NATO vs Warsaw Pact (Who Would Win)

[Duuring]

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?

[TORN]

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.

[Archduke Sven]

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... ) .

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.

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.

[Gizmo]

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?

[Stefiboy]

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.

[TORN]

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.

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.

[Duuring]

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.

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.

[Connzcdf]

Guy's I thought this was sorted in World in Conflict: Soviet Assault.

[TORN]

I've seen you play that game alot

[Walko]

Guy's I thought this was sorted in World in Conflict: Soviet Assault.

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.

[Connzcdf]

I've seen you play that game alot

Studying.

[Stefiboy]

Guy's I thought this was sorted in World in Conflict: Soviet Assault.

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...

[Stefiboy]

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

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]

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...

[TORN]

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?

[Archduke Sven]

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.