Real-life question for those who were in

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Perhaps pertinent to the "Red Bear Rising" thread...

A buddy of mine was in from the early to mid 80's, groundpounder. Anyway, before our biweekly AD&D game he and I were chewing the fat and I asked him how at the time the general morale was, and what the general feeling was about NATO's prospects if a non-nuclear shooting war had started. His response was (essentially) that at the time, he and his fellow soldiers felt it'd be bad, but ultimately a big win for NATO (again, assuming no nukes fly), but that looking back with what we know now about how bad the damage the Walkers and others had done, yeah, it'd have been more like Dunkirk all over again: trade space for time and when you get to the channel, jump.

Anyone else want to share?

[Abbott Shaull]

You know that part of the reason why many units spent so much time training. It was always hoped that you had trained enough that you wouldn't need time to think while on the battlefield and training would see you through. Along the way it was hoped that enough right decisions on our part and bad decision on the other side part with luck going our way.

Yeah we all thought about it form time to time, but it didn't help to dwell upon it.

[pmulcahy11b]

The time I felt it most acutely was when I was stationed in Korea. I worked at G3 and had a good idea of what North Korea's capabilities were, and in a war it was going to be grim for a while until reinforcements could get in.

[Dog 6]

From the late 80's, call it 1988, NATO would have won hands down. a toss up in the mid 80's and a WP win in the early 80's imo. I worried most about air cover and heavy artillery. if it would hit us and not the enemy,How long our big guns would last, if we'd have any air support, ect I never did trust the Airforce . Nukes would have sure changed things to the point of no one winning at any point imo

[Webstral]

There are a lot of unknowns about this. The Russians who have been willing to talk about the issue can’t agree. The Russians planned to be on the invading side of things for reasons that are well-documented elsewhere. I think the most germane questions revolve around issues like the effectiveness of ECM and ECCM, the state of the opposing sides when the balloon actually went up, and the ability of the Soviets to withstand deliberate attacks on their chain of command and choke points. For what it’s worth, one of the documents that came to Huachuca in the early 90’s collected feedback from a number of Russians on the question. They claimed that the attack was supposed to include a preparatory nuclear bombardment because the Soviets didn’t believe they could reach their stop line without nuclear fires from the beginning of the operation. Therefore, it was important to keep the operation from being necessary. For what that’s worth…


Webstral

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Webstral

There are a lot of unknowns about this. The Russians who have been willing to talk about the issue can’t agree. The Russians planned to be on the invading side of things for reasons that are well-documented elsewhere. I think the most germane questions revolve around issues like the effectiveness of ECM and ECCM, the state of the opposing sides when the balloon actually went up, and the ability of the Soviets to withstand deliberate attacks on their chain of command and choke points. For what it’s worth, one of the documents that came to Huachuca in the early 90’s collected feedback from a number of Russians on the question. They claimed that the attack was supposed to include a preparatory nuclear bombardment because the Soviets didn’t believe they could reach their stop line without nuclear fires from the beginning of the operation. Therefore, it was important to keep the operation from being necessary. For what that’s worth…


Webstral

So in other words they willing to use nukes at the outset of their invasion. Why does this not surprise me? Helps explain why their Frontal HQ against the NorthAG were locate so close to West Berlin.

Either way, it would be short time regardless who the aggressor would of been, it would of been matter of time before things got out of hand. Even today, with Russia continuing opposing the expansion NATO into it former territorial holds under the Soviet Union.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Webstral

They claimed that the attack was supposed to include a preparatory nuclear bombardment because the Soviets didn’t believe they could reach their stop line without nuclear fires from the beginning of the operation. Therefore, it was important to keep the operation from being necessary. For what that’s worth…


Webstral

They were that convinced we could stop them with conventional arms?