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.
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.
It wasn't really Russia back then & why not say Vikings instead?
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.
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.
But how else is Putin going to be involved in this?
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.
The European countries, mostly.and the countries in the warsaw pact weren't european?
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".
The European countries, mostly.
The European countries, mostly.
So you believe that, Russia, Kazakstan and Uzbekistan will beat NATO.
Ok man, believe what you want.
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.
NATO Countries had Volunteer ArmiesEhm, 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.
Nobody can proove who is gonna win and this thread is suck-ass.Yep
Nobody can proove who is gonna win and this thread is suck-ass.
QuoteNATO Countries had Volunteer ArmiesEhm, 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.
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.
Im talking about the 1980-1991 Period, not the 60's.
Yes, but [The revolutions] were later on, when the Soviet Union was starting to collapse economically and Politically
Also don't forget that the US would have to cross the Atlantic to bring their troops to Europe for engagements.
So much crap I have to put it in a spoilerThe 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]
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)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)
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...QuoteAlso 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.
Making stuff up?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?
Later on, the Soviet's will make the huge tactical error of trying to invade Britain by sea
Later on, the Soviet's will make the huge tactical error of trying to invade Britain by sea
but a seaborne operation, lots of casualties for what? like 500 metres of beach and 1km inland?
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) .
Higher Quality troops of NATO????SpoilerYou 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]
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...
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.
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.When did i say that?
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.
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...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?
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.
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.
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
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
Guy's I thought this was sorted in World in Conflict: Soviet Assault (http://worldinconflict.uk.ubi.com/).
I've seen you play that game alotStudying. ;)
Yes Please... :PGuy'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.
[/spoiler]QuoteIn 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.SpoilerQuoteIts 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]
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...
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?
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? ;)
I'm not sure how Eastern Europa was in any way economically better off in the 50s
An army of ten million with supplies for one isn't going to keep going for long.By ocassion it kept going for long :/
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
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, if you force people to...
I think that argument can go both ways. ???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
India and China working together? Nevaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
right, sorry. Okay. Technically, it's just Russia and China and a bunch of weak nations....
HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEY!
WELCOME TO KAZAKSTAN
MY NAME IS A BORAT
MY COUNTRY IS DA SCO MEMBER!
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.HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEY!
WELCOME TO KAZAKSTAN
MY NAME IS A BORAT
MY COUNTRY IS DA SCO MEMBER!
Bruh do you have autism by any chance?
make me a kebab pizza
'FEMTON MINUTER, EN KVART'
Wut? U no like horsemeatballs? U CRAZY!
Welcome to NW community! You must be new here!I'm happy to be here Friedrich.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_UnthinkableI 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.
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.
no one would have won
:)no one would have won
Hell that was one real necro here.
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).
Nato for sure lol
your russiaboo meme is getting stale
Not even a real democracy, FeelsBadMan.