Seven Days to the River Rhine: the Third World War - a TL
- Thread starter Onkel Willie
- Start date
So, a bit of a random question and maybe irrelevant compared to the action in West Germany and Austria ...
But, what is the Soviet 40th Army (the Soviet forces in Afghanistan) doing?
They did account for something like half a dozen aviation regiments and multiple divisions and brigades. I doubt the Soviets could have withdrawn them in the week they were readying for a clash with NATO. If they're not deployed elsewhere or used to open a new front with Pakistan, they'd be a pretty significant force left largely intact by nuclear war ... albeit surrounded by enemies.
But, what is the Soviet 40th Army (the Soviet forces in Afghanistan) doing?
They did account for something like half a dozen aviation regiments and multiple divisions and brigades. I doubt the Soviets could have withdrawn them in the week they were readying for a clash with NATO. If they're not deployed elsewhere or used to open a new front with Pakistan, they'd be a pretty significant force left largely intact by nuclear war ... albeit surrounded by enemies.
These areas probably remain relatively intact at least physically but they too are feeling tremors of destruction of North America, Europe and Soviet Union since it would disturb lot of international trade. And don't forgot nuclear Winter. Their societies are going to change at some degree even if their governments will survive.
This is what I thougt as well. I thought tthe sovjet doctrine was to use tactical nukes as where it artillery, hence the very light protection against small arms of the BPM's and the, relative, overprotection against nuclear fallout. I also read some where the planned mass graves for Polish and East German soldiers, who colapsed due to radiation sickness, since they had to form the first wave.
But plans can change.
Never the less,the fighting spirit of the indoctrinated and terrorised Eastblock soldiers, compared to the Western soldiers must have an effect on the battle field,regardless the numbers or weapons used. Even if the techgap in 1983 was not that extreme as later in the decade
Last edited:
Looks like Argentina might get the Falklands after all.
I’d imagine the token NATO forces in West Berlin are having an entertaining time too, though I’d not expect them to hold for long.
I’d imagine the token NATO forces in West Berlin are having an entertaining time too, though I’d not expect them to hold for long.
Apparently the Doomsday plans of both had F* U* strikes to ensure none of the other sides allies and supporters ( and ideology similar neutrals, sorry Ireland ) survived intact ( China gets plastered for instance by both the Soviets and US ). The hope of a WWIII just wreaking the Northern Hemisphere is just that, reality was both sides wanted to make sure if they were going down, nobody else got to "win".
Pretty surely suffering of NATO and Soviet forces in Berlin are ending quickly since the city would be nuked as radioactive crater.
Well we don’t know
We have never been in that situation before
And thankfully never will be
Even if only ten percent of existing nukes are used we are going to be in bad condition.
Fortunately not.
I hope so but who knows?
10 % is a lot probably several hundred
I think if it’s under 25 nukes both sides included maybe effects will not be catastrophic
I suspect the only question will be whether or not the WarPac forces (from a Google, an East German assignment) will be celebrating taking West Berlin before they get reduced to radioactive ash.
Not meaning to hijack the topic, but I have a question.
Since it was fairly “well known” that NATO would have to resort to using tactical nukes to overcome Warsaw Pact numbers, was consideration ever given by NATO to implement nuclear “mines” along the eastern borders? As “mines”, they could not be construed as “offensive” weapons like the Pershing’s were. Also the westerly winds would tend to carry the resulting fallout toward the Warsaw Pact territories. Seems like an effective deterrent.
ric350
Since it was fairly “well known” that NATO would have to resort to using tactical nukes to overcome Warsaw Pact numbers, was consideration ever given by NATO to implement nuclear “mines” along the eastern borders? As “mines”, they could not be construed as “offensive” weapons like the Pershing’s were. Also the westerly winds would tend to carry the resulting fallout toward the Warsaw Pact territories. Seems like an effective deterrent.
ric350
Yes.
There were various plans for nuclear mines - I do remember the infamous chicken mines developed by the British. See, ground in Germany gets cold, so to keep the mechanism warm, British engineers simply crammed a chiken inside to keep it warm. Never got past the prototype stage, but they were considered.
More seriously, most bridges in West Germany were designed with hollow spots for pre-placing explosives, including nukes. To make sure the bridge was destroyed when NATO needed it ... as well as the surrounding mile of terrain.
Well, I read about the "Gang of Eight" and realized two interesting points.
1. Marshal Ustinov was the People's Commissar of Armaments during the Second World War, which will clearly be perceived with interest here.
2. I believe that here Egor Ligachev will obviously die much earlier. Seriously, he lived to be 100 years old and died in 2021.
Although, of course, it will be interesting to learn about Lazar Kaganovich here. He died a few months before the collapse of the USSR, despite the fact that he had been a member of the RSDLP(b) since 1911.
1. Marshal Ustinov was the People's Commissar of Armaments during the Second World War, which will clearly be perceived with interest here.
2. I believe that here Egor Ligachev will obviously die much earlier. Seriously, he lived to be 100 years old and died in 2021.
Although, of course, it will be interesting to learn about Lazar Kaganovich here. He died a few months before the collapse of the USSR, despite the fact that he had been a member of the RSDLP(b) since 1911.
Wasn't Kaganovich already pretty obscure character already soon after Stalin's death?
Intresting to see how people will see Reagan, Thatcher and Soviet leadership. Probably they both are blamed from this war but Soviets probably gets bit bigger guilt since they outright begun the invasion. But Reagan and Thatcher provocated Soviets. Still much better action would had been just mobilise but not invade. Even that would had given clear message to NATO.