Flying Squirrel Entertainment

The Lounge => Historical Discussion => Topic started by: Stefiboy on January 10, 2014, 02:34:56 am

Title: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Stefiboy on January 10, 2014, 02:34:56 am
Well, Basically i justed want to pick the community's brains about this scenario.

In a Conventional War, Which Out of these 2 would rise on top. NATO or The Warsaw Pact.

Making an Opinion now
[close]
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: DeoVindice61 on January 10, 2014, 04:02:04 am
NATO i'd say. So many countries in NATO could probably actually make a stand against Soviet Union. Sure WARSAW pact had quite few countries such as DDR being most advanced army in Warsaw but still it lacked strength. Soviet of course, would be a challenge but i think it'll be defeated by the amount of allied country making combined assault on soviet.


Its likely those countries in WARSAW pact probably would fall through quickly and join the NATO. Not every country behind the curtain are willing to die for Soviet Union.


But this is also age of nuclear, id say it would be one ugly earth with nuclear winter in the end.  :-[  Damn Nukes.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Desert Thunda on January 10, 2014, 12:54:11 pm
The side with the most nukes.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Furrnox on January 10, 2014, 02:05:22 pm
NATO i'd say. So many countries in NATO could probably actually make a stand against Soviet Union. Sure WARSAW pact had quite few countries such as DDR being most advanced army in Warsaw but still it lacked strength. Soviet of course, would be a challenge but i think it'll be defeated by the amount of allied country making combined assault on soviet.


Its likely those countries in WARSAW pact probably would fall through quickly and join the NATO. Not every country behind the curtain are willing to die for Soviet Union.


But this is also age of nuclear, id say it would be one ugly earth with nuclear winter in the end.  :-[  Damn Nukes.

No one has sucsesfully invaded Russia.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: DanyEle on January 10, 2014, 02:14:36 pm
No human being would win from such a war.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Aiello on January 10, 2014, 03:03:26 pm
No one has sucsesfully invaded Russia.

Except for the Mongols and the Varangians.

You could call the Crimean War, German invasion during WWI, and the Polish-Muscovite successful invasions as Russia was forced to make concessions to the invaders.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Furrnox on January 10, 2014, 03:07:45 pm
It wasn't really Russia back then & why not say Vikings instead?
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Palfer on January 10, 2014, 03:20:52 pm
Baring in mind, it is a conventional war, assuming no Nuclear Weapons would be used.


What people don't seem to understand is, that no one will use a Nuke. If they use one, everyone uses one on them. So, disqualify any points about Nukes etc.


Personally, I think it'd be a hard fought battle, but as stated, the WARSAW nations would fall through, and it seems as though their Economies wouldn't be able to maintain and sustain such a war, and therefore NATO would win.


That, and Britain is on NATOs side. 'Nuff said.


No one has sucsesfully invaded Russia.

Except for the Mongols and the Varangians.

You could call the Crimean War, German invasion during WWI, and the Polish-Muscovite successful invasions as Russia was forced to make concessions to the invaders.

Russia has always been 'Russia', I assume you mean the Nation itself? Well, Russia didn't just appear, it was formed through smaller nations, much like Germany or England... Or pretty much anywhere. Russia was Russia during the Crimean War, and it was Russia during the German invasion in WWI.

The land of Russia, as in the actual, physical land has been invaded many times, therefore the myth that 'Russia has never been invaded' is simply flawed in many dimensions.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Aiello on January 10, 2014, 03:46:51 pm
It wasn't really Russia back then & why not say Vikings instead?

In the case of the Mongols all of Russia was united against them, Varangians were more piecemeal in their conquests but were still able to exert control over the conquered Russian lands. That doesn't take away from the fact that Russia has lost modern wars in which it was invaded.

I use the term Varangian to specify the group of vikings that conquered and ruled over the slavic tribes in modern day Russia. It is also not 100% known that Varangians were even vikings as there are little to no contemporary accounts of Varangians until they were already established in Russia.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Prince_Eugen on January 10, 2014, 03:57:13 pm
This topic is called to create a shit storm.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Hawke on January 10, 2014, 05:11:57 pm
NATO, the Russians wouldn't have been able to enter West Germany with the military might of the UK and the US defending it. Probably.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Prince_Eugen on January 10, 2014, 05:36:33 pm
NATO, the Russians wouldn't have been able to enter West Germany with the military might of the UK and the US defending it. Probably.
References, documents, info on which you're basing your statement. Take care to explain for me.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Archduke Sven on January 10, 2014, 06:56:16 pm
Warsaw Pact nations had shit economies, they wouldn't have been able to sustain a longer war. In a conventional war, i feel that the both sides would be very equal in military terms, the only real advantages would be that NATO forces would have air superiority (If not supremacy) almost immediatly, while the Warsaw Pact nations would be able to bring in their full might much quicker than NATO (Ferrying sizeable amounts of US troops would take a couple of weeks), until then all that would be trying to hold back the Warsaw Pact would be Germany, France (Depending on year), Italy, the UK, NL BE and Spain (Again, depending on year) on the mainland, and Norway all on its own up north.

So, i believe the frontline would become static, somewhere in Germany - Northern Italy, at which point having a strong economy to keep war production up would be neccesary, something that NATO countries had an advantage of.

Also, there is the point that many people within Warsaw Pact had many dissenters, since communist regimes where not particularly well liked, thus presenting several Warsaw Pact nations with another disadvantage. NATO countries did have the same issue (France for example), however not to the same degree.

This is all considering nobody used tactical or strategic nuclear weapons.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Aiello on January 10, 2014, 09:00:42 pm
The time that this theoretical conflict would be taking place is also important. If this is taking place within 5 years of WWII ending, Warsaw pact forces probably could make a huge push into Western Europe. If you look at a map of allied armies at the end of WWII (in the spoiler tags below), Communist forces have a significantly larger force. If the conflict occurs close to WWII's end date NATO forces could perhaps be encircled by a much larger force. It really depends on how quickly that the Soviet Union and friends could surround NATO forces. A country like the USA had the capacity to mobilize an enormous force in a short time and would most likely stop the communists at some point, but most of Germany could have been taken by that point. This is really the only time frame that I see Warsaw pact countries actually winning, crushing existing NATO armies before they get a change to send reinforcements to Europe.

If a communist push is bogged down fighting a much smaller force giving time for NATO reinforcements then NATO would more likely be able to sustain the war longer and have a good chance of winning.


Spoiler
Allied armies at the end of WWII(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F1%2F11%2FAllied_army_positions_on_10_May_1945.png&hash=8c3051e2c7dab95bb229ad25addc96eadb236a5d)
[close]
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: BNS Marko on January 10, 2014, 09:05:25 pm
Warsaw pact, Putin is a strong leader, focuses on military and won't let go. If it's a conventional war(no nukes), I'd place my bet on Warsaw, hardier men and units. Technological inferiority is a lie, it's just less d***waving that USA, just check out some of the military excercises Putin does...and the state of readyness of Russia's army.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Archduke Sven on January 10, 2014, 09:08:17 pm
Warsaw pact, Putin is a strong leader, focuses on military and won't let go. If it's a conventional war(no nukes), I'd place my bet on Warsaw, hardier men and units. Technological inferiority is a lie, it's just less d***waving that USA, just check out some of the military excercises Putin does...and the state of readyness of Russia's army.

I think you may have a very basic understanding of history.

Maybe i should also tell you that currently the Warsaw Pact is disbanded, and that this conversation is about the time period 1955-1989
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Menelaos on January 10, 2014, 09:12:10 pm
But how else is Putin going to be involved in this?
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Archduke Sven on January 10, 2014, 09:18:44 pm
But how else is Putin going to be involved in this?

Well maybe you should make a NATO vs CIS thread so that we can show our love for Putin.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: BNS Marko on January 10, 2014, 10:33:47 pm
Warsaw pact might be formally disbanded, but matey, most of the countries would still side with Russia. This conversation doesn't necessarily have to be about the Cold War era.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Duuring on January 10, 2014, 10:41:27 pm
Maybe the governments, but not the people. Polish and Ukrainians have a deep, deep hatred for the Russian government. The Ukrainians even had riots against Russian influence a while ago, I believe.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Archduke Sven on January 10, 2014, 10:45:01 pm
Warsaw pact might be formally disbanded, but matey, most of the countries would still side with Russia. This conversation doesn't necessarily have to be about the Cold War era.

Alot of the former Warsaw Pact nations are in NATO, your point has no validity.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: BNS Marko on January 10, 2014, 10:50:55 pm
The European countries, mostly.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: TORN on January 10, 2014, 10:57:18 pm
The European countries, mostly.
and the countries in the warsaw pact weren't european?
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Noodlenrice on January 10, 2014, 11:25:26 pm
Warsaw pact, Putin is a strong leader, focuses on military and won't let go. If it's a conventional war(no nukes), I'd place my bet on Warsaw, hardier men and units. Technological inferiority is a lie, it's just less d***waving that USA, just check out some of the military excercises Putin does...and the state of readyness of Russia's army.
You do realize that Putin wasn't the leader of Russia when Warsaw Pact was around? We are talking about Warsaw Pact with Soviet Union not Russia the "democracy".
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Archduke Sven on January 10, 2014, 11:42:33 pm
The European countries, mostly.


So you believe that, Russia, Kazakstan and Uzbekistan will beat NATO.

Ok man, believe what you want.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Noodlenrice on January 11, 2014, 12:03:37 am
The European countries, mostly.


So you believe that, Russia, Kazakstan and Uzbekistan will beat NATO.

Ok man, believe what you want.

they are 2 strunq
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Menelaos on January 11, 2014, 09:12:03 am
Correction: Russian and Putin will beat NATO.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Nipplestockings on January 11, 2014, 09:15:37 am
If war broke out, NATO would most certainly win, for reasons already stated. However the Warsaw pact disintegrated on its own, and NATO is still going strong today, so I think the victor in that respect is clear ::)
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Stefiboy on January 11, 2014, 03:34:18 pm
If war broke out, NATO would most certainly win, for reasons already stated. However the Warsaw pact disintegrated on its own, and NATO is still going strong today, so I think the victor in that respect is clear ::)
Not Really, you underestimate the Warsaw Pact, For Reasons Below.

1. NATO Countries had Volunteer Armies, which meant they already had less Manpower then the Pact countries, the Pact Countries, however had Conscripted/Drafted Armies, which meant they had double the manpower the NATO countries had. Outnumbered atleast 2-1 on the Berlin Front, they would have had to retreat to a more defensible position where they would wait for reinforcements, that is assuming NATO started the war, If the Warsaw Pact started the war, their doctrines for going across the Wall, meant a surprise attack. Just By the Surprise Factor alone the NATO Troops would have to retreat. (Again, ::))

2. The Warsaw Pact had a lot of BMP's which also meant, a lot of ATGM's which could reduce a Abrams to dust, Also the shear number of tanks they had, could do some damage.(Alot of Damage)

(Im Still not done yet,)
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Duuring on January 11, 2014, 05:36:29 pm
Quote
NATO Countries had Volunteer Armies
Ehm, nope. The Netherlands had conscription until 1997. The British until 1960. The Belgians until 1993. France still has it, it just suspended as it's peace, just like Italy and Germany. And so on. 

Several countries in the Warsaw pact had revolutions against the communist, which shows how loyal exactly these people and troops were. Not that anyone can blame them.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: DaMonkey on January 11, 2014, 06:46:33 pm
Duuring hit the nail there. Especially on the loyalties thing. Most Warsaw Pact nations were forcibly involved in it, and many of them had revolutions against it, like the Hungarians.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: MagicTeatowel on January 11, 2014, 07:37:23 pm
If a war were to break out, Would the local populations in Warsaw Pact countries rise up? Resistance Movements etc? - PARTIZANI - In the 50's and early 60's their were groups like the Forest Brothers, UPA, Crusaders, and Goryani to name a few.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Johan on January 11, 2014, 07:47:01 pm
Nobody can proove who is gonna win and this thread is suck-ass.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: William on January 11, 2014, 07:48:43 pm
You basically have numbers on Warsaw Pact, vs the higher quality troops of Nato. Essentially, quality vs quantity. IMO, I think Nato would win but it would be a hard fought victory, thousands of cities leveled, Europe being a continent of rubble from the fighting. It would be a victory, but Pyrrhic and with the deaths of millions of civilians and soldiers. Not to mention the fact that nukes are in the equation and if one side launches, then the world burns. Very high stakes, I applaud the Soviet Commander who opted to not fire nukes at America when a sensor went off indicating a launch.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Desert Thunda on January 11, 2014, 07:52:41 pm

Nobody can proove who is gonna win and this thread is suck-ass.
Yep



Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Menelaos on January 11, 2014, 08:14:27 pm
Nobody can proove who is gonna win and this thread is suck-ass.

We have technology (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6ctb-Pb3lc). We will construct a total war mod and make average people play it to simulate what would happen.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Stefiboy on January 11, 2014, 08:16:33 pm
Spoiler
Quote
NATO Countries had Volunteer Armies
Ehm, nope. The Netherlands had conscription until 1997. The British until 1960. The Belgians until 1993. France still has it, it just suspended as it's peace, just like Italy and Germany. And so on. 

Several countries in the Warsaw pact had revolutions against the communist, which shows how loyal exactly these people and troops were. Not that anyone can blame them.
[close]
Im talking about the 1980-1991 Period, not the 60's.

Yes, but those were later on, when the Soviet Union was starting to collapse economically and Politically. That is when and why most revolutions took place, also i know about the whole loyalties thing, my Father Served as a Major in the Romanian Ground Forces during the Communist regime, he told me all of his base's close encounters with the Securitate (Basically a Uniformed version of the KGB in Romania) about how some units in his Base wanted to mutiny because their commanders were too harsh or the Communists killed their family for political bullshit. But when it comes to war, those feelings will be gone, your primary focus will be to fight for your country and defend it. The Same thing with the Soviets, alot of their armed forces were angered at the Communist Government, but when they were at war with the Mujaheddin, again Service came before personal feelings and political beliefs, sure there might be desertion but not mutinies, that's the good thing with communist armies, their propaganda works.... (China... ;D) .

Spoiler
You basically have numbers on Warsaw Pact, vs the higher quality troops of Nato. Essentially, quality vs quantity. IMO, I think Nato would win but it would be a hard fought victory, thousands of cities leveled, Europe being a continent of rubble from the fighting. It would be a victory, but Pyrrhic and with the deaths of millions of civilians and soldiers. Not to mention the fact that nukes are in the equation and if one side launches, then the world burns. Very high stakes, I applaud the Soviet Commander who opted to not fire nukes at America when a sensor went off indicating a launch.
[close]
Higher Quality troops of NATO????

The Only Countries in NATO that had the Most well-trained Units and were in position at the Iron Curtain, were the Canadians,The Brits,The Yanks and The French(More or Less at the Iron Curtain) If you put up a Belgian Soldier for example against an NVA Conscript, the NVA Conscript would win, due to superior Infantry equipment and better training, now upgrade that to Section/Squad Size engagements again the East-Germans win again, due to better NCO's(Also Battle-Hardened). Scale it up to Platoon Engagements again NVA, fast-forward to Army vs Army and the NVA Surely wins, due to the Combined arms Doctrine of the Soviets, Pretty Much Outnumbers the Belgians 2-1 and they have twice the tanks, the Belgians have...

Now Put up the Soviets vs the Americans, and then its pretty much uncertain, when it comes to super-powers, the numbers alone can make the difference. (The Ability to put fresher and more men on the battlefield is a decisive factor and advantage that the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact had)

Also don't forget that the US would have to cross the Atlantic to bring their troops to Europe for engagements. And Keep in mind this thread is about Conventional Warfare, so for arguments sake, All Nukes got Dismantled.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Duuring on January 11, 2014, 08:31:18 pm
Quote
Im talking about the 1980-1991 Period, not the 60's.

Great job commenting on only the UK and ignoring all the others

Quote
Yes, but [The revolutions] were later on, when the Soviet Union was starting to collapse economically and Politically

The Hungarian revolution was in 1956. The Czechs had a revolt in 1953. The Polish had massive protests in 1956 and again in 1970. Romania had a large anti-communist underground which wasn't rounded up until 1962. The fact that all those nations rose up again in 1989 when they saw their change is a very clear sign that anti-communism and rebellious feelings were very much alive throughout the period.

Quote
Also don't forget that the US would have to cross the Atlantic to bring their troops to Europe for engagements.

So? The Soviets nor any members of the Pact had air control over the Atlantic. Submarines are ineffective if the USA use convoys, which I'm pretty sure they'll do. You are also forgetting that Russia and the USA are neighbors.

Quote
So much crap I have to put it in a spoiler
The Only Countries in NATO that had the Most well-trained Units and were in position at the Iron Curtain, were the Canadians,The Brits,The Yanks and The French(More or Less at the Iron Curtain) If you put up a Belgian Soldier for example against an NVA Conscript, the NVA Conscript would win, due to superior Infantry equipment and better training, now upgrade that to Section/Squad Size engagements again the East-Germans win again, due to better NCO's(Also Battle-Hardened). Scale it up to Platoon Engagements again NVA, fast-forward to Army vs Army and the NVA Surely wins, due to the Combined arms Doctrine of the Soviets, Pretty Much Outnumbers the Belgians 2-1 and they have twice the tanks, the Belgians have...
[close]

That's the worst logic I've ever seen. 'Fast-forward to army vs army', what? This isn't a board-game.


Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Gizmo on January 11, 2014, 08:31:35 pm
If you put up a Belgian Soldier for example against an NVA Conscript, the NVA Conscript would win, due to superior Infantry equipment and better training, now upgrade that to Section/Squad Size engagements again the East-Germans win again, due to better NCO's(Also Battle-Hardened).
Why are you making up stuff like this? DDR was seriously behind every western nation in terms of technology, especially if you talk about the latter part of the Cold War. And why the heck would a Belgian soldier would loose against an East-German conscript?
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: MagicTeatowel on January 11, 2014, 08:56:06 pm
If you put up a Belgian Soldier for example against an NVA Conscript, the NVA Conscript would win, due to superior Infantry equipment and better training, now upgrade that to Section/Squad Size engagements again the East-Germans win again, due to better NCO's(Also Battle-Hardened).
Why are you making up stuff like this? DDR was seriously behind every western nation in terms of technology, especially if you talk about the latter part of the Cold War. And why the heck would a Belgian soldier would loose against an East-German conscript?
Its what happens when you watch highly informative programs about troops fighting each other. Example One (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyCflCiIeQM)  Example Two (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGMIZw4Rrew)
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Hawke on January 11, 2014, 08:59:16 pm
Deadliest Warrior is the real deal.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Duuring on January 11, 2014, 09:00:17 pm
Its what happens when you watch highly informative programs about troops fighting each other. Example One (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyCflCiIeQM)  Example Two (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGMIZw4Rrew)

DEUTSCHLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Stefiboy on January 11, 2014, 09:06:42 pm
Look, Just Saying i agree that NATO would win, just not in the early part of the war. All im trying to say is it would be the bloodiest conflict, And the Warsaw Pact would be winning for the first couple of months or so.


Quote
Also don't forget that the US would have to cross the Atlantic to bring their troops to Europe for engagements.

So? The Soviets nor any members of the Pact had air control over the Atlantic. Submarines are ineffective if the USA use convoys, which I'm pretty sure they'll do. You are also forgetting that Russia and the USA are neighbors.

Yes, but im talking about the war in europe, if you want to talk about how the Russians would invade the US? Feel Free to, but we all know how patriotic and revolutionary the americans are, we ultimately know that even if they conquer it all, they still have to face millions of Americans with guns and we all ultimately know that they will eventually pull out...

So im saying that the War in the America's and Siberia would be a stalemate, however Europe would be another story.

Also, im on NATO's Side personally im just saying, at the early stages of a conventional war the Pact would be winning slightly, especially in Germany... in Scandinavia it really depends on how long the Norwegians,Swedish and the Fins can last. Later on, the Soviet's will make the huge tactical error of trying to invade Britain by sea and the flow of american reinforcements will generally be the doom of the soviets, i hate to admit it... but the war would only be won by 2 countries, The US or the USSR. The UK,Canada,France and West Germany would contribute greatly in the war.

If you put up a Belgian Soldier for example against an NVA Conscript, the NVA Conscript would win, due to superior Infantry equipment and better training, now upgrade that to Section/Squad Size engagements again the East-Germans win again, due to better NCO's(Also Battle-Hardened).
Why are you making up stuff like this? DDR was seriously behind every western nation in terms of technology, especially if you talk about the latter part of the Cold War. And why the heck would a Belgian soldier would loose against an East-German conscript?
Making stuff up?

Sure, they wouldn't have technology on their side, but they would have a Battle-Hardened force by the time they reach Belgium and the numbers to beat the Belgian Army, i exaggerated it too much when it comes down to it, 1v1 Belgian vs DDR Conscript. The Belgian conscript would win, but when it goes on to more sizable engagements, the DDR would win, not by technology or training but by the number of troops they could deploy, which is quite alot... Sorry Mate.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: MagicTeatowel on January 11, 2014, 09:24:10 pm
Making stuff up?
Later on, the Soviet's will make the huge tactical error of trying to invade Britain by sea
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Stefiboy on January 11, 2014, 09:29:07 pm

Later on, the Soviet's will make the huge tactical error of trying to invade Britain by sea

What? Its true. An Airborne operation would work out, but a seaborne operation, lots of casualties for what? like 500 metres of beach and 1km inland?
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Duuring on January 11, 2014, 09:31:35 pm
Implying the Soviets would even get as far as the UK and not just bomb or isolate it when they do. Why even bother with invading?

but a seaborne operation, lots of casualties for what? like 500 metres of beach and 1km inland?

And this is based on...what exactly?
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: TORN on January 11, 2014, 09:32:13 pm
How did Belgium get involved into this? During the cold war if a conflict would've arised we would've been the canonfodder of the NATO troops but dammit we were well trained and equipped.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Archduke Sven on January 11, 2014, 09:45:49 pm
Quote
The Same thing with the Soviets, alot of their armed forces were angered at the Communist Government, but when they were at war with the Mujaheddin, again Service came before personal feelings and political beliefs, sure there might be desertion but not mutinies, that's the good thing with communist armies, their propaganda works.... (China... ;D) .

Haha, the USSR troops in Afghanistan sold their equipment in exchange for prostitutes, they really wanted to fight, for sure. Of course, they didn't know they would be stabbed to death during intercourse.

Quote
Spoiler
You basically have numbers on Warsaw Pact, vs the higher quality troops of Nato. Essentially, quality vs quantity. IMO, I think Nato would win but it would be a hard fought victory, thousands of cities leveled, Europe being a continent of rubble from the fighting. It would be a victory, but Pyrrhic and with the deaths of millions of civilians and soldiers. Not to mention the fact that nukes are in the equation and if one side launches, then the world burns. Very high stakes, I applaud the Soviet Commander who opted to not fire nukes at America when a sensor went off indicating a launch.
[close]
Higher Quality troops of NATO????

The Only Countries in NATO that had the Most well-trained Units and were in position at the Iron Curtain, were the Canadians,The Brits,The Yanks and The French(More or Less at the Iron Curtain) If you put up a Belgian Soldier for example against an NVA Conscript, the NVA Conscript would win, due to superior Infantry equipment and better training, now upgrade that to Section/Squad Size engagements again the East-Germans win again, due to better NCO's(Also Battle-Hardened). Scale it up to Platoon Engagements again NVA, fast-forward to Army vs Army and the NVA Surely wins, due to the Combined arms Doctrine of the Soviets, Pretty Much Outnumbers the Belgians 2-1 and they have twice the tanks, the Belgians have...

How are East German NCOs battle hardened? The DDR had no ex-Wehrmacht soldiers once it was formed, it was pure communist, thus no troops had any combat experience. On the other hand, West Germany had a few top ex-Nazi generals in their service, thus several of the generals had a lot of experience commanding armies, which is way more important than anythign else.

Where does this argument of NVA conscripts being better than Belgians come from? You pulled that right out of your arse and it's completly untrue.

Furthermore, saying that NATO forces hadn't developed a combined arms doctrine is by far the dumbest thing you could have said.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Gizmo on January 11, 2014, 10:16:10 pm
Sure, they wouldn't have technology on their side, but they would have a Battle-Hardened force by the time they reach Belgium and the numbers to beat the Belgian Army, i exaggerated it too much when it comes down to it, 1v1 Belgian vs DDR Conscript. The Belgian conscript would win, but when it goes on to more sizable engagements, the DDR would win, not by technology or training but by the number of troops they could deploy, which is quite alot... Sorry Mate.
We're not talking about your great Belgian-East German war here, we're talking about a worldwide scale conflict. Your comparisons between a single soldier against an other one are utterly useless. Also, what is your source proving that East-Germans are supposely "battle hardened". This is a pure nonsense.

Also, as said before by wise people, the communist regimes were not stable at all. So Civil wars could break out in the Warsaw Pact countries. It would be hard for the Red Army to fight the whole NATO by itself and at the same time fighting revolutionnary and nationalistic groups, for example it didn't really help out the Germans in WW2 did it?
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Stefiboy on January 11, 2014, 10:31:57 pm
Quote
How are East German NCOs battle hardened? The DDR had no ex-Wehrmacht soldiers once it was formed, it was pure communist, thus no troops had any combat experience. On the other hand, West Germany had a few top ex-Nazi generals in their service, thus several of the generals had a lot of experience commanding armies, which is way more important than anythign else.

Where does this argument of NVA conscripts being better than Belgians come from? You pulled that right out of your arse and it's completly untrue.
Furthermore, saying that NATO forces hadn't developed a combined arms doctrine is by far the dumbest thing you could have said.
When did i say that?

In the Event of a war though, the NVA would be have battle experience by the time they would have reached Belgium, whilst the belgians would have little to none combat experience, during peacetime i agree the Belgians are better then the DDR's Troops before said war would have happened. And Even though the Bundeswehr had Ex-Wehrmacht Commanders with them, that does not mean that the DDR did not have its number of Tactically Capable Generals. Even with the experienced commanders the Bundeswehr had, the NVA could still inflict large casualties on the Bundeswehr, The Bundeswehr could do the same thing. but the DDR and West Germans wouldn't be the only countries in the war.

Sure, they wouldn't have technology on their side, but they would have a Battle-Hardened force by the time they reach Belgium and the numbers to beat the Belgian Army, i exaggerated it too much when it comes down to it, 1v1 Belgian vs DDR Conscript. The Belgian conscript would win, but when it goes on to more sizable engagements, the DDR would win, not by technology or training but by the number of troops they could deploy, which is quite alot... Sorry Mate.
We're not talking about your great Belgian-East German war here, we're talking about a worldwide scale conflict. Your comparisons between a single soldier against an other one are utterly useless. Also, what is your source proving that East-Germans are supposely "battle hardened". This is a pure nonsense.

Also, as said before by wise people, the communist regimes were not stable at all. So Civil wars could break out in the Warsaw Pact countries. It would be hard for the Red Army to fight the whole NATO by itself and at the same time fighting revolutionnary and nationalistic groups, for example it didn't really help out the Germans in WW2 did it?
Can you read? Because i said, if the DDR made it to Belgium they would have had a Battle-Hardened Force, im not saying that they were...

Yes, but as stated before by me. Its in a Soldier's mentality to defend his nation when it is at war, no matter what so for the beginning of the conflict there wouldn't have been mutinies, there would have been revolutions maybe, but they would be put down pretty quickly. The Revolutions would have come later on in the war.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: TORN on January 11, 2014, 10:34:22 pm
Quote
Furthermore, saying that NATO forces hadn't developed a combined arms doctrine is by far the dumbest thing you could have said.
Read the whole sentence Stefiboy.

And please you're just pulling stuff out of your ass.

Quote
but the DDR and West Germans wouldn't be the only countries in the war.
Same on the Nato side. France,UK,USA and Belgium (probally more countries) all had troops stationed in West-Germany. The NVA couldn't a biltzkrieg towards Belgium as you're oddly trying to explain.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Duuring on January 11, 2014, 10:47:46 pm
Quote
In the Event of a war though, the NVA would be have battle experience by the time they would have reached Belgium, whilst the belgians would have little to none combat experience

You talk about this as if the Pact-members would happily march into every country one by one, gaining up experience and developing new tactics, while all the NATO-members are picking out of their noses and waiting for their country to be attacked before doing shit.

Quote
Its in a Soldier's mentality to defend his nation when it is at war, no matter what so for the beginning of the conflict there wouldn't have been mutinies, there would have been revolutions maybe, but they would be put down pretty quickly

That's what people like to think, but it happened a thousand times in history that soldiers refused to fight with the enemy at their doorstep. It isn't exactly that defeat would end in the total destruction of the nations and its people. Sure, the people were fed scaring images, but not total extermination. We would see people giving their lives for the system they believe, and we would see mass surrenders and desertion by those who didn't.

My personal opinion: Had the Warsaw-pact gone to war, it would have crumbled under its own weight. There were too many disgruntled people already who multiple times had open conflict with the government, and then they would be asked to support a war-driven economy? They would be asked to give their full support and their lives for the system that took and was taking away their family and friends. You are overestimating the communist system. It doesn't work, especially not under war. The fact the USSR even got to live trough WWII was due to Hitlers incompetence and American dollars.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Connzcdf on January 11, 2014, 11:07:15 pm
Guy's I thought this was sorted in World in Conflict: Soviet Assault (http://worldinconflict.uk.ubi.com/).
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: TORN on January 11, 2014, 11:08:32 pm
I've seen you play that game alot
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Walko on January 11, 2014, 11:09:46 pm
Guy's I thought this was sorted in World in Conflict: Soviet Assault (http://worldinconflict.uk.ubi.com/).

I was about to say that.

I also have a book called "Soviet Military Might" back in the 1980's, that basically asks about this very scenario, and compares Warsaw and NATO military might. I could pull out some of the charts if people care.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Connzcdf on January 11, 2014, 11:10:20 pm
I've seen you play that game alot
Studying. ;)
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Stefiboy on January 12, 2014, 12:16:11 am
Guy's I thought this was sorted in World in Conflict: Soviet Assault (http://worldinconflict.uk.ubi.com/).

I was about to say that.

I also have a book called "Soviet Military Might" back in the 1980's, that basically asks about this very scenario, and compares Warsaw and NATO military might. I could pull out some of the charts if people care.
Yes Please... :P
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Stefiboy on January 12, 2014, 03:27:06 am
Quote
In the Event of a war though, the NVA would be have battle experience by the time they would have reached Belgium, whilst the belgians would have little to none combat experience

You talk about this as if the Pact-members would happily march into every country one by one, gaining up experience and developing new tactics, while all the NATO-members are picking out of their noses and waiting for their country to be attacked before doing shit.

Spoiler
Quote
Its in a Soldier's mentality to defend his nation when it is at war, no matter what so for the beginning of the conflict there wouldn't have been mutinies, there would have been revolutions maybe, but they would be put down pretty quickly

That's what people like to think, but it happened a thousand times in history that soldiers refused to fight with the enemy at their doorstep. It isn't exactly that defeat would end in the total destruction of the nations and its people. Sure, the people were fed scaring images, but not total extermination. We would see people giving their lives for the system they believe, and we would see mass surrenders and desertion by those who didn't.

My personal opinion: Had the Warsaw-pact gone to war, it would have crumbled under its own weight. There were too many disgruntled people already who multiple times had open conflict with the government, and then they would be asked to support a war-driven economy? They would be asked to give their full support and their lives for the system that took and was taking away their family and friends. You are overestimating the communist system. It doesn't work, especially not under war. The fact the USSR even got to live trough WWII was due to Hitlers incompetence and American dollars.
[close]
[/spoiler]

Quote from:  Duuring
You talk about this as if the Pact-members would happily march into every country one by one, gaining up experience and developing new tactics, while all the NATO-members are picking out of their noses and waiting for their country to be attacked before doing shit.
No, however Belgium would fight a defensive war,i know it and you know it...
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: TORN on January 12, 2014, 09:29:36 am
Quote
No, however Belgium would fight a defensive war,i know it and you know it...
That doesn't make sense at all. Have you stopped acknowledging the fact that West-Germany was between the two?
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Archduke Sven on January 12, 2014, 12:05:50 pm
NATO forces where much better trained in working together, they had several military maneouvres together over the years. Belgium wouldn't do nothing while West Germany was fighting, they would move forward to assist them, and so would every other NATO member.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Rallix on January 25, 2014, 06:01:56 pm
Okay, let's consider a few things first.
Firstly, stop talking about superiority of training and all that stuff. You can expect soldiers on both sides to be competent enough.
Neither side would fall comically short of the other somehow in training, that's just nationalist propaganda talking.

One needs to talk about strategic and tactical advantages of numbers of troops and equipment available at start, as well as war potential over time. Let's say that both sides can field a total of 1/100 their population at conflict start, and 1/10 of it when their war efforts are pushed to maximum.

We'll take the situation of the conflict starting in 1980, where PACT attack first. Populations.
NATO
US, 226 million
West Germany, 62
UK, 56
Italy, 56
France, 53
Canada, 25
Netherlands, 14
Belgium, 10
Portugal, 10
Denmark, 5
Norway, 4

TOTAL: 521 Million
[close]
PACT
USSR, 260 million
Poland, 35
Romania, 22
East Germany, 17
Czechoslovakia, 10+5
Hungary, 11
Bulgaria, 9
Albania, 3

TOTAL: 372
[close]
From these things that I googled, we can see that the PACT actually has a pretty big maximum manpower shortage compared to NATO.
So say that PACT attacked first, and started with a larger number of troops compared to NATO, by drafting in preparation.
PACT attacks across with a force of 7.4 million men, and NATO starts with 5.2 million.

Tactically, they would have the advantage in their ground war early on. Strategically though, NATO had better growing economies at this juncture, meaning that they would not only be able to deploy more forces than the PACT in terms of numbers, but that they've be able to equip them better.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Bruin on January 31, 2014, 04:54:58 am
If you take Nukes out of the equation and just old fashion rifle vs rifle, and tank vs tank...I think it would be a close one but NATO would come on top. But it all matters how you look at it. Say 1946 Winston Churchill decides to do Operation Un-thinkable and liberate Communist-Poland. Western Allies would of won. Eastern Allies where in Ruin. Now maybe push more 1985...That would maybe still be NATO but maybe Warsaw Pact. We really don't know because we never really fought one an another in a war ex. East and West Germany. But I'd still go with NATO.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Sir Gordon of Ramsay on February 01, 2014, 09:25:26 pm
NATO.

Compelling arguments already made.

But it would be a close one...
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Captain America on February 01, 2014, 10:22:51 pm
Entirely depends when. After the 60s, definitely NATO, before that, definitely Warsaw Pact.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Johan on February 05, 2014, 05:55:51 am
So many claims, so little evidence...
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Captain America on February 05, 2014, 09:00:15 am
The Red Army of the 40s and 50s numbered more than 10 million, the US army numbered 600,000 at a push. Britain, France, and a West Germany were economically on their knees. The American "Atomic Blitz" doctrine had no where near enough nuclear weapons to knock out all the major Soviet cities as the SAC intended, not the means to deliver them safely. War Plan HALFMOON dictated that the US would lose all of Europe in a war with the USSR, and could only hold back conventionally with their navy. It was only after the 1960s that most NATO countries were fully militarily recovered, and the US now had enough hydrogen bombs to accurately and effectively wipe the Soviets off the map. Happy Johan? ;)
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Johan on February 05, 2014, 09:02:33 am
The Red Army of the 40s and 50s numbered more than 10 million, the US army numbered 600,000 at a push. Britain, France, and a West Germany were economically on their knees. The American "Atomic Blitz" doctrine had no where near enough nuclear weapons to knock out all the major Soviet cities as the SAC intended, not the means to deliver them safely. War Plan HALFMOON dictated that the US would lose all of Europe in a war with the USSR, and could only hold back conventionally with their navy. It was only after the 1960s that most NATO countries were fully militarily recovered, and the US now had enough hydrogen bombs to accurately and effectively wipe the Soviets off the map. Happy Johan? ;)

Much better.  ;)
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Duuring on February 05, 2014, 11:07:43 am
I'm not sure how Eastern Europa was in any way economically better off in the 50s
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Captain America on February 05, 2014, 12:26:01 pm
I'm not sure how Eastern Europa was in any way economically better off in the 50s

It wasn't, it was much worse, but the West needed improved economy to be able to get back on a war footing, the East was already on a war footing
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Duuring on February 05, 2014, 12:38:57 pm
Just because they kept the war-style economy doesn't mean they could easily win any war.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Captain America on February 05, 2014, 04:17:34 pm
True, but the 10 million Red Army men kinda clinched it
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Duuring on February 05, 2014, 04:23:04 pm
An army of ten million with supplies for one isn't going to keep going for long.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Prince_Eugen on February 05, 2014, 04:31:36 pm
An army of ten million with supplies for one isn't going to keep going for long.
By ocassion it kept going for long :/
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Duuring on February 05, 2014, 04:57:30 pm
An army at war takes up much, much more resources then one in peace. Basically, what you had was a peace-time army only being able to survive on a war-time economy.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Archduke Sven on February 05, 2014, 05:23:17 pm
I'm not sure how Eastern Europa was in any way economically better off in the 50s

It wasn't, it was much worse, but the West needed improved economy to be able to get back on a war footing, the East was already on a war footing

What?

Eastern Europe was raped in WW2, everything was ruined to shit. On top of that they were communist countries, thus generating no resources to rebuild the countries or modernise them (Just look at Eastern Europe nowadays, they're in the mid 1990 economically). War economies ruin countries and running it for a prolonged period of time just reduces the little resources they already had.

Warsaw Pact nations wouldn't be able to sustain more than a year of full war if it broke out before mid 60's.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Captain America on February 05, 2014, 10:22:36 pm
I'm not sure how Eastern Europa was in any way economically better off in the 50s

It wasn't, it was much worse, but the West needed improved economy to be able to get back on a war footing, the East was already on a war footing

What?

Eastern Europe was raped in WW2, everything was ruined to shit. On top of that they were communist countries, thus generating no resources to rebuild the countries or modernise them (Just look at Eastern Europe nowadays, they're in the mid 1990 economically). War economies ruin countries and running it for a prolonged period of time just reduces the little resources they already had.

Warsaw Pact nations wouldn't be able to sustain more than a year of full war if it broke out before mid 60's.

They didn't need to sustain war for a year, all US planning in this period made the assumption that Western Europe would be lost very rapidly. Doctrine emphasised using Britain as a base for air raids, but very much accepted that Soviet military might could probably hold the continent against invasion. And you are forgetting the massive amount of Soviet industry east of the Urals that was moved there during the German invasion. All of that was still very much active and pumping out war materiel.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: munky-wunky on February 05, 2014, 10:23:34 pm
N.A.T.O would win
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Johan on February 06, 2014, 10:48:00 am
I'm not sure how Eastern Europa was in any way economically better off in the 50s

It wasn't, it was much worse, but the West needed improved economy to be able to get back on a war footing, the East was already on a war footing

What?

Eastern Europe was raped in WW2, everything was ruined to shit. On top of that they were communist countries, thus generating no resources to rebuild the countries or modernise them (Just look at Eastern Europe nowadays, they're in the mid 1990 economically). War economies ruin countries and running it for a prolonged period of time just reduces the little resources they already had.

Warsaw Pact nations wouldn't be able to sustain more than a year of full war if it broke out before mid 60's.

Any evidence to back your claims?
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Captain America on February 06, 2014, 11:13:56 am

What?

Eastern Europe was raped in WW2, everything was ruined to shit. On top of that they were communist countries, thus generating no resources to rebuild the countries or modernise them (Just look at Eastern Europe nowadays, they're in the mid 1990 economically). War economies ruin countries and running it for a prolonged period of time just reduces the little resources they already had.

Warsaw Pact nations wouldn't be able to sustain more than a year of full war if it broke out before mid 60's.

Interesting how the Communist Bloc broke up in the 1990s, and you cannot deny that Russia went from absolutely no industrialization to  being a major industrial power after the revolution.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Duuring on February 06, 2014, 11:58:39 am
Yeah, if you force people to...
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Johan on February 06, 2014, 12:35:40 pm
I find it funny how Sven hates Communism especially it's planned economy, while Nazi Germany had the exact same...  ::)
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Captain America on February 06, 2014, 01:16:19 pm
Yeah, if you force people to...

I'm not saying that Stalinist economies weren't brutal and dehumanized, I am saying that if facilitates success in war
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Bruin on March 19, 2014, 04:18:38 pm
Yeah, if you force people to...

I'm not saying that Stalinist economies weren't brutal and dehumanized, I am saying that if facilitates success in war
I think that argument can go both ways.  ???
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Skipper on April 06, 2014, 12:20:53 pm
Warsaw pact, Russia is more powerful than the USA at the moment. Could take out the USA, which is in fairness the only country in NATO that would make a significant difference (this is coming from a Brit, Britain would not be able to do anything but suck-up the nukes for America).
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Duuring on April 06, 2014, 12:23:25 pm
China isn't a member of the Warsaw pact.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: TORN on April 06, 2014, 07:06:52 pm
Russia more powerfull than America at the moment? We're talking about warsaw pact.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Skipper on April 06, 2014, 07:08:21 pm
Russia is more powerful than USA so far, though just about, and I thought we were saying if Warsaw pact was around today.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Duuring on April 06, 2014, 07:16:36 pm
Russia is mostly more willing to use their army. That doesn't necessarily express strength. In fact, it can even signal weakness.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Archduke Sven on April 06, 2014, 07:32:09 pm
Small dogs bark more than big ones.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: TORN on April 06, 2014, 07:32:51 pm
i thought we were talking about warsaw pact when it still excisted.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: munky-wunky on April 15, 2014, 03:13:14 pm
What if NATO vs SCO

That would be the modern version of this
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Duuring on April 15, 2014, 03:17:13 pm
You mean the Ukranian Revolution goes global?
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: munky-wunky on April 15, 2014, 04:18:27 pm
I mean this

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation

they may try to make an asian NATO more or less. It was a topic of discussion in my  M.U.N. 

this would create a powerful new power of states  within asia
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Duuring on April 15, 2014, 04:20:04 pm
India and China working together? Nevaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: munky-wunky on April 15, 2014, 04:20:57 pm
India and China working together? Nevaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

India is not in the SCO
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Duuring on April 15, 2014, 04:29:14 pm
right, sorry. Okay. Technically, it's just Russia and China and a bunch of weak nations....
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: munky-wunky on April 15, 2014, 04:32:28 pm
right, sorry. Okay. Technically, it's just Russia and China and a bunch of weak nations....

pretty much ya.

but they can all be powerful together
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Archduke Sven on April 15, 2014, 04:39:02 pm
HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEY!

WELCOME TO KAZAKSTAN

MY NAME IS A BORAT

MY COUNTRY IS DA SCO MEMBER!
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: GoldenEagle on April 15, 2014, 09:49:25 pm
HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEY!

WELCOME TO KAZAKSTAN

MY NAME IS A BORAT

MY COUNTRY IS DA SCO MEMBER!

Bruh do you have autism by any chance?
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Archduke Sven on April 15, 2014, 10:20:10 pm
make me a kebab pizza kiddo


'FEMTON MINUTER, EN KVART'
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Nipplestockings on April 16, 2014, 12:12:56 am
HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEY!

WELCOME TO KAZAKSTAN

MY NAME IS A BORAT

MY COUNTRY IS DA SCO MEMBER!

Bruh do you have autism by any chance?
A prominent symptom of autism is being incapable of picking up on social cues like jokes, sarcasm, irony, body language, figures of speech, metaphores, etc.

Do you have autism?
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Slawtering on April 16, 2014, 01:26:54 am
Game Set and match to el Nippolo
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: GoldenEagle on April 16, 2014, 02:40:53 am
make me a kebab pizza
'FEMTON MINUTER, EN KVART'

I wouldn't mind, yoy guys have worse food than Somalian children, feel bad for ya.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Duuring on April 16, 2014, 11:49:36 pm
Wut? U no like horsemeatballs? U CRAZY!
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: GoldenEagle on April 17, 2014, 12:53:54 am
Wut? U no like horsemeatballs? U CRAZY!

It's a Swedish delicacy I heard.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Bruin on April 29, 2014, 11:41:03 pm
uhmmm wut... Talking about Autism and the SCO in a NATO vs Warsaw topic??? :o
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Friedrich on April 30, 2014, 10:58:25 pm
Welcome to NW community! You must be new here!
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Bruin on May 01, 2014, 02:21:40 am
Welcome to NW community! You must be new here!
I'm happy to be here Friedrich.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: stylish on May 09, 2014, 11:46:18 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Bruin on May 16, 2014, 07:40:01 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
I think it would of worked. The straw that broke the camels' back was the save Poland. At the end of WWII the Soviets took over Poland and put in their own government. Patton wanted to liberate Germany then USA, UK, France, and other Allies drive Stalin out of Poland. I personally think the Soviets where out they where not ready for another war. Their country was just sacked by Germany and their men where just tired of a fierce campaign breaking through German lines. But I think the Western Allies could of pulled it off but it would of been a blood bath. Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and East Germany was not really all that in favor for Communism this early after WWII. So they could of helped behind enemy lines.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Duuring on May 16, 2014, 10:29:47 pm
I doubt it. Both were equally tired of war, but the Soviets would have the advantage of calling up another defensive war. And Stalin was pretty mad anyway.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Bruin on May 22, 2014, 02:12:02 am
I doubt it. Both were equally tired of war, but the Soviets would have the advantage of calling up another defensive war. And Stalin was pretty mad anyway.
But Europe was a mess. America's home front was untouched. I think it would of been bloody especially after the Soviets make their own MP44 notoriously known as the AK-47.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: 3pp_XW Sharpshooter on December 04, 2016, 04:36:01 pm
no one would have won
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Ted on December 04, 2016, 05:40:08 pm
no one would have won

Hell that was one real necro here.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: 3pp_XW Sharpshooter on December 04, 2016, 08:16:02 pm
no one would have won

Hell that was one real necro here.
:)
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: McPero on March 11, 2017, 10:27:21 pm
I doubt it. Both were equally tired of war, but the Soviets would have the advantage of calling up another defensive war. And Stalin was pretty mad anyway.
Eastern Europe that Stalin occupied was not as destroyed as west. If we remove nuclear weapons and war started Soviets would take western europe (not UK). 
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: MightyPaiN on December 11, 2017, 08:14:20 am
Nato for sure lol
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Norwegian13 on December 11, 2017, 03:54:06 pm
Nato for sure lol

lol, good meme

Warsaw lads obviously
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Nero_ on December 11, 2017, 04:18:55 pm
your russiaboo meme is getting stale
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Norwegian13 on December 11, 2017, 04:29:18 pm
your russiaboo meme is getting stale

Unlike so-called "russiaboos" though, I actually am Russian and speak the language.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Furrnox on December 12, 2017, 10:29:13 pm
Not even a real democracy, FeelsBadMan.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Duuring on December 12, 2017, 11:54:39 pm
Not even a real democracy, FeelsBadMan.

Come on, Norway ain't that bad.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Furrnox on December 13, 2017, 09:22:07 pm
Debatable.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: William on December 19, 2017, 04:43:58 pm
I feel like today it would be interesting due to Russia's defense sectors ability to make superior interceptor/multi-role fighters such as the SU35/SU27/SU34 & MIG35 at a fraction of the cost of American variants such as the F-22 and flying metal dumpster, the F35. Of course, on paper the Russian planes are superior at dogfighting but there's obviously more to aerial combat then just that.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Duuring on December 19, 2017, 07:29:59 pm
Russia's air capabilities truly are its only trump (no pun intended) card. But even then, the sheer quantity of NATO forces and their much stronger (and less fossil fuel depended) combined economy mean that Russia only has a edge in the short run.
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: DrunkenSpartan on May 16, 2018, 08:06:03 pm
Hmm. Interesting question, particularly in a modern sense. The outcome of protracted conventional wars seem to be affected as much by the availability of materials and infrastructure as it is by leadership skills or technical edge, so there's many factors to consider. In the area of manufacture NATO has a clear advantage, since without nuclear weapons Russia would have a hard time permanently affecting the manufacturing capability of North America, whereas Russian manufacturing capabilities could be limited to those production facilities east of the Urals due to NATO bombing campaigns. Terrain in general favors Russia, particularly in winter, but overall technical superiority goes to NATO, which boasts everything from more accurate standard issue rifles (the AK12 has not yet been fully issued to all Russian Ground Forces troops) to more sophisticated drone and satellite systems. Russia does have a technical edge in fighter technology and may even have a more advanced main battle tank than anything NATO currently fields, but in a combined arms scenario the SU35 and T-14 would not likely be enough on their own to gain battlefield superiority. In terms of leadership capabilities NATO maintains a slight advantage over Russia, with more widespread recent combat experience in the Middle East and Africa than Russia in Syria and Crimea. However in terms of current leaders, President Vladimir Putin has demonstrated himself to be a much more competent, cunning and capable leader than the American President Donald Trump, and even though both leaders would likely listen to the opinions of military minds, Trump's stubbornness and possible instability have to be taken into account when considering a war that would likely last years and take a toll on every facet of life. The European Union does have more stable leadership under Donald Tusk, Jean-Claude Juncker,  Antonio Tajani, Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron, however EU leadership has suffered damage to its authority with the announced departure of Great Britain and the United States' shifting allegiances from Europe towards China. With all this in mind it is hard to say if there would be a clear victor. With North American assistance to Europe, technical superiority and more reliable manufacturing, it is likely that NATO would win in name, however with Russia's terrain advantage, numerical advantage and detestment of the possibility of a European invasion, it is likely that Russia's military would permanently damage much of the European continent, rendering any long term NATO victory Pyrrhic. This Pyrrhic victory combined with less than ideal leadership throughout NATO would not bode well for its members in the long term, whereas Russia could likely recover from all out war more efficiently due to its more stable leadership.


TL;DR - if trump wasn't president of the united states maybe nato would win, but imo a modern day warsaw pact would win in the end
Title: Re: NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)
Post by: Kore on May 16, 2018, 08:48:59 pm
I don't believe Russia has what it takes to take on the big boys.