Quote:
Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer
It's not going to be 50000 AFVs pouring through the Fulda (it never was; if we'd held on all fronts, the Soviets would have nuked us, and if they'd started to win big, we'd have nuked them, period), it's going to be armored brigades breaking up hard concentrations but long before then it's going to be JDAMs from 32000 feet - most likely dropped by 60 year old B52s.
Who wants to buy 10000 tanks - even shitty, $650,000 "upgraded" T62s and T72s - when the large majority of them are going to be smashed into scrap-metal from the air? Recent Libyan events prove this out.
|
If you are referring to current/recent conflicts, both actual and/or potential, then I agree almost entirely. If you are referring to what could have been (i.e. a conventional WWIII scenario in central Europe), then I could not disagree more. The above assertion assumes air superiority. I think this is overly optimistic, to say the least. The aerial battle space would be incredibly deadly for everyone involved. NATO air forces have indeed dismantled third-world powers, even relatively potent ones, but, once again, this is drawing the wrong lessons from very flawed comparisons. Defeating the combined air defenses of the U.S.S.R. and WTO would have been a much different proposition than destroying the Iraqi, Serbian, and/or Libyan air defense networks.
I guess the point is moot. It's difficult, if not impossible, to debate the possible/probable results of an event that never happened. There are some that believe NATO would have treated the USSR and WTO like they did the Iraqis, and there are those who think it would have been a much, much tougher, possibly unwinnable, fight.