Could they have been stopped?

[Cloney 0]

I was reading one of my many History books on the now dead and gone Cold War, when a question hit me. "If the Russians had invaded Western Germany, Could NATO have stopped them without using tactical nukes?"

I'd think that if the Russian advance bogged down, they'd be more likely to use Tactical Nukes on us.

How do you guys, especially Europeans, feel about this?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ Jan. 03 2003,00:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How do you guys, especially Europeans, feel about this?<span id='postcolor'>

I can answer for Swedens part. The answer is no. Our strategy since ww2 has not been to prevent an occupation but to make the first days of an invasion a hell for the attacker. The idea was to make it hurt enough that it wouldn't be worth invading.

An interesting thing surfaced some weeks ago here in the media. During the Cold War Sweden had an agreement with USA (not NATO) for USA to assist defending Sweden in exchange for us letting USA use our airbases for non-nuclear attacks on the Soviet Union.

[B@ZOOkA 0]

the main question is WHY should russians have invaded western germany? if americans had invaded cuba in '62 then russian probably would have invaded western germany...and as a reaction on this the americans would have launched nukes... and after this, russians would have started doing this too... dont think there were other options.. if one side would have tried to use conventional weapons, the other side would have started to nuke them...

[Balschoiw 0]

An invasion of west germany was unlikely to happen.

As the european surrounding countries would have been threatened directly if Russia attacked germany the war would have been a big one.

Anyway if Russia started an invasion from eastern germany they would have been able to gain much ground before NATO even reacted. This would have given them a chance but no good one at all. Russian equipment and troop strength in Eastern germany was no secret to Western intelligance. In fact they overestimated them a bit. A sweep run into west german territory would have been possible but I doubt they would have been able to stand ground when NATO came into business. France, Italy would have immedeatly reacted for bilateral reasons and that would have made supply for procceeding troops rather a hard job. There were estimations of a lot of civil casualties the first days of a potential invasion as germany is very crowded in the regions the russians would have moved through, but with NATO on the move they would have had a very hard 3rd day and the only thing remaining would have been them fixed and ready for bombing as the AA that was in eastern germany that time was not able to cover huge sky regions.

Anyway a nuke drop wouldnt have been necesarry to stop them. They would have been stoped by their own cut of supplies.

Dont forget that at this time huge (for germany) concentrations of tank batallions were located at the eastern borders , no matter if it was the czech or eastern germany side. We didnt expect an austrian invasion, but even there were measures taken to blow bridges and there were at least 2 heavy bataillons in reach of their border.

[der bastler 0]

It was expected that the red army would attack middle western germany with massive tank forces -like the famous tank-rush from c'n'c. Many bridges were prepared to be blown up in case of an invasion (at least that's what they told us in the army), the Bundeswehr (BW) had had very strong tank forces in cold war times (now reduced due to unification treaty).

But some years ago (coincident with my BW-time) they showed a what-if-story on tv. It was a patch-work documentation made from BW training films, historical stuff and some new scenes, relying upon scientific studies and cold war plans. After all we would have sustained severe casualties while fighting back the russians -very encouraging for us recruits . Can't remember the end of the film, I've to look for it in my video collection...

Besides historical research and plans I don't think they would have used nukes at all. Only very crazy dictators would use nukes for their twisted vision of apocalypse, but imho Russia and USA knew that nuking each other would have won nothing.

(And I hope they still know this today...)

[Bart.Jan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Jan. 03 2003,01:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We didnt expect an austrian invasion, but even there were measures taken to blow bridges and there were at least 2 heavy bataillons in reach of their border.  <span id='postcolor'>

I know there were plan, for several big czech tank battalions, for swift austrian invasion that should have open another way to germany.

[USMC Sniper 0]

I think NATO would have been unable to stop Russia if they had invaded. Russia simply had MUCH more tanks, troops, and other military things to be stopped. Plus, it would have been easier for Russia to supply troops on the front since they were closer, and the US did not have a large part of their force stationed in West Germany either.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USMC Sniper @ Jan. 03 2003,02:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and the US did not have a large part of their force stationed in West Germany either.<span id='postcolor'>

How about doing your research first

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USMC Sniper @ Jan. 03 2003,02:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think NATO would have been unable to stop Russia if they had invaded. Russia simply had MUCH more tanks, troops, and other military things to be stopped. Plus, it would have been easier for Russia to supply troops on the front since they were closer, and the US did not have a large part of their force stationed in West Germany either.<span id='postcolor'>

The US had most of it's european ground forces stationed in West Germany. After all, that's where any Nato vs Warsaw Pact conflict would have gotten started.

Read Red Storm Rising if you want a good hypothetical European conflict.

[Mister Frag 0]

It is also important to remember that nukes would not have been used offensively by either side. It simply makes no sense to devastate and contaminate a position you intend to occupy.

That being said, and having lived in West Germany for the first 17 years of my life, I don't think that NATO would have been able to stop an attack by Warsaw Pact forces.

However, I do agree that the attack would have bogged down within days once NATO geared up, and the supply lines across the Elbe and Weser rivers and others could easily have been cut. On the Elbe, there were few road or rail bridges owing to the fact that Germany was a divided country, and the crossings that did exist were mined or prepared for demolition without exception in preparation for a possible attack. Whatever couldn't be destroyed by engineers would have been hit by aircraft.

Reading "Red Storm Rising" by Tom Clancy is an entirely different undertaking when the theater of operations is your own backyard.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Jan. 03 2003,03:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Reading "Red Storm Rising" by Tom Clancy is an entirely different undertaking when the theater of operations is your own backyard.<span id='postcolor'>

How so?

I mean, knowing Clancy a lot of it is BS, but it struck me as being fairly even handed. The Russians didnt get their backsides handed to them...

[Mister Frag 0]

It just sent chills down my spine to read portions of the book, because I had been to many places that were mentioned in it.

I grew up in Lower Saxony, and of course I frequently saw NATO (American, British, Dutch, German) military equipment and personnel during routine movement and exercises.

I also saw their East German and Russian counterparts on trips to West Berlin. One time my dad was stopped in East Germany by East German MPs to allow some Russian armor, both MBTs and IFVs, to cross the road in front of us.

I also remember seeing runway markings and aircraft shelters on a highway built using West German money. It wasn't a regular airbase, but prepared for emergency use.

The Cold War mentality and paranoia was everywhere.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Jan. 03 2003,03:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It just sent chills down my spine to read portions of the book, because I had been to many places that were mentioned in it.

I grew up in Lower Saxony, and of course I frequently saw NATO (American, British, Dutch, German) military equipment and personnel during routine movement and exercises.

I also saw their East German and Russian counterparts on trips to West Berlin. One time my dad was stopped in East Germany by East German MPs to allow some Russian armor, both MBTs and IFVs, to cross the road in front of us.

I also remember seeing runway markings and aircraft shelters on a highway built using West German money. It wasn't a regular airbase, but prepared for emergency use.

The Cold War mentality and paranoia was everywhere.<span id='postcolor'>

You know, I cant even imagine that

Being a Canadian, I was lucky enough to experience the stress of the Cold War less as something direct, and more as an abstract concept on the TV news.

I think that is part of the arrogance that us north americans sometimes have. We have never lived with the almost immediate threat of violence and war. I mean the last true armed conflict that took place on North American soil was the Civil War.

[USMC Sniper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Jan. 03 2003,03:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USMC Sniper @ Jan. 03 2003,02:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and the US did not have a large part of their force stationed in West Germany either.<span id='postcolor'>

How about doing your research first <span id='postcolor'>

I ment out of there overall force, not their European force. And I have done my research (not during the time when I posted, but I don't have Alzheimer's ).

And I have read Red Storm Rising as well.

[VXR 9]

In the netherlands they had a big area that would be flooded by exploding some riverbanks so the Soviet tanks need to drive around it and then could be taken out untill there arrived more allied forces.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Vixer @ Jan. 03 2003,04:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In the netherlands they had a big area that would be flooded by exploding some riverbanks so the Soviet tanks need to drive around it and then could be taken out untill there arrived more allied forces.<span id='postcolor'>

hopefully that is working during summer, not winer. if i remember correctly, NEtherlands tried that tactic against French Revolutionists and failed, due to the water being frozen.

anyways, i doubt if nukes would have been used, ppl saw what happens when nukes are used and are willing to avoid it.

[VXR 9]

last years it would work always its getting warmer and warmer

[Mister Frag 0]

You'd need pretty thick ice to support a 45 ton tank.

[Oligo 1]

50-80 centimeters of "steel ice" is considered enough to support any vehicle, including a 45 ton tank. I don't know whether they have such ice thicknesses in netherlands, though, probably not. But here they surely do.

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Jan. 03 2003,00:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">50-80 centimeters of "steel ice" is considered enough to support any vehicle, including a 45 ton tank. I don't know whether they have such ice thicknesses in netherlands, though, probably not. But here they surely do.<span id='postcolor'>

Where is "here"? Your profile doesn't say.

[Necromancer- 0]

FLooding places wouldn't stop the BMP's.

[cam0flage 0]

Well here's a view from the Finnish side: I don't seriously think we could have stopped the Russians during the cold war, but an occupation would have absolutely resulted to a lengthy guerrilla war. Finland wouldn't have had enough resources to stop a full scale invasion, when comparing to the Red Army during that time.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can answer for Swedens part. The answer is no. Our strategy since ww2 has not been to prevent an occupation but to make the first days of an invasion a hell for the attacker. The idea was to make it hurt enough that it wouldn't be worth invading.<span id='postcolor'>

Denoir, do you think the Swedish army could have been strong enough to deliver a powerful strike against the Russians in northern Sweden / Lapland? I guess the Russian would have tried to flank Norway with an attack through Finland and Sweden. 1/3 of the Finnish Defence Forces would have been located in Lapland during full mobilization, I'm sure that would have caused some serious damage to the attacking Russians.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (cam0flage @ Jan. 03 2003,13:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, do you think the Swedish army could have been strong enough to deliver a powerful strike against the Russians in northern Sweden / Lapland?<span id='postcolor'>

I would like to think so. I don't think we would have stopped them, but we would have done some damage, that's for sure. There is a strong military presence in Norrland and they have som competent troops there.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I guess the Russian would have tried to flank Norway with an attack through Finland and Sweden.

<span id='postcolor'>

Possibly. Soviet plans released after the breakdown of the Soviet union has revealed though that an invasion was planned through an amphibious attack on Stockholm. There I am certain that we could have defended us pretty good.

Today, I don't know. Military cuts have made us very vulnerable the last years. They've shut down many airbases. Can you believe it, but today it takes almost one hour for fighters to reach Stockholm! Idiotic short-sighted politicians

A defense is still possible, but without air support it is much harder.

[mr. Duck 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">50-80 centimeters of "steel ice" is considered enough to support any vehicle, including a 45 ton tank. <span id='postcolor'>

Wanna try it out?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't know whether they have such ice thicknesses in netherlands, <span id='postcolor'>

No, sometimes I'd wished we had that over here. But the strategy with flooding would work well over here (I guess), even during winter time. Except when the soviets had a way to make their tanks float...

[cam0flage 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Today, I don't know. Military cuts have made us very vulnerable the last years. They've shut down many airbases. Can you believe it, but today it takes almost one hour for fighters to reach Stockholm! Idiotic short-sighted politicians<span id='postcolor'>

This seems to be a trend in the Nordic states, Finland will cut down the strength of its wartime armed forces. Currently the army would have 490000 personnel during full mobilization, but it will be cut down to 350000 by the year 2008. FDF has purchased a lot of modern weaponry lately (124 Leopard 2A4s from Germany, 57 CV9030FIN from Sweden, Euro-Spike anti-tank and anti-shipping missiles etc.), so it seems that the new way of thinking would be something like "quality over quantity".

Does Sweden have a system of temporary airfields on highways like during wartime like Finland has?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Possibly. Soviet plans released after the breakdown of the Soviet union has revealed though that an invasion was planned through an amphibious attack on Stockholm. There I am certain that we could have defended us pretty good.<span id='postcolor'>

That sounds pretty risky, isn't Stockholm covered by a pretty extensive archipelago? Are there any static coastal artillery installed? Helsinki is pretty well protected from the sea, there is an extensive network of coastal artillery.

Edit: Forgot to ask, what kind of air defence systems are deployed around Stockholm?