How would a NATO invasion of Warsaw Pact go?

Nearly all NATO doctrine was about attriting the Soviets through moving ambushes and refusing the set piece battle favoured by Warsaw Pact doctrine.

Armoured assaults into a warsaw pact defensive line would be very very expensive due to the equipment the WP forces had and the drastically larger forces NATO has to attack.
 
Assuming a conventional war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s that turns nuclear I wonder how much of their respective militaries would survive the onslaught.
 
As far as I know or can ascertain it can't.

The warhead is traveling too fast in the terminal phase and unless the F-15 can find the Missile before launch it's not capable of taking out any ballistic missile in flight.
That means that the entire IRBM force of WP is virtually immune to interception and NATO air superiority will be meaningless atleast in the big picture
 
Yet another topic starting off with “ignore how/why”
You folks need to understand that those of us that insist on why/how are not doing so simply to be idiots about it but because it truly matters.

Lets take a simpler situation as an example…

It is 2 am and your front door busts open waking you up. What happens?
Well this all depends on how it happened with “being kicked open” differing from “bursting open by a tornado “ being different from “drunk relatives unlock it and slam it wide open”.
Then if we examine just the kicked open. We still have a radically different topic depending on WHY it was kicked open.
Was it armed robbers after your priceless jewelry? Was it drug dealers after your stash? Was it an ex spouse after your? Was it your girlfriends husband or father looking for her? Was it the DEA raiding your meth lab? Was it the DEA in the wrong house meaning to raid your neighbors meth lab? Was it the State Police chasing a serial killer that they saw enter your house through a window while holding a machete? Was it the men in black? Was it ATF raiding your gun collection?

All of the above examples will have different results because the WHY /Who matters.

So we can’t truly have a worthwhile discussion without knowing whom and why.
If I am thinking Home invaders and suggest it turns into a shoot out and someone else is thinking it is the EMTs busting down your door after you called 911 because of a heart attack and someone else is think it is the cops raiding the place. We are not really having the same discussion.
So we can’t truly have a meaningful conversation .
At best in this kind of thing all we can do is suggest possible reason why. But to truly discuss what will happen needs a common reason why it happened.
 
Last edited:
Okay, this is an interesdting discussion. I'll note two things.

1. The infamous Seven Days to River Rhein ironically starts with NATO attack.
2. Judging by some Ru-language websites, Soviets also expected that NATO may attack them and paid some attention to defensive measures (for example Soviet commanders visited the area to conduct an observation of the possible place of the battle).

As for the OP proposal then I'd say that NATO is gonna have hard time as it's still 1985. NATO plan was about winning enough time for the reinforcements, which will be an obvious disatvatage if they're going to attack. And real life recently had an example of what happens when insufficient forces are used for the offensive. Once NATO has achieved a parity with WarPac forces (assuming that there is no governmental collapses) then just open any other threads about Cold War Turns Hot in the mid 80s. You'll only change the locations of the battles (which will be moved eastwards).
 
That means that the entire IRBM force of WP is virtually immune to interception and NATO air superiority will be meaningless at least in the big picture

During exercises in Europe you were always glad to hear the call "Launch for survival!" over the PA because it meant the damn exercise was just about over. Prior to that you got hit just about every other day with an IRBM with a chemical warhead because tit-for-tat with Nukes goes pear shaped real quickly. But the idea was that after fighting a WP invasion or first strike we'd come up swinging but have to use bases further back due to the forward bases getting plastered.

"Launch for survival" is the call to load ever aircraft that struggle into the air with whatever you have lying around and grab the first pilot who wanders by and stuff them into the cockpit and get that bird in the air. All in under 15 minutes or less. It means that Intel is pretty sure the WP got tired of lobbing chemicals and has sent a jar of instant sunshine our way. While the exercise might last a week or two in context we'd been trained to expect to do the "launch for survival" on day one in many places due to then current Soviet doctrine of first strike with nuclear weapons. This doctrine changed somewhat in the late 70s which meant MY training was much more orientated to a longer more conventional conflict. (Then again I was at a rather odd and out of the way base at the time so there's that :) )

To whit the base I was at didn't have any aircraft assigned to the base, so the Soviets took notice any time we DID have aircraft at the base. Any "NATO attack" and those planes and support needs to get forward deployed and set up for operation.

At the time neither side could really stop IRBMs, (which was the main reason we had them in the theater in the first place :) ) so that was a "thing" taken into account for any scenario. (Technically it was very difficult to stop any of the cruise missiles in theater so there's that as well)

Randy
 
During exercises in Europe you were always glad to hear the call "Launch for survival!" over the PA because it meant the damn exercise was just about over. Prior to that you got hit just about every other day with an IRBM with a chemical warhead because tit-for-tat with Nukes goes pear shaped real quickly. But the idea was that after fighting a WP invasion or first strike we'd come up swinging but have to use bases further back due to the forward bases getting plastered.

"Launch for survival" is the call to load ever aircraft that struggle into the air with whatever you have lying around and grab the first pilot who wanders by and stuff them into the cockpit and get that bird in the air. All in under 15 minutes or less. It means that Intel is pretty sure the WP got tired of lobbing chemicals and has sent a jar of instant sunshine our way. While the exercise might last a week or two in context we'd been trained to expect to do the "launch for survival" on day one in many places due to then current Soviet doctrine of first strike with nuclear weapons. This doctrine changed somewhat in the late 70s which meant MY training was much more orientated to a longer more conventional conflict. (Then again I was at a rather odd and out of the way base at the time so there's that :) )

To whit the base I was at didn't have any aircraft assigned to the base, so the Soviets took notice any time we DID have aircraft at the base. Any "NATO attack" and those planes and support needs to get forward deployed and set up for operation.

At the time neither side could really stop IRBMs, (which was the main reason we had them in the theater in the first place :) ) so that was a "thing" taken into account for any scenario. (Technically it was very difficult to stop any of the cruise missiles in theater so there's that as well)

Randy
I’m not even sure if the soviet IRBMs had the capacity for a chemical warheads before Ss-23
SS-4/12/20 were all only nuclear tipped
But SRBM like scud /ss-21 did have CW capability
 
Okay, this is an interesdting discussion. I'll note two things.

1. The infamous Seven Days to River Rhein ironically starts with NATO attack.
2. Judging by some Ru-language websites, Soviets also expected that NATO may attack them and paid some attention to defensive measures (for example Soviet commanders visited the area to conduct an observation of the possible place of the battle).

As for the OP proposal then I'd say that NATO is gonna have hard time as it's still 1985. NATO plan was about winning enough time for the reinforcements, which will be an obvious disatvatage if they're going to attack. And real life recently had an example of what happens when insufficient forces are used for the offensive. Once NATO has achieved a parity with WarPac forces (assuming that there is no governmental collapses) then just open any other threads about Cold War Turns Hot in the mid 80s. You'll only change the locations of the battles (which will be moved eastwards).
Do we know what kind of a NATO attack that the Soviets anticipated?
 
While the likelihood of the proposed scenario so as NATO capacity for an ex nihilo offensive war had been already addressed and discussed...
But none has been suggested.
And the why makes a huge difference to the outcome. I mean if the scenario is the Warsaw Pact rises up and the USSR has fallen into civil war with Ukraine and Byelorussia turning against Russia, okay perhaps NATO could invade, but any notion that NATO could launch some sort of pre-emptive invasion of a fully prepared Warsaw Pact and the USSR is ASB.
I would like to put forward, for consideration, some scenarios that while admittedly might be near ASB. I believe that wouldn't be entirely ASB, that would perhaps, would help to set the circumstances for that, (IMO, again), such possibility would, at least not discarded beforehand...
But, first for , (at least attempt) to avoid the near inevitable either tactical or strategic nucl to the above ear response to this OP proposed scenario---
And, if it wouldn't be stretching the limits of the posible too much, well into full AB territory...
Let say, that the Soviet State and society known alcoholism and systematic corruption would perhaps extend far deeper and somewhat would affect their capacity to follow their doctrine in this proposed scenario. Or that at least would delay what was, above thread, mentioned, likely strategic interchange, until the Soviets leadership would be able to put back the 'house in order' and the nuclear forces correlation wouldn't be so unequilibrated against them...

So, I think a couple of scenarios that may be or not, interelationed : Somewhat the some desk officer in the Soviet counterintelligence came upon a convoluted Byzantine like scheme for put to test Codename SUNBEAM/TICKLE loyalty and/or that for avoid his foreseeable defection/flee. Feeding him with a fringe possibility yet credible and so alarming info about that at certain date he should flee back to the Soviet Union and/or if unable to get out from his host nation capital. Causing that his info would either be dismissed, compromising his usefulness/credibility for his controllers. Or that if such info hintings, would lead to the increase in NATO military/US/British/French Nuclear readiness and attempts to check it out, would make is simple to track back to him as the 'leak' source... But it rather would lead to be considered an preemptive Nato offensive...

The second, one, a grimmer one, that may perhaps be happening/developing near simultaneously with the above one, (and in the OP suggested timeframe) that the Polish Communist Regime Politic Police killers (and who planned/ordered it) from Jerzy P. which was a Polish Roman Catholic priest that was staunchly opposed to the regime. Would somewhat perhaps, possible that they or their commandant would have either informed or even sought the Soviet local KGB approbation.

Or got Soviet backing and/or bigger backers among the then Polish Regime. Something that would lead that it in the face of the massive popular support of the late priest demanding that the responsible be found.
Something that's unlikely to OTL, would cause that the Polish Regime either willingly or that they'd be so pressured by the Soviets. Would back the priest killers and unleash a widespread and indiscriminate repression of the Polish population...
And that Pope J. P. II besides to attempt pressure/lobbying among the US and European leaders (so as influencing their public opinion) make constants and frantic calls/pleas to action on the dire situation and suffering of the Polish people.
Or even, that would lead him to take any rash decision, (like the one that he mentioned/threatened to do, IOTL), that would aggravate even more, if possible, the situation. So as the tension between both power blocs and internally in the Warsaw Pact between the Church and the Catholics populations and their governments...
 
Why it happens isn’t important in this scenario. Let’s say some military exercise in the Pact led NATO to believe they were planning to invade them.
I’m thinking if there was a need / desire by NATO to make a modest incursion into Warsaw pact territory that might result in a different outcome than a full scale invasion ?

A spoiling attack might be another scenario to consider ? Maybe NATO gets proof that large scale Warsaw pact exercises will transition to an invasion of NATO and decides to attack first while the Warsaw Pact forces are still in exercise mode ?

Perhaps NATO wanted to gain the initiative so to speak and takes a chunk of territory in the Warsaw Pact then switches to a defensive mode ?

Some form of attempt to seize a corridor to Berlin might be another possibility ?

This all seems very improbable to me.
 
As far as I know or can ascertain it can't.

The warhead is traveling too fast in the terminal phase and unless the F-15 can find the Missile before launch it's not capable of taking out any ballistic missile in flight.

Randy
Maybe an old long range missile that might have had a subsonic (or perhaps low supersonic ?) RV ? (These probably were not around when the F15 was in service ?

Even with slow RV’s detecting the RV and then cueing an F15 to engage it prior to the RV reaching its target seems unlikely to me but maybe isn’t impossible ?
 
Last edited:
Because:
Do you not think the 19 Soviet Divisions already in East Germany, the 5 in Czechoslovakia & the 2 in Poland not allowing for the 13 Polish (excluding airborne & naval infantry) , 10 Czechoslovakian & 6 East German of course would be sufficient to deal with an inferior number of NATO divisions? The only way to change the conventional land balance would be a mass organised uprising in the Soviet satellite states which included their militaries changing sides as coherent entities.
And
2. Judging by some Ru-language websites, Soviets also expected that NATO may attack them and paid some attention to defensive measures (for example Soviet commanders visited the area to conduct an observation of the possible place of the battle).
A woman I used to work with grew up in Hungary during the cold war. The propaganda regarding NATO was pretty much identical to the propaganda we heard about the Warsaw Pact - it's only a matter of time until they invade. From what I've been told by people around my age who grew up through the end of the cold war and did their time in the WP military towards the end, their time was spent on defensive strategies, expecting us to do to them, exactly what we expected them to do to us. To paraphrase a former contributor here, "both sides dug in so deeply, they threatened to surface in Australia".



TLDR It would go badly for a defensively oriented military force having to suddenly go on the attack against a force with 25-30 years to prepare their defences.
 
Assuming a conventional war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s that turns nuclear I wonder how much of their respective militaries would survive the onslaught.
That might depend on how much effort each side puts into to taking out isolated military units vs destroying other targets ? Until the relevant Cold War era warplans / target lists etc are made available I suspect all we can do is speculate.

Ie. How much effort would the USSR put into destroying isolated units in say Canada, Turkey, the US etc ? Would a reserve / national guard etc infantry company or battalion far away from the front lines warrant a nuke ? Would they have up to date targeting info if it had moved from its peace time location ?
Etc
 
Last edited:
Because:

And

A woman I used to work with grew up in Hungary during the cold war. The propaganda regarding NATO was pretty much identical to the propaganda we heard about the Warsaw Pact - it's only a matter of time until they invade. From what I've been told by people around my age who grew up through the end of the cold war and did their time in the WP military towards the end, their time was spent on defensive strategies, expecting us to do to them, exactly what we expected them to do to us. To paraphrase a former contributor here, "both sides dug in so deeply, they threatened to surface in Australia".



TLDR It would go badly for a defensively oriented military force having to suddenly go on the attack against a force with 25-30 years to prepare their defences.
Now I'm having visions of Great War style mining with the tunnels meeting and both sides agreeing not to fight....
 
Maybe an old long range missile that might have had a subsonic (or perhaps low supersonic ?) RV ? (These probably were not around when the F15 was in service ?

Even with slow RV’s detecting the RV and then cueing an F15 to engage it prior to the RV reaching its target seems unlikely to me but maybe isn’t impossible ?
There are no subsonic ballistic missiles. Even antiques like Skean and FROG, or artillery rockets like the BM-21s, were supersonic. There were subsonic cruise missiles, like Gryphon or Shaddock, but they are a different matter.
 
Scenarios
1. The Soviet government collapses into internal war. Not only are the launch codes compromised but a number of the missile and bomber units compromised or ineffective due to the fighting on those locations. Revolts break out in the Pact nations and NATO forces intervene best they can despite the doctrinal and logistics difficulties.

2. China and the USSR have a nuclear exchange. After a few days its evident: A. the USSR has expended most of its weapons. B. large numbers of the weapons failed to launch or detonate. The USSRs residual nuclear deterrent is suddenly at 1954 levels.

3. Nuke exchange occurs with the West, Its bad, but the Soviet Pact command control is broken whereas some residual cohesion is left among the NATO forces. As the weeks pass surviving NATO forces probe into the ruins of the PACT nations and assist in killing Russians.

Theres a variety of variations on those two. The remainder are pretty much Alien Space Bat territory.

ASB US.png
 
I’m not even sure if the soviet IRBMs had the capacity for a chemical warheads before Ss-23
SS-4/12/20 were all only nuclear tipped
But SRBM like scud /ss-21 did have CW capability

We were told that most Soviet missiles (IR/SR) could be loaded with chemical weapons as well as possible fighter/bomber attacks.. In general we "played" somewhat harder than things would likely go in an actual conflict.

Maybe an old long range missile that might have had a subsonic (or perhaps low supersonic ?) RV ? (These probably were not around when the F15 was in service ?

Even with slow RV’s detecting the RV and then cueing an F15 to engage it prior to the RV reaching its target seems unlikely to me but maybe isn’t impossible ?

As noted there's no subsonic RV's and really air intercept with fighters likely isn't practical because of the lack of a capable missile to support such a mission.

Randy
 
Top