NATO Vs Soviet Union 1970

[Jose Rodriguez III]

in event of war here what happen

 

soviet fight nato in europe. soviet forces easily push the allies out of europe, overrunning germany and france. soviet air craft bomb the isreal an saudi arabia. destroying the american puppets as soviet soldiers are shipped over there liberating the people of those countries from the west. soviet aircraft bomb the UK and soon the uk is forced to surrender.

 

then you have americans. soviets can ship over a massive army through the bering straits. the army can then march into alsaka and canada performing invasion of america. 

 

Ignoring the vastly inferior strength in Eastern Russia as opposed to the western Russia, most of Alaska's towns and cities were not connected by any sort of highways or were blocked off by mountains, which would have forced the soviets to fly in their forces unless they planned to lose a sizeable chunk to trekking the wilderness and mountain passes. The allies would likely only need to set up AA guns as well as artillery as the Combined Canadian/US AF could hold off soviet advances, not even factoring that the F-14 Tomcat would have likely been rushed into production following its 1970's maiden flight, further increasing air advantage for the allies.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Jose Rodriguez III

[LordRahl2]

NATO would likely have survived a purely coventional conflict in 1970. I suspect that the line would have stabilized somewhere in France.

 

Remember the relative power required to sustain offensive operations is 3:1 - about max effort from the WP. Additionally, the planning factor for advancing against a defense is 1 km/h. The Warsaw pact may have been able to sustain this for for some time but would have lost the required force ratio somewhere around a month - which puts them somewhere in the lowlands. Assuming a fudge factor moves them into France.

 

Really, a silly question. If either side was winning decisively then the other would initiate a tactical nuke strike. If it was a stalemate then the aggressor would be forced to do so. So win lose or draw it would go nuke.

Edited January 11, 2016 by LordRahl2

[Captain_Vietnam]

You're forgetting most of the Soviet manpower were located in Eastern Europe and Central Asia

 

Which already dividing their forces would form a two-front situtation, which would result them being defeated like Hitler.

which can be transported over the the otherside. trans Siberian railway

[LordRahl2]

which can be transported over the the otherside. trans Siberian railway

Your sense of logistics (the movement of troops and stuff) is way off and your scenario is soo impractical that it does not really warrent a reply.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

which can be transported over the the otherside. trans Siberian railway

As LordRahl stated "Your sense of logistics (the movement of troops and stuff) is way off and your scenario is soo impractical"

 

Not to mention the supply lines going through Siberia wouldn't be reliable to support the second front. (Siberia is basically a frozen desert, lol.)

[greatkitteh]

It should be noted that China and USSR were never allies or even on very good terms. China defending USSR in a bloodbath is extremely difficult to imagine.

They were untill Krushev $#@! It all up. Also, remember at this point the South Koreans are revolting against Sig min ree, poor to the max and under a worse dictator then Kim Il Sung. Japan also didnt rearm and The DPRK and China could essentially waltz all over asia. Cambodia, Vietbam, Laos, The DPRK, The great Chinese, basically all the Arabs, Afgahnistan, and of course the important Indians are all pro comintern at this point.

[Buorhann]

NATO would likely have survived a purely coventional conflict in 1970. I suspect that the line would have stabilized somewhere in France.

 

Remember the relative power required to sustain offensive operations is 3:1 - about max effort from the WP. Additionally, the planning factor for advancing against a defense is 1 km/h. The Warsaw pact may have been able to sustain this for for some time but would have lost the required force ratio somewhere around a month - which puts them somewhere in the lowlands. Assuming a fudge factor moves them into France.

 

Really, a silly question. If either side was winning decisively then the other would initiate a tactical nuke strike. If it was a stalemate then the aggressor would be forced to do so. So win lose or draw it would go nuke.

 

What about any potential blockades that the WP could enact on Soviets?  Surely they could shut off just about all trade to the USSR.  Do you think the USSR would've been able to produce enough for themselves to maintain any aggressive pushes?

[greatkitteh]

What about any potential blockades that the WP could enact on Soviets? Surely they could shut off just about all trade to the USSR. Do you think the USSR would've been able to produce enough for themselves to maintain any aggressive pushes?

Actually, most of europe needs USSR resources and Oil more then what the USSR needed from Euripe, Considering the entire middle east exepect Zionist Regime and False India was pro cominterm. The Ussr had tons of more resources then Most of europe, so they can supply the army.

[LordRahl2]

Blockades take a bit to have any effect because States tend to keep reserves of stuff for just such a contingency.  What would have eventually got them was grain and bread.  In 1970 the Soviets imported massive quantities of grain...from the US. 1970 was actually a good harvest for them so they *only imported over 400,000 Metric Tons (compared to 15.5 million MTs in 1972).

 

All that being said, the conflict would be over prior to any of that mattering.

[Boyd]

japan is far away/ russia close. 

 

russia can dig tunnels between alaska can russia under sea. this can be done look at channel tunnel. once tunnel is built invasion can done

WTF?

[Captain_Vietnam]

As LordRahl stated "Your sense of logistics (the movement of troops and stuff) is way off and your scenario is soo impractical"

 

Not to mention the supply lines going through Siberia wouldn't be reliable to support the second front. (Siberia is basically a frozen desert, lol.)

ussr can slowly move soldiers across if it's too much to do at once

[LordRahl2]

ussr can slowly move soldiers across if it's too much to do at once

It would have trouble simply feeding and fueling them to say nothing of building combat power for an offensive amphibious opperation.

[Captain_Vietnam]

It would have trouble simply feeding and fueling them to say nothing of building combat power for an offensive amphibious opperation.

red army strong. america weak.

 

russia has large amounts of food and oil that can be used to power the army. amphibious isn't needed when russians can build a tunnel or land bridge across Bering straits 

[Fox Fire]

ussr can slowly move soldiers across if it's too much to do at once

So that it's easier to kill them as they come across? I don't think we invaded Normandy by sending over a couple dudes at a time. 

[LordRahl2]

A tunnel or a bridge? Are you !@#$ing serious?

 

As to having plenty of refined fuel and plenty of food in Siberia? No. No they do not.

[WISD0MTREE]

no nuclear arms. 

Stupid thread. 

 

I'd kind of be interested in a thread debating whether nuclear weapons can be used in a limited war and have their use stayed limited. 

 

So that it's easier to kill them as they come across? I don't think we invaded Normandy by sending over a couple dudes at a time. 

One dude at a time

And they didn't bomb me past nine

 

I just had to. 

 

A tunnel or a bridge? Are you !@#$ serious?

 

As to having plenty of refined fuel and plenty of food in Siberia? No. No they do not.

I like how you just stopped even explaining his flawed logic. He's trolling. Please don't feed the trolls. 

[Captain_Vietnam]

So that it's easier to kill them as they come across? I don't think we invaded Normandy by sending over a couple dudes at a time. 

to Siberia where they can build up for blitzkrieg into russia via tunnels to crush america.

 

A tunnel or a bridge? Are you !@#$ serious?

 

As to having plenty of refined fuel and plenty of food in Siberia? No. No they do not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Tunnel

[Franz Von Dietrich]

to Siberia where they can build up for blitzkrieg into russia via tunnels to crush america.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Tunnel

Due to this being 1970 and several of the governments in Indochina not yet being communist/socialist till 1975, then that means;

 

SEATO could fully be used to counter Warsaw Pact/Soviet Union/PRC influence in the region, and establish a stronghold for possible invasions in the surrounding region.

 

Sorry, but your "vietnam power" and the Vietcong would be crushed

Edited January 13, 2016 by Francisco Franco

[Captain_Vietnam]

Due to this being 1970 and several of the governments in Indochina not yet being communist/socialist till 1975, then that means;

 

SEATO could fully be used to counter Warsaw Pact/Soviet Union/PRC influence in the region, and establish a stronghold for possible invasions in the surrounding region.

 

Sorry, but your "vietnam power" and the Vietcong would be crushed

vietcong lived through war with america and killed so many weak americans that america had to retreat. 

 

the Vietnamese are a warrior people and the strongest in the world. a typical Vietnamese is both stronger and more healthy then somebody from america

[Mike Haggar]

I like how it's just assumed that tunnels and bridges are easy to build. Anybody familiar with construction of the Channel Tunnel or even Boston's "Big Dig" knows that it is extremely touch-and-go, even with a dedicated workforce (not likely in wartime) and a friendly reception on the other side. Any hostile bridge to Alaska would be blown up by the U.S.'s superior navy. Any tunnel would be subject to depth charges or even hostile drilling rigs punching holes in its structure. By the time they reached the surface, seismometers would have pinpointed the tunnel and its likely outlet, resulting in a blanket of mines and artillery to greet any poor soul coming out.

 

With all due respect for China's massive manpower, the real swing powers would be the Latin American states. Mexico could have easily sunk the U.S.'s efforts in WW2, even if they would end up on the worst end of the fighting. Latin America has a strong socialist and communist tradition as well as an easy land route into the U.S., so the question is whether the U.S.S.R could topple enough governments to result in a War of the Americas.

[Spite]

You forget, mighty Soviet army fart Moonbeams and their unicorn cavalry would destroy pesky American sasquatch

[Lannan13]

vietcong lived through war with america and killed so many weak americans that america had to retreat. 

 

the Vietnamese are a warrior people and the strongest in the world. a typical Vietnamese is both stronger and more healthy then somebody from america

The US's own media defeated the US, not the Viet Cong. After the Tet offense Ho Chi Mihn had no reserves and not enough men left to keep fighting the allies. At this point we could have ended up with a Vietnam like the Korea today. 

 

Define "strong."

[greatkitteh]

The US's own media defeated the US, not the Viet Cong. After the Tet offense Ho Chi Mihn had no reserves and not enough men left to keep fighting the allies. At this point we could have ended up with a Vietnam like the Korea today.

 

Define "strong."

Which is a good point. The USSR and North Korean propoganda machines are generally superior to americas.

 

As for North Korea, They were only in stalemate because 38 mations decided to dogpile them, a move illegal as the Ussr was not present and China was misrepresented. In a Soviet US war, The US cant afford to dogpile North Korea and the "Democratic" Martial law, Dictatorial country called South Korea would have been exploded in a plantet of artilerry.

Edited January 16, 2016 by greatkitteh

[Captain_Vietnam]

The US's own media defeated the US, not the Viet Cong. After the Tet offense Ho Chi Mihn had no reserves and not enough men left to keep fighting the allies. At this point we could have ended up with a Vietnam like the Korea today. 

 

Define "strong."

vietnamese people are on average stronger then western men

[Lannan13]

vietnamese people are on average stronger then western men

The BOP is on you. We're all waiting in anticipation.