Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US VS USSR circa 1965

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • US VS USSR circa 1965

    This hypothetical war is strictly conventional

    No nukes

  • #2
    Originally posted by Stierlitz View Post
    ...

    No nukes
    Pretty sure the official US policy at the time was "massive retaliation".

    So if war breaks out at all then anyone in the USSR, Europe and the Western and Eastern Seaboards of the US is going to have a pretty rotten day unless they are wearing sunblock factor SPF 10,000.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post

      Pretty sure the official US policy at the time was "massive retaliation".

      So if war breaks out at all then anyone in the USSR, Europe and the Western and Eastern Seaboards of the US is going to have a pretty rotten day unless they are wearing sunblock factor SPF 10,000.

      In this thread were pretending that's not the case, because a vs thread be a bit boring if every one already knows the final outcome.

      So again no nukes please

      Comment


      • #4
        Come up with a reason why no nukes will fly and I'm happy to play along...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post
          Come up with a reason why no nukes will fly and I'm happy to play along...


          All these VS threads are pure fiction anyway, so there no point in trying make them as real as possible, the realty might be very different too any conclusion this thread reaches , so I really don't have a reason, maybe you could say that a pure conventional fight will a lot more interesting than a nuclear fight.



          Comment


          • #6
            Mmmm. One of the main reasons why "massive retaliation" was embraced was because it was recognised that the cost of creating conventional forces sufficient to defeat the Warsaw Pact was too high for Western societies to bear.

            So no nukes = Red Army on the shores of the Atlantic enjoying sunny Lisbon in 2 months. Airfield One a.k.a. the UK might take a little longer.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post
              Mmmm. One of the main reasons why "massive retaliation" was embraced was because it was recognised that the cost of creating conventional forces sufficient to defeat the Warsaw Pact was too high for Western societies to bear.

              So no nukes = Red Army on the shores of the Atlantic enjoying sunny Lisbon in 2 months. Airfield One a.k.a. the UK might take a little longer.

              I believe if NATO can delay the Red army long enough, the US might be able to ship in enough forces to even out the odds, you have to remember the US army might of been out gunned compared to the Red army, but when it came to the Air force and Navy the opposite was true.

              Comment


              • #8
                Limited tactical exchange.
                Oh shit says both sides.
                Further escalation.
                Full tactical exchange.
                Full strategic.

                Rad roaches and mystery meat for dinner in a snowing nuclear winter.

                Comment


                • #9
                  In 1964 Khruschev was toppled by his apparatchiks. Within the next few years the moderate faction led by Brezhnev neutralized the hardliner faction led by Shelepin who actually masterminded the coup. Had Shelepin defeated the Brezhnev, which was quite possible, we might have seen much more serious Soviet involvement in conflicts like Cuba, Congo or Vietnam. Same goes for Arab-Israel Wars and India-Pakistani Wars. Not sure about starting WW3 though.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Stierlitz View Post


                    I believe if NATO can delay the Red army long enough, the US might be able to ship in enough forces to even out the odds, you have to remember the US army might of been out gunned compared to the Red army, but when it came to the Air force and Navy the opposite was true.
                    Not in 1965. The odd thing with those what if is that people are projecting 80s situation back in time

                    Mid 60s NATO forces are at 1 vs 2.5/3 in term of frontline immediately available men, 1 vs 4 to 10 in term of tanks, artillery tubes, MLR, APCs vs WP. And the WP is certainly not outgunned neither in term of quantity nor quality in the Air. The area where it is dragging behind is the Navy, yes, but again if the battle is located in Centra Europe, the navy would be of poor immediate use, except shipping reinforcements from USA or taking peripherical actions in the Baltics and Meditteranean sea.

                    Plus NATO is an uneasy alliance : France is out from the central command, UK BGF is supposed to weasel out unilateraly if any Dunkirk like risk emerges, Spain is far front the German frontline so its involvment is questionable, Italy is scourged by heavy communist presence including in Army and Carabinieri and the Bundeswher is still under reform and reorganization and far from the formidable tool it will become mid 70s early 80s

                    Plus the WP doctrine is still not understood by NATO HQ staff and there is no operational counter doctrinaly implemented. TacAir doctrine is an 80s one.

                    Until the 80s, at tactical and operational level, without nukes, the conventional unbalance is too big. This unbalance was closen when the west began to have a technological advance thanks to microchip technology, area where SU dragged behind and area that allowed to think about the TacAir doctrine based on Air Superiority supposed achievable with (supposed) better western aircrafts and air dropped/smart ordnances

                    And personnaly i cannot think that NATO can delay WP long enough to avoid at least a significant collapse in CE. The travel time at 10 knots is 18-20 days between NY and Le Havre/Amsterdam
                    And strategic airlifts capabilities were smaller than in the 80s

                    It's really not for nothing that the 60s NATO doctine even on the battlefield was to use as much nukes as possible on any WP concentration or edge or beach-head (see Davy Crocket and Lance missiles and Atomic Demolition Devices mines)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post
                      Mmmm. One of the main reasons why "massive retaliation" was embraced was because it was recognised that the cost of creating conventional forces sufficient to defeat the Warsaw Pact was too high for Western societies to bear.

                      So no nukes = Red Army on the shores of the Atlantic enjoying sunny Lisbon in 2 months. Airfield One a.k.a. the UK might take a little longer.
                      On your feet soldier!

                      US had enough Phantoms with AGM-12 and Hueys with AGM-22 to deal with T-55 armadas...

                      Never give up!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Mashiach View Post

                        On your feet soldier!

                        US had enough Phantoms with AGM-12 and Hueys with AGM-22 to deal with T-55 armadas...

                        Never give up!
                        Don't forget all the peripherical theatres. Mid 60s, central and south america (litteraly backyard of USA) were massive messes with nice potential for communist uprising. They would have to deal with Cuba at least, + Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and few others at most.
                        Almost all arab countries were pro-East as well as a bunch of central africa ones
                        And China was still aligned on SU as well as Vietnam, NK and some few important communist uprisings. A lot of area to act in, possibly too few boots for that.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Yeah all Russians needed was to invent teleporting. Because I don't see any other way to supply weapons to their allies without facing US Navy.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mashiach View Post
                            Yeah all Russians needed was to invent teleporting. Because I don't see any other way to supply weapons to their allies without facing US Navy.
                            Arabs and African countries were already full of stuff. That would have been hardier for small communist uprising in south america, that's for sure.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I will never believe those countries were capable of producing armaments by themselves apart from small arms. Hence they would have to rely on foreign arms supplies in case of major conflict. There was no land suuply route to Middle East and Africa because USSR was bordering Turkey and Iran who were US allies.
                              Last edited by m0shiach; 01-01-2017, 01:54 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X