or Britain, and a "Theatre strike" on THEM is a STRATEGIC strike and then the Force De Frappe or Poseidon/Trident force attack the USSR...which at that point probably uses many more weapons on France/Britain AND the US, all prompting a more general nuclear exchange.  Which pretty much ends technic civilization in the Northern Hemisphere.  But again, this is a sideline to the original question.



Hey there JFKY,
 
I agree with the note!!!
 
now I think the forces of either side would have exausted themselves conventionally before going to nukes, but it would have taken less than a week to reach that point, but the USSR was not in a position to attack the west because of their own defenses which were designed to keep poeple from running across the border thus slowing any invasion which would have allowed the NATO allaince to reposition and fight conventionally. the real question here is at what point does NATO plead for peace to save themselves from conventional victory and a nuclear holocaust???
 
sincerely,
 
Keith
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics