3rd World War

[Hetman]

According to the plans of the Warsaw Pact during the first days of the new world war the armies of the pact were supposed to reach the English Channel.

Because Poland was the biggest but the most untrustworthy ally of the Soviet Union the polish troops were going to attack in second wave of the invasion and invade Denmark which wasn't the most important target for the invasion. The Soviets feared that Polish troops would join NATO
forces rather them fighting against them, so Poles were sandwitched between different Soviet armies.


So I'm asking what armies of Your countries were supposed to be doing during the war ?


Regards Hetman http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Rosacrux]

The Greek armies were supposed to take on Bulgaria and try to neutralize Yugoslavia... but a safer bet (and closer to reality) was that we were going to spend our time fending off the Turks, who'd invade Greek soil in the turbulence http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Leodegar]

the german (western) army was supposed to hold off the russians as long as possible (5 minutes, or what?)and blow up all its bridges to slow them...

than there were plans, especially by the french, to nuke soviet troops in germany. and to nuclear contaminate germany to make it unpossible to enter for the soviets...

[hrvojej]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ June 21 2004,04:52)]try to neutralize Yugoslavia...
I think there would be no need for that, that would have been taken care of internally. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

If not, YU army would probably just be doing something like http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_shrug.gif , since at that time they wouldn't have known where to turn.

[Dramicus]

People give too much credit to the Soviet army, I belive that the German army could have very well held out against them untill reinforcements arrived.

Note: "hold out" not "defeat" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

My father was a German Tank commander during the 1970s and 80s, Germany would have been no pushover, they would have been able to successfully defend against the Russians alone and last untill the French/English/American forces arrived to launch counter-attacks...

http://homepage.tinet.ie/~steven/images/leopard2tank-14.jpg

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (hrvojej @ June 21 2004,05:35)]
Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ June 21 2004,04:52)]try to neutralize Yugoslavia...
I think there would be no need for that, that would have been taken care of internally. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

If not, YU army would probably just be doing something like http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_shrug.gif , since at that time they wouldn't have known where to turn.
Ah, but they would know where to turn: against eachother http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[hrvojej]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ June 25 2004,04:20)]Ah, but they would know where to turn: against eachother http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Yes, but in case that didn't happen, I'm still not sure where they would've turned. It's not like they thought to belong to the either side in those days.

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (hrvojej @ June 25 2004,03:49)]
Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ June 25 2004,04:20)]Ah, but they would know where to turn: against eachother http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Yes, but in case that didn't happen, I'm still not sure where they would've turned. It's not like they thought to belong to the either side in those days.
We could always convince them to fight our allies, the Turks, so we can actually perform our NATO-ic duties without fearing that when we return home we'll find our wives in some harem and the churches turned into mosks

[hrvojej]

Not likely. Most probable scenario would be to stay neutral if there was no internal war. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Rosacrux]

Maybe, but maybe we can convince them. We could promise them they'd keep the patriarch of Constantinople afterwareds http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[hrvojej]

I doubt the socialist goverment of ex-YU would have had any interest or use in having a patriarch anywhere. As I said, it would have probably remained as neutral as possible, especially while Tito was still alive.

[Rosacrux]

Perhaps, perhaps. But staying neutral in such a turmoil, can be pretty rewarding. Past fallout, though, there wouldn't be many neutrals alive to talk about it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Sjakihata]

danish forces were to defend invasions from soviet union, however, the danish strategic command was sure the soviets would nuke denmark (which is correct archives showed later).

So denmark would probably disappear in a very short while.

[BDC]

The Soviet forces looked much more threatening than they were.

After the Soviet Union fell and journalists got in, most soldiers hadn't been payed for months and had a single bullet and things.

[Leo]

Austrian army was set to delay the soviets for a few days in the eastern plains, then withdraw to the alps and together with NATO-forces block the way to Italy.

[RisingSun]

Of course, for all these elaborate plans, no plan ever survives contact with the enemy. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Mouzafphaerre]

-
Ours? They have been busy with cooking up four successful and a handful of failed coup d'etats and gulping 30% of the national budget while hypnotizing the people with lame chovinisme and fake "internal and external" threats (like those of Rosacrux' http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif).

Nothing has changed much. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ceasarno.gif
_

[DemonArchangel]

first, NASA would move america to mars and the americans will laugh as the rest of the pitiful creatures known as earthlings burn in a nuclear holocaust.

[Beirut]

Well, us Canadians were going to send our boys to Germany and try to stem the Soviet tide.

I truly have no idea what would have happened. But I know our guys would have fought like hell.

[RisingSun]

Until tea time. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Dramicus]

Quote[/b] (RisingSun @ June 26 2004,01:10)]Until tea time. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
errm...

Canadians dont have tea time.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif your talking about the british.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Canadians have something called Beer time.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[spmetla]

My family at the time was one part in Austria the other in the US.

The Austrians would supposedly do nothing. Austria after WWII was supposed to turn into another Switzerland. When the Soviets finally left in 1955 and Austria really gained it's independence permanent neutrality was put into the constitution. If and most likely when the Soviets decieded to violate Austrian neutrality either from Hungary or Yugoslavia the Austrians would just try and hold them off. Austria only has a small Army and an even smaller Airforce style branch of the Army. Most of Austrian military doctrine is based on denying the enemy good terrain and to funnel them into Valleys and then destroy them with emplaced guns and artillery while engaging with direct fire forces. My actual family wouldn't really do anything though, my Austrian side of the family is my mothers and she only had a single sister so there would be no brothers of hers to fight the soviets.

I think we all know what my American half would do.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Tribesman]

In the event of WWIII the Irish Defense Forces were expected to actually leave the pub and turn up for work . http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Ironside]

Citera[/b] (Tribesman @ Juni 27 2004,03:48)]In the event of WWIII the Irish Defense Forces were expected to actually leave the pub and turn up for work . http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
And the solution to that problem is to make the pub an operative headquarter http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[TheSilverKnight]

Quote[/b] (Ironside @ June 27 2004,06:01)]
Quote[/b] (Tribesman @ Juni 27 2004,03:48)]In the event of WWIII the Irish Defense Forces were expected to actually leave the pub and turn up for work . http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
And the solution to that problem is to make the pub an operative headquarter http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Sounds good to me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KukriKhan]

Yanks were to primarily defend the FRG's Fulda Gap from DDR forces, but only briefly. They hoped to actually let DDR/Soviet armor thru, with token convincing resistance, then close that gap, cutting off supplies and communications - while Allied forces picked them off by broad flanking movements, stopping them before they reached the Channel.

The idea being to let their armor think they could succeed with a blitzkrieg-type action.

Of course, this all supposes the USSR decided against the initial use of nukes, and went conventional (tho' most planners assumed they'd use chemicals).

[Michiel de Ruyter]

For all of you thinking throuygh these scenario's, there is now a new game out:

Fight on the North German plains (http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/products/ModBat/NGP85/ngp85.html)

With an expansion pack that is now available, you can have a fight over the whole of Germany. (From Baltic to Austria).

[KukriKhan]

That looks interesting in the extreme. Thanks for the link.

[gaelic cowboy]

Quote[/b] (Tribesman @ June 27 2004,03:48)]In the event of WWIII the Irish Defense Forces were expected to actually leave the pub and turn up for work . http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Secret Military reports that copius amount of guinness would protect against radiation so much that after the rest of ye were dead Ireland would rule the world http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif

[Ar7]

Quote[/b] (BDC @ June 25 2004,07:23)]The Soviet forces looked much more threatening than they were.

After the Soviet Union fell and journalists got in, most soldiers hadn't been payed for months and had a single bullet and things.
I should elbow in here http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

While the military had it's problems the ones you are talking about were not that wide spread and only appeared in the last 7-10 years of the USSR. Reporters always try to make things bigger than they are.

Also these problems only appeared in strategically unimportant parts of the army, for example the infantry based somewhere in the center of Siberia.

The main forces of the USSR for example the submarines, nuclear weapons and missiles, the radar systems were always prepared and ready. And nobody ever let the journalists there, as i said before the reporters only visited "regular" army parts.

Of course in the middle of the 90s the chaos that mostly ruled Russia had it's impact on the military. A big part of the army was disbanded and even strategically important parts of the army suffered due to the lack of finance.

But the nuclear weapons and missiles were ALWAYS kept battle ready as they are even now.

And my last words, the Russian army is improving. Of course it has MANY problems right now and money being the biggest, but the yearly amount spent on weaponry and the army is rising year by year. So in about 15-25 years in the future if the Russian economics will improve at the same rate they have in the last 4 years, during president Putin's rule, Russian army will be a force to reckon with once again.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Yeah, us Americans would try real hard to save all you guys, until the commies launched a nuke...

We mighta tried tactical nukes to stem the tide, but pretty much, plan A was blow all of the USSR (and therefore a lot of other stuff, too) to kingdom come.

Sorry http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-blush.gif

But its cool now. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

And by cool, I mean, no hard feelings, right?

[Ar7]

Plans for WWIII were really quite simple, the USA would nuke USSR and the other way around...so it would have been a very short war http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif

[Gregoshi]

Kind of an extreme scorched earth policy on both sides. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif

[ah_dut]

and what's wrong with that greg? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Lazul]

yeah but just think about how cool it would be in the post-apocalyptic earth, mutants and cool fallout people everywhere... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-glasses2.gif ... well ok, maybe not so cool.

As for Sweden We would be NUETRAL... as allways http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

And If the Soviets would attack we would have battle it out geurilla style. Well heck, if the Viets could beat the Yanks, we can beat the Russains http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Dramicus]

Quote[/b] (Lazul @ July 02 2004,07:19)]And If the Soviets would attack we would have battle it out geurilla style. Well heck, if the Viets could beat the Yanks, we can beat the Russains http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
it would be a replay of the Russo-Finnish war in 1939...

Although greatly outnumbered and completlely out matched, the Finns managed to hold the line against the Russians and actually push them back into Russian territory...

That was untill Russia brought in a few extra hundred thousand men give or take.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Plantagenet]

Although the Soviets outnumbered us (US & Europe) in terms of armor, meaning their initial assault would strike like a huge armored fist, I wonder about the intangibles.

What would the reaction of the East German public be in event of a war in which West Germany would bear the brunt of the attack? And what about Eastern Europe, like Hungary (who rose up on her own in 1956), and Poland (whose resistance had help spark the Hungarian rising)? Czechoslovakia, while Communist herself, surely had more affinity for Poland and Hungary than for the USSR, right?

So even if the Soviets intially got the upper hand in the ground war, which might be the case until the US, UK, and France arrived with more carriers and troops while the German blew the Rhine bridges, I'd guess that a mass rising behind Soviet lines would force a withdrawal or at least a cease-fire.

[Ar7]

Comparing Swedish to the Vietnamese is wrong. These nations are totally different and i doubt it that the Swedish would lead an active guerilla war.

The Finnish never fought the guerilla way, it was a real war, where apparently the Russian army had no training at all...

There is a difference between the Asian and European nations. Asian nations are known for their resistance while the European nations tend to accept occupation more easily.

About the uprising in Poland and Hungary, they would never become a REAL threat, since it was mainly the students who rebelled. There were enough heavy communism supporters and tanks in those countries to stop any uprising....and they did so.

[lonewolf371]

I think you're under-estimating just how resolved the Commies were to stamp out democracy. East Germans sorta hated West Germans, and West Germans thought East Germans were lazy (luxury of Communism, everything is provided for you and all you have to do is make a crappy nail for some darn quota). It was much like facism during the middle of the 20th century, people were so fanatical about their type of government that they would ignore national ties to support Communism or Capitalism.

In terms of military technology, the US by far out-did the USSR, mainly due to the fact that the US had masses of money to dish out on all sorts of weapons programs. True that the USSR won much of the space race, and true that the USSR kept pace with much of the Aviation development, but by the time of the Vietnam war American equipment was superior to the Soviets in almost every way imaginable. In waging a war with the US probably the only option the Russkies would have would be a massive nuclear bombardment, and of course they devised a strategy to make this work as well: due to the way US nukes were launched the optimal strategy for the Commies would be to use nuclear submarines to get in close to the US coast and launch a quick attack on DC, which would then disable the US's counter-strike ability due to the fact that President and his launch codes were required for a nuclear launch. In a Nuclear war, the Russkies probably had a better chance of winning, but in a conventional war, the US would whoop the commies all the way back to Moscow pronto.

[econ21]

I am not sure the USA or USSR could "win" a full-scale nuclear war, but a conventional war is a more interesting proposition for arm chair military historians to debate.

Clearly the USSR could not invade the USA, so it would have the same trouble "winning" as Hitler faced when confronting Britain after the fall of France. The question is how much, if any, of Western Europe the Soviets could have over-run. From what I've read the qualitative gap between the two sides varied over time. Some folk say the American army was not that so qualitatively superior in the 1950s, judging by its hardware and performance in Korea. However, by the early 1980s, it was starting to have the unrivalled technological ascendancy and confidence it enjoys today.

Personally, I incline to Stalin's view that "quantity has a quality all of its own" and suspect that by sheer weight of numbers there were fairly long periods of time when the Soviets could have overrun much, if not all, of West Germany albeit at appalling cost (due to their rather unsophisticated tactical doctrine and NATO air superiority). In such circumstances, I suspect the Americans would have used nuclear weapons in some way to bring the Soviets up short and try one last time to deterr them with the threat of armaggedon.

[Rosacrux]

Well, the conventional war-only scenarios, according ot an article I read the other day, in the Cold War era, covered about 5% of the available scenarios for both sides.

The rest (95%) covered all the range of nuclear warfare, from the use of "a few tactical nukes" to the total annihilation of both sides through 40K Megatons of Nukes.

Needless to say, most scenarios were about "all-out nuclear war", and there was a great effort underway to make sure the economical, political, military and intellectual elite in USA would survive the initial attack and fallout.

[Plantagenet]

Quote[/b] (gaelic cowboy @ June 28 2004,10:22)]
Quote[/b] (Tribesman @ June 27 2004,03:48)]In the event of WWIII the Irish Defense Forces were expected to actually leave the pub and turn up for work . http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Secret Military reports that copius amount of guinness would protect against radiation so much that after the rest of ye were dead Ireland would rule the world http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif
Funny...'cause if it wasn't for Guinness, the Irish would already rule the world. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Dramicus]

The Soviet aircraft, although technologically inferior, were very much superior to the american counterparts. In an air war, the Soviets would have given the Americans a run for their money...

Also, during the 1980s, the soviet armor was far superior to the american tanks at the time, it was when the m1a1 came out that the American armor could be considered relatively equal to that of the soviets... Not to mention that the soviets had alot more tanks...

The only area where there was a clear cut winner was in survalance equipment and spy satalites. However, the soviets had developed "satalite killers" in order to knock out the american gps systems.

Infantry wise, overall the Americans were superior, considering the poor quality of equipment that the Soviet soldiers had to use. However, the Soviets completely cleared the table in special operations groups. The Spetz Naz were far superior in every way compared to their american counterparts.

The Americans had far better training over all for their forces compared to the Soviets, but the Soviets had ALOT more soldiers.

In the end, it would have probably drawn into a stalemate. Then Nukes would be used in order to break it...

[econ21]

The M1A1 came out (started arriving in US batallions) in 1980. I think the F-15 and F-16 planes were also around in the 1980s. The Soviets had some decent kit (but also a lot of older models), but they were definitely starting to fall behind in the 1980s. Some say it was a realisation that they were losing the arms race was a big factor behind glasnost and reform under Gorbachev.

[Dramicus]

yes, what I ment to say was that prior to the 1980s, the two forces were relatively equal in strength...

Afterwards however, we all know what happened to the Soviets...

edit: the Soviet planes which were out during the 1980s were superior to the F-15 and F-16, the Mig 29 is a good example...

[Tribesman]

Plantaganet
Quote[/b] ]Funny...'cause if it wasn't for Guinness, the Irish would already rule the world.

I will tell you a little secret , we already rule the world , we just don't like to brag about it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[lonewolf371]

Quote[/b] ]Also, during the 1980s, the soviet armor was far superior to the american tanks at the time, it was when the m1a1 came out that the American armor could be considered relatively equal to that of the soviets... Not to mention that the soviets had alot more tanks...

Quite possibly the main reason for this was because in previous conflicts the US armor had been designed for a specific purpose in a specific conflict/situation, such as the Sheridan in Vietnam. The Sheridan was a light aluminum tank, which allowed it to be air-lifted by choppers in a variety of situations.


Quote[/b] ]edit: the Soviet planes which were out during the 1980s were superior to the F-15 and F-16, the Mig 29 is a good example...

The Mig 29 was roughly equivalent to the F-16, and inferior to the F-15. In addition, the US trained most of its pilots better than the USSR which was why in the two Asian conflicts (Korea and Vietnam) the US fighters shot down multitudes of enemy Migs, in spite of the fact that in Korea the Mig 15 was superior to the Sabre. Not to mention the fact that Americans had invested much more money in the helicopter department after the Vietnam war.

And finally, as to numbers, they don't mean quite as much as you think. While having 5 times as many tanks and infantry than your enemy might be nice, they won't last very long against a massive bombardment by a B-52 squadron. In almost every war since WWII, airpower has been the deciding factor.

EDIT: This is probably the main reason why the Soviet Union vested so much interest in keeping up with the US in this area, whereas in other areas (the navy for instance) the Soviet Union quickly began falling behind.

[meravelha]

On a slightly related question

Does anyone know if the following 'what-if' has ever been produced as a wargame?

1945 - Germany defeated - but the war continues between the Soviet Union on one hand vs US/UK/France on the other.

(One would have to suppose several counterfactual realities to allow this to occur - 1. No Atomic bomb has been developed; 2. Japan is somehow neutralised and/or defeated early)

[Rosacrux]

There have been some scenarios (dunno about wargames though) that deal with such an issue. They take into account that:

- The Soviets had about 12 mi. men at arms, with 85.000 tanks at the end of the war. In the air the "western" allies were superior, and we don't even talk about the sea...

- The Americans didn't have any radioactive material ready for a third bomb - the two they have dropped in Japan were all they had and they needed 6 to 9 months to produce more (several more).

- Continental Europe could not put up some serious resistance, had the Soviets advanced westwards.

According to these scenarios, continental Europe (minus southern balkans and the southern part of the Italian peninsula) would be overrun by Soviet forces in a matter of 3 to 4 months (long before the USA can get more atomics).

UK would not fall (USSR lacked the air/navy superiority combination for an effective assault at Britain) and could stand for a long time with American supplies.

It would take anything between 1 and 2 years before the Soviets had the naval strength to get to Britain. By that time, USA would have a full-fledged atomic arsenal, while Soviets would have made their own A-bombs.

Several variants exist as for the latter part. Some point out that at some point USA/UK and USSR get to an agreement and splite the world - USSR gets to keep Europe and that's it.

Other variants talk about an all-out anglo-american offensive to wipe out the Soviets, after a prolonged blockade from east to west.

There is much, much more data on it. I'll see if I can find the magazine I've read those scenarios and post more stuff here.

[Leo]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ July 23 2004,14:02)]According to these scenarios, continental Europe (minus southern balkans and the southern part of the Italian peninsula) would be overrun by Soviet forces in a matter of 3 to 4 months (long before the USA can get more atomics).

It would take anything between 1 and 2 years before the Soviets had the naval strength to get to Britain. By that time, USA would have a full-fledged atomic arsenal, while Soviets would have made their own A-bombs.
1.I very much doubt that the soviets would have been able to overrun europe, especially considering the massive air superiority the western forces had.

2. The soviets had their first a-bomb in 1949 and would have been nuked many times by the US at that time.

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (Leo @ July 23 2004,07:29)]1.I very much doubt that the soviets would have been able to overrun europe, especially considering the massive air superiority the western forces had.
Air superiority alone won't win you a war. The Soviets had 3X the tanks and 2X the manpower of the western allies, and their factories churned out more everyday. Every scenario I have seen says the same thing: they'd overrun continental Europe sooner or later (3 to 6 months).


Quote[/b] ]
2. The soviets had their first a-bomb in 1949 and would have been nuked many times by the US at that time.

Given that the war would last that long, yes. But I am sure the Soviets would've developed atomics one or two years after 1945, if they were in a war. They'd have the bulk of the German scientists working for them and no restriction on raw material (radioactive and heavy water) as the latter faced working for Germany. And if you ask me, I'd say that the two sides would've ended hostilities soon enough, and then the real race would began.

Most probably in such a scenario, WW3 would've been fought in the period of the Korean war or a couple of years later. https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

[gaelic cowboy]

Quote[/b] (Plantagenet @ July 08 2004,13:06)]
Quote[/b] (gaelic cowboy @ June 28 2004,10:22)]
Quote[/b] (Tribesman @ June 27 2004,03:48)]In the event of WWIII the Irish Defense Forces were expected to actually leave the pub and turn up for work . https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Secret Military reports that copius amount of guinness would protect against radiation so much that after the rest of ye were dead Ireland would rule the world https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif
Funny...'cause if it wasn't for Guinness, the Irish would already rule the world. https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
It obvious the strange mutanagenic properties of iradiated guiness would create a super race of paddies destined to cut swathes of commies hah ha hahahah

[econ21]

Best wargame to look for something like this would be The Operational Art of War. Lots of scenarios in that, including several whatifs for WW3. Maybe I should re-install...

I'm not sure I agree with Rosacrux's assessment of the military balance in 1945. The Russians had an edge in most of the Cold War period because they had more forces on the ground in Europe, but 1945 was the one year when this was least true. I would have thought the West and the Russians were closer to parity in 1945, after considering the qualitative factors as well as the quantitative ones. Some evidence of this might be seen in the balance of of German deployments East and West. Although historically the Germans had committed more men to fight in the East, I thought it started to even out by 1945 when the fronts started to become similar in length.

Didn't Patton or some US general want to push on to Moscow in 1945? I guess he may have been a nut, but if such things were speculated on at the time, the balance may not have been as unfavourable to the West as is usually thought when considering WW3 breaking out at a later point in history.

[Leo]

Air superiority alone won't win you a war.
[QUOTE=Quote ]

True. But how do you advance to hostile territory with broken supply lines under hostile skies?

[quote=Rosacrux,July 23 2004,14:52]
But I am sure the Soviets would've developed atomics one or two years after 1945, if they were in a war.


It took them four years in peace time, I very much doubt that they could have cut that in half in time of war.

[lonewolf371]

Quote[/b] ]Air superiority alone won't win you a war. The Soviets had 3X the tanks and 2X the manpower of the western allies, and their factories churned out more everyday. Every scenario I have seen says the same thing: they'd overrun continental Europe sooner or later (3 to 6 months).

Once again, I stress that this is untrue. Air superiority has one just about every war across the globe since WW2. You might be able to contest with Vietnam, but the only reason the US never went in and wiped North Vietnam out was because of the damn politicians in DC wanting to "maintain the peace" but also "halt the evils of communism". If you look at casualty reports the US would have won Vietnam about 5000 times.

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (lonewolf371 @ July 24 2004,12:13)]Once again, I stress that this is untrue. Air superiority has one just about every war across the globe since WW2. You might be able to contest with Vietnam, but the only reason the US never went in and wiped North Vietnam out was because of the damn politicians in DC wanting to "maintain the peace" but also "halt the evils of communism". If you look at casualty reports the US would have won Vietnam about 5000 times.
lonewolf, you might stress it as untrue, but it is not me that says it's true. This is a common ground in each one of the alternative scenarios for the outcome of WW2 and the "day after" I've read. It's not "my opinion" necessarily, even though when I've read those scenarios and the data they provided, I was quite convinced for their legitimacy.

One of those scenarios, I remember, was developed by the Greek institute of strategic studies, and another has been developed by a similar body the NATO has. Another one was a product of the French military. There were more, but I don't remember who's they were.

And a little thingy: Wars ain't only about who's got the bigger guns. It's also about who's got the bigger cojones https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif And the size of the Vietnamese cojones would put everything American in shame https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

That's why you lost that war, not because of the pansy politicians (and any other similar ultra-right wing nonsense) https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[lonewolf371]

Well you see the Vietnamese have the advantage because they have all that water and osmoses https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif causes their cojones to swell to un-imaginable proportions. https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Ironside]

Citera[/b] ]Once again, I stress that this is untrue. Air superiority has one just about every war across the globe since WW2. You might be able to contest with Vietnam, but the only reason the US never went in and wiped North Vietnam out was because of the damn politicians in DC wanting to "maintain the peace" but also "halt the evils of communism". If you look at casualty reports the US would have won Vietnam about 5000 times.

When was the last war fought by about equal forces? The most recent one I can remember is the Korean war and that ended up in a draw. I mean the Russians might had less planes, but it's nothing like the extremly loopsided forces used in the latest wars. The enemy didn't even have good AA-units.