NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)

[Rallix]

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.

[Bruin]

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.

[Sir Gordon of Ramsay]

NATO.

Compelling arguments already made.

But it would be a close one...

[Captain America]

Entirely depends when. After the 60s, definitely NATO, before that, definitely Warsaw Pact.

[Johan]

So many claims, so little evidence...

[Captain America]

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?

[Johan]

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. 

[Duuring]

I'm not sure how Eastern Europa was in any way economically better off in the 50s

[Captain America]

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

[Duuring]

Just because they kept the war-style economy doesn't mean they could easily win any war.

[Captain America]

True, but the 10 million Red Army men kinda clinched it

[Duuring]

An army of ten million with supplies for one isn't going to keep going for long.

[Prince_Eugen]

An army of ten million with supplies for one isn't going to keep going for long.

By ocassion it kept going for long :/

[Duuring]

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.

[Archduke Sven]

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.