Red Army = most effective force !

[narwan]

Smersh said:


How big would the initial success be, How much territory could have been occupied in that golden period?

Not that much. Measured in kilometres from the border I'd say you'd be counting in double digit numbers, with maybe in one or two 'schwerpunkts' in the (very) low triple digits. In some area's the territory gained might not even reach 50km depth.
And it wouldn't be a golden period either. WP losses would have been massive, much higher than NATO's losses (who would have had the advantage of defending). Whether they would be able to hold on to that territory is dubious, but too speculative to make any clear claims on.

But again, that's just my opinion.

Narwan

[Smersh]

I hold the opposite view. I beleive west germany could have been over-run and occupied within a week. If the objective was to re-unify germany by force, then I think thats very possible. on the other hand a full-scale invasion and attempt to incorporate the whole of europe would be a stretch, although not maybe not impossible.

losses of course would be high, but if tactical nuclear weapons where used losses on both sides would be much higher, in addition to big envirinmental destruction.

In the end success and failure depends on alot of factors,strategic and tactical suprise,strategic objectives, western will, nuclear weapon use, etc.

[Listy]

From what I worked out from talking to people who served in BAOR, is that it would come down too, if we run out of bullets to send down range before the Godless Commie Hordes(TM) ran out of spares to keep their tanks mobile.

They where of the opinion that if it didn't involve so many casualties, it wouldd be the worlds biggest comedy routine. Then it'd all be down to whose nerve broke first, and started hurling Brick bats at each other.

BAOR's main role was that of speed bump, and there was one fiction book which ended with BAOR getting Tac nuked by it's own side.

[Marcello]

"You can just as easily take out large sections of roads, crossroads etc with modern engineer and demolition equipment so as to make them unusable (as roads etc) for quite some time."

I don't know. You can put some demolition charges on the key points of a bridge and continue to use it until the last minute, then blow it up. Railroads are easy to take out too. But how would you destroy a paved road? Explosive charges? You will need to drill a lot of holes. Buldozers?
Tarmac and the underlying layers seem pretty hard for your typical dozer blade to negotiate quickly. At any rate every time I have seen it removed specialized equipment was used.And that hardware was comparatively rare.
I will also note that from what I remember from their doctrine the soviets emphasized the use of forward detachments to seize key passage points.That could be bad news for a bunch of engineers trying frantically to fill a road with holes.

"Tracked vehicles and all terrain wheeled vehicles can, but trucks will quickly become stuck"

I will note that most soviet vehicles have comparatively long unrefueled cruising ranges (like in the case of river fording it was accomplished with trade offs, see BMP-1 rear doors). The T-62 and the BMP-1 can, on paper, do more than 600Km. The T-55 can, on paper, do 600km, and so on.Those are not a trivial distances in Western Europe. I suspect that it was done on purpose to enable them to quickly seize NATO airbases and other key objectives without the hassle of dragging fuel trucks along. Which is not to say that trucks will not be needed but that "reasonable disruption" might be called in question. Again the specific historical period is important.

[baggypants]

Post deleted by baggypants

[Marek_Tucan]

The road range is problematic the moment you have to go off-road. Even more problematic the moment you have to fight, as that includes lots of dashes to the nearest cover, reversing etc.

[narwan]

Many roads, especially highways, have viaducts that can be easily blown up. Where off ramps from highways don't use viaducts they are usually on a some what elevated level. You don't have to drill through the tarmac if you can just go through the side through the packed earth. Highways are quick, but hard to get on and off, especially if the off-ramps are taken out. Units on it will be sitting ducks with very little cover or escape options.
Then there's for example the clever use of mines and booby traps to block routes around choke points, digging of deep trenches to block trucks, blowing up (high) buildings next to roads to block them, and then we're not even mentioning the use of nuclear demolitions or persistent chemical agents. Soviet AFV's may be protected from their nasty lingering effects, their trucks aren't.
There are so many ways to block the handful of vital roads from east germany into the west.
For me it wasn't until I started travelling between east and western europe in the early 90's and saw with my own eyes that I realised just how little infrastructure there really was connecting east and west. And not just across the border but also behind the border on the eastern side. Even without NATO harrassing them getting troops and supplies across the border would be a logistical nightmare.

Narwan

[Smersh]

how quickly could all this be carried out if an attack came as a suprise? on a random sunday morning in the 70s-80s.

soviet doctrine of combined arms offensive also calls for paratroopers to land in key areas, to hold roads, bridges etc. in addition to the forward elements Marcello brought up.

[narwan]

Smersh said:
how quickly could all this be carried out if an attack came as a suprise? on a random sunday morning in the 70s-80s.

soviet doctrine of combined arms offensive also calls for paratroopers to land in key areas, to hold roads, bridges etc. in addition to the forward elements Marcello brought up.

What surprise? If an attack was launched from the barracks many, maybe even most, WP units already in theatre wouldn't even reach the border on day 1, assuming that all units were combat ready. The limited access to the border again being a very big problem. A surprise attack like you suggest is usually a lot more disruptive for the attacker than it is for the defender.
Personally I do not think that the WP would have been able to pull off a suprise attack. If only for the simple reason that far too few of their units were with some consistency combat ready. Bringing a sufficient number to readiness is not something which goes unnoticed. It's quite a big deal. The WP simply was not capable of pulling off such a surprise attack.

And NATO defensive plans called for countless security units and defense in depth, not to mention an extensive anti-aircraft screen to counter the well-known soviet doctrine. Again, a massive paratroop and airlanding operation is not something you can just pull out of a hat. It takes a lot of preparation. It is not compatible with the concept of a surpise attack. Either yo have a suprise attack, which means few forces available to begin with and nowhere near enough for serious paratype operations or you take your time to preapre in which case a surprise attack is no longer in the cards. Can't have it both ways.
Your scenario does read well and quite a few novels have been written around that idea, but I find it far fetched and unrealistic. It too ignores the massive logistic preparation needed BEFORE you can even contemplate launching an attack. That is not something which would have gone unnoticed (and which takes weeks at least, probably longer).

The whole assumption that the WP could pull off a quick surprise attack with anywhere near the troops needed for success and get them there on time is in my opinion inherently flawed.


Narwan

[Marek_Tucan]

There were for example about four major roads between Czechoslovakia and West Germany. By the 1980's moreover the borders were subject to patrols of SLAR equipped aircrafts - hard to hide tank columns from them.