Thread 64158225

were soviets out of their mind with this plan?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine
how did they expect to fight after nuclear cataclysm with half of europe completly devastated?

>>64158225 (OP)
They expected that preemptive nuclear strikes would leave their enemies disorganized and scrambling with their pants on their heads. It's the same idea behind any preemptive strike, they're just using bigger explosions.

>>64158247
is it true that they gave it only 7 days because they believed most soldiers would be incapacitated from radiation after a week? what would those soldiers even be fighting for? how would logistics have worked in nuclear wasteland

>>64158260
That's the fascinating part, no one knows for sure. Momentum is a hell of a drug, and just because Moscow, DC, Bonn and London no longer exist doesn't mean the fighting stops. As you're probably aware there existed a very real capability to keep fighting even if all contact with higher command was gone and low-yield nukes were being dropped on every formation bigger than a company.

>>64158225 (OP)
Much of the Cold War plans were completely unworkable and unrealistic on both sides. They were driven more by political considerations than strategic ones. Below is a roundtable discussion between a bunch of NATO and Warsaw Pact officers talking about how much of what came down from the top was just impossible.
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb285/ZB-79.pdf

>>64158278
the plan is really nuts, i wonder if nato had similar plans

>>64158288
Hmm, the Soviet plan doesn't sound as defensive as they claim.

>>64158288
I still don't understand why they were shitting and pissing their pants about Pershing II when on paper the Soviets had far more capable systems already deployed. Wasn't its deployment simply a restoration of the balance of power?

>>64158345
>why they were shitting and pissing their pants about Pershing II
because they thought it could reach moscow and had the ground penetrating warhead that could guarantee a kill on any underground structure they had, and they had no means of countering it.
>when on paper the Soviets had far more capable systems already deployed
lol, no.

>>64158225 (OP)
>were soviets retarded?
you tell me

>>64158360
well Pershing II was the US/NATO reaction to SS-20 as far as I can tell
The Soviets saw the Pershing II as destabilizing things but NATO thought they were countering SS-20

>>64158314
Soviet planning was heavily shaped by their experience in World War II. In the minds of Soviet leaders they had stood by and let Barbarossa happen. Leading to massive devastation and the highest death toll of the war. Better to fight offensives outside their borders than waiting for the enemy to come to them.

>>64158379
>The Soviets saw the Pershing II as destabilizing things
the soviets used whatever rhetoric they could to weaken NATO, a single soldier on the border is destabilizing as far as they were concerned. their words are worth than liquid shit.

>>64158399
soviet planning was shaped by their seething hatred of the west and aggressive and hostile disposition towards them. everything else is just whitewashing, mental gymnastics and evasion.

>>64158420
Go to reddit if you want a bunch of emotional hot takes.

>>64158379
Fundamentally it seems the Soviets thought Pershing II could reach the Urals. No matter how many times the Americans reiterated the range was only 1100 miles or less they didn't believe it.

>>64158446
go to hell you seething bunkertranny shilling for soviet meme

>>64158260
They just needed West Germany to capitulate. French nuclear armed SRBMs could only reach Germany so if it came to it both sides would glass the whole country.

>>64158288
>why the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact regarded NATO as aggressive although they knew what the plans were. In the same collection of documents that we published from the Warsaw Pact archives of Eastern European countries, there’s an interesting document from the late 1950s where Marshal Konev, at that time the supreme commander of the Warsaw Pact, addresses that question at the end of the manoeuvres, at the briefing of the officers, so it is a closed meeting. He says, yes, the NATO plans are defensive. They are defensive because they’re based on the wrong assumption that we are aggressive, whereas we must act on the right assumption that NATO is aggressive. How can this be squared out? My explanation is that we have to consider the ideological factors. NATO is aggressive by definition, because it is an alliance of capitalist countries and thus must be aggressive. This has nothing to do with military plans; it has to do with deeper intentions.
>I want to talk about some things. I want to address the issue of why we did not trust NATO and the fact that it was not just a defensive bloc without any plans of aggression. I think that it was due to the fact that NATO possessed more economic potential and power than the Warsaw Pact. It was hard to believe that this organization, which was much more powerful in terms of its potential, had only defensive plans. We simply did not believe that.
The Soviet Union, where "Why does Ross, the largest friend, not simply eat the other five?" was nearly official policy

>>64158446
>Go to reddit if you want a bunch of emotional hot takes.

>>64158587
You’re right /pol/ is another option.

>>64158225 (OP)
You see, first is steal Church of Kiev and defeat Opticanicus Zelensky.

>>64158278
It's not fascinating, retards think that it's like a video game. Not knowing of course what a video game is (did you see the fucking Tetris movie, kek). It all must follow the chart. If it doesn't work you're counter-revolutionary. If you hit the big cities ergo they burn forever and everything is lost, counter strike stops.
That's the plan they honestly think that's a win. Not "furious west now wants to fuck your corpses no holds barred".

>>64158225 (OP)
>how did they expect to fight after nuclear cataclysm with half of europe completly devastated?
Why worry about something it's your entire job to think plan for?

>>64158225 (OP)
This is the same nation that had implemented chemical weapons at every level of its strategic and tactical planning, elaborately laid out use-cases for different types of CW, fully planned to bomb the shit out of NATO airstrips in a war with or without nukes, and still has large stockpiles of undisclosed nerve agent with a program actively developing new ones today. Widespread use of nukes in WW3 in their planning shouldn’t surprise you.

>>64158837
*bomb airstrips with nerve agent

>>64158837
>>64158225 (OP)
ahem

>>64158513
It's fascinating how ideology can cause all human cognitive function to cease.
Broski could've just admitted that they're aggressive because the decadent west is onlogically evil and deserves to be aggressed upon and destroyed to free the worker slaves or some shit. But no, their aggression HAD to be defensive, and HATO's defensive posture HAD to be aggressive. Stalin approved copium

>>64158500
I think it's a pretty bold assumption to think the West German C^3 system would be intact enough that a capitulation or ceasefire agreement would actually change anything. Without being able to disseminate the order to the units in the field AND convince them its a lawful order, a ceasefire agreement is just piece of paper somewhere.

>>64158470
Wasn't just the Pershing IIs that got the Soviets triggered, they also really didn't like the BGM-109G GLCM (ground-launched Tomahawk). 1730mi range with a 150Kt W84 warhead, and highly mobile and dispersable launch vehicles with multiple loaded missiles.

>>64158837
The question isn't whether they'd use nuclear weapons. The question is having used nukes how would they then achieve the rest of their plan, given that everything between Moscow and the Rhine would be like the surface of the moon, only highly irradiated and with VX at the bottom of half the craters, plus all the rivers and natural obstacles would be there but the bridges and roads wouldn't, and you know, NATO (still).

>>64159297
Typical Soviet behavior.
>No you can't have missiles, but we are allowed all types of missiles.
The fact that they had the 'peace mmovement' completely infiltrated and used that to put pressure on western goverments is sommething that we must never forget whne communicating with the liars and schemers in Moscow.

>>64159272
You certainly wouldn't take out the guys who can surrender to you and break up NATO in the process.
I do remember that every single NATO exercise ended up with NATO nuking first as the Warsaw Pact forces were just steak rolling through all of the defenses.

>>64159340
in the case of glcm I don't think the Soviets had an analogue so they were trying anything to stop it but still keep their weapon systems instead of trading to scrap them as NATO had proposed...
but really i dont know what lesson to take away from it. they nearly got away with it

>>64158225 (OP)
You must understand that the Cold War is over, with one of the sides pulling out and dissolving itself. With that in mind, we can critically and completely analyze what the fuck was going down there.
>Were soviets out of their mind with this plan?
Based on the fact that the plan was never implemented, no, they were not.
>How did they expect to fight after nuclear cataclysm with half of europe completly devastated?
Based on the fact that USSR did not, ever, initiate a first strike, it is thus logical that the plan was defensive in nature. The exercise itself started with a NATO first strike. Meaning it was, first of all, a contingency plan for a very bad scenario.

As nuclear warfare became political and military reality in that scenario, and with soviet lives lost in an unprovoked strike, we can understand a few factors that would make this situation differ from any previous one. Specifically:
>It is an apocalyptic scenario, Pandora's box has been opened.
>The conflict is now not over political concessions, but survival of both ideology and people.
>Murderous actions of NATO guarantee that soldiers will fight to the death, as many have already lost their loved ones in the attack, and any delay in complete destruction of the enemy threatens lives of those who were yet spared.
>Soldiers would be willing to fight with reduced supplies and with non-existent orders, as objectives are clear and reasons for delay of help are simple - NATO destroyed these support systems with nuclear strikes.
>With infantry NBC-capable vehicles likely to be the first and main cover against radiation and fallout, squad cohesion will be high due to the need to stay buttoned up to stay alive.
>From that point on, it's four horsemen of the apocalypse experience, with only way forward for many is to fight and win, as there's nowhere to flee.
>You can't surrender to a crater.
>The nuclear counter-attack, if any, would thin out enemy forces to enable the battle.

>>64158225 (OP)
I question the wisdom of attacking further from your base as supply is at its worse. But I'm not a general. Was the plan to pillage?

>>64159380
The plan was both to pillage AND to sacrifice in order to attrite any forces in Europe that could take advantage of the chaos and destruction to move towards USSR. The contingency is about cutting short a NATO campaign that could start with a first-strike in Europe. The objective was more important than lives of those involved in the war.

>>64159367
None of that makes logistical networks viable in a nuclear wasteland

>were soviets out of their mind with this plan?
Partially. One of the big elements was that they knew that they couldn't do a sustained war against the west, so they had to get a fast win.

>>64158783
>primaris zelensky
Come on old man get with the times.

>>64159416
None of it requires logistical networks in a nuclear wasteland because the objective isnt to sit in a trench for 50 years, but to execute a 7-day forced march towards European cities, only engaging those NATO forces not destroyed in counter-attack.

>>64159310
>The question is having used nukes how would they then achieve the rest of their plan
They wouldn't.
They'd reach the first line of cities in Germany (Hamburg, Hanover, Kassel, or rather the nuked ruins of those cities) but at that point they will just get stuck. Forget the Fulda gap, or any of the forces in Czechoslovakia/Hungary. They planned to nuke their way through Austria and then take Munich after driving up the radioactive Danube.

Everyone without a mask is on a 5 day timer due to radiation sickness, with a mask you're roling a dice wether you touch a branch that has VX on it (or the Soviet equivalent), and if you're fully suited up you're not moving fast, especially because you can't really cross groundburst ground zeros for a day or two even in a suit.
In your vehicle you have a day before you're out of fuel, and forget logistics because everything just got nuked and VX'd.


You can also roll a dice to see how many bridges and crossroads the Germans blow up before teh Soviets arrive, and how many of those that are left get nuked.

Also, NATO air power from French and British bases is not going away, unless the Soviets nuke those, too. AKA 'how to escalate to a strateegic exchange in one easy step', assuming the US didn't just activate SIOP already anyway.

Day 1 and 2 will be Soviet advances, by day 3 things will just start to come apart at the seams, by day 5 I wouldn't really expect anyone to be a coherent fighting force.
And to paraphrase On Thermonuclear War, no armmy in the worlld hhas the capabillity to deal with tens of millions of civilan corpses, whichh is what most people between Belgium, Poland, Denmark and Austria would become.

>>64159437
You know, there's a link in OP specifically so that you wouldn't sound fucking retarded as you talk without knowing anything.

>>64159365
>in the case of glcm I don't think the Soviets had an analogue
They had IRBMs that served the samme role.
>but really i dont know what lesson to take away from it
They lied, didn't honor the treaty, stationed the weapons that were specifically prohibited in the areas they were specificallly not allowed to be stationed in.
The lesson is:
Treaties with Russia are not worth the paper they're written on.

>>64158292
>i wonder if nato had similar plans
Nope. It was hard enough getting a bunch of democracies to agree on just the broadstrokes of a defense-only plan. And more importantly, no one in NATO wanted to invade the Warsaw Pact, least of all the US.

>>64159446
The ic I posted there is from the files the Poles declassified, which in turn form teh basis of teh wiki articlle.
But please, explain to us how everything I said is wrong.

>>64158260
Who gives a shit? The big man at the top said Rhine in 7 days, you'd better get your ass to the Rhine in 7 days, regardless of whether or not you're vomiting up your alveoli every 10 minutes. The only thing Russians have ever fought for is ruining Europe, though the current leaders of most EU countries are doing a fine enough job without the zigger hordes.

>>64158260
Well yes, but you see there will be a second echhelon to continue the attack when theh first echelon is deppleted.
And a third echelon to folllow the seond.

And then come the mobilized reserves with all the stored gear.

>>64159469
>The plan and exercise specifically outline a NATO first strike. Any concerns about not going strategic are pointless. Any concerns about France or UK not joining are pointless - they're part of NATO.
>Military formations can have their own limited logistical force such as fuel tankers, you don't need a delivery of gas straight from Moscow.

>Soviet forces were more NBC-protected than NATO forces. Despite that, your retarded post assumes that random post-nuke Germans would venture out to bomb bridges willy nilly, while soviets will simply just start licking VX off trees.
>Best counter-argument to NBC equipment of soviet troops is 'well you can't move fast in that :^)'

>Soviets will just get stuck because uhm... They will!

>>64158225 (OP)
have you ever been part of a govt. comittee?
The one who says no is troublemaker

>>64158446
Yeah.

>>64159518
South Koreans do the same about Japan and you dont bitch about it

I'm asking you to hate South Koreans not love russians

>>64159432
>Multiple groups advancing hundreds of kilometers along different axis don't need logistics support because we'll bypass the defenders and win the war in a few days.

>>64159525
Who're you quoting? There's nothing like that in that post.

>>64159529
>There's nothing like that in that post.
Try again.

>>64159489
>Military formations can have their own limited logistical force such as fuel tankers, you don't need a delivery of gas straight from Moscow.
Except that is something the Soviets didn't do below divisional level, but you go ahead and believe what you want to believe.

> random post-nuke Germans would venture out to bomb bridges willy nilly
West Germany had a fuckhuge plan to rig every single bridge for destruction in case of war, with charges stored by local authorities ('Landkreis' in German) and all bridges plus some crossroaods having holes for those demo charges built in.
It is a defensive measure, buut if NATO decided to attack the WarPac you can reasonably assume that among the preparations wouldl be the rigging of infrastructure in case of counterattack.
And no, it wouldn't destroy all brdiges. But theh plan had highway maintenance people standing by to blow up brdiges.

>Best counter-argument to NBC equipment of soviet troops is 'well you can't move fast in that :^)'
Well that is what NBC protected troops do. They slow down. To a fucking crawl.
And yes, if you don't have a suit you can end up very much combat ineffective from touching some VX-contaminated foliage days after the area got contaminated.

>Soviets will just get stuck because uhm... They will!
Observing Soviet and post-Soviet/Russian troops in action leads to this exact conclusion. They are alll show, all bite, with zero ability to sustain.

>>64159522
that is at least explicable. to hate people who undeniably conquered your country and ruled it for some time? irrational but ultimately they're not killing japanese. meanwhile russia acts like its a victim when it hasn't been. and then it does kill people it somehow imagines victimized it by magical properties because it can't harm the people it wants to fight.

>>64159523
that kid understands war. and most likely grew up too smart to enlist

>>64159531
Sure.
There's nothing like that in that post. Maybe you can internalize it this time.

>>64159536
>Except that is something the Soviets didn't do below divisional level
Well it's fucking good then that the order of battle for the exercise features a list of armies that consist of divisions then, huh?
>West Germany had a fuckhuge plan to rig every single bridge for destruction in case of war, with charges stored by local authorities ('Landkreis' in German) and all bridges plus some crossroaods having holes for those demo charges built in.
They will do this in spite of being nuked btw, while soviet soldiers will drop their NBC kit and start licking VX off trees, right?
>buut if NATO decided to attack the WarPac you can reasonably assume that among the preparations wouldl be the rigging of infrastructure in case of counterattack
If NATO decided to attack, NATO wouldn't blow up the bridges they would use to move their troops eastward. The exercise rests on the idea that survivors of NATO attack will take to the field to rebuke the attack, not that they'll be facing entrenched NATO forces - the static defenses will get counter-nuked.

Meaning there will be a very tiny window between NATO push eastward backed by nuclear first strike, and USSR push westward backed by counter-nuking. These super dedicated German bridge destroyers would have to blow them up right under the feet of advancing NATO forces.

>Well that is what NBC protected troops do. They slow down. To a fucking crawl.
No they don't, see: all the fucking things soviets did to prevent that.

>Observing Soviet and post-Soviet/Russian troops in action leads to this exact conclusion. They are alll show, all bite, with zero ability to sustain.
Literally 'I just feel like it, man'.

>>64159536
See, you seem to misunderstand what the plan in OP post is all about.

The plan is a DEFENSIVE contingency for the following scenario:
>NATO performs a first strike nuclear attack on Poland, and then capitalizes on the attack by attempting to eliminate East Germany forces and move further Eastward.

The plan presents a response:
>Poland, East German and other nearby forces, consisting of Armies and Large Groups, will regroup survivors and take to the field, to meet advancing NATO forces.
>Limited tactical nuclear response will be used to try and wittle down the advancing NATO troops and give USSR survivors an easier run westward
>In addition, western logistical hubs will be nuked to dislodge possible static defenders and prevent NATO troops in the field from resupply.
>The best case scenario objective is to reach European cities to signal that NATO operation has failed, and that NATO now has to dislodge soviet troops from European cities without nuking them.
>Abstaining from nuking of UK or France would set the stage for the post-war negotiation

Any issues with soviet logistics would be solved such:
>Since Armies in Poland and East Germany feature multiple divisions, at least some of them would survive with their inbuilt capacity for sustained ops.
>Fragmented but not destroyed forces would be consolidated under surviving command. No one will let a fuel tanker drive off back to Moscow just because.
>This will be enough to support the ops for the outlined 7 days.

The 7 day timetable is only for that operation and only with forces allotted. The plan hopes that this will be enough to force a defeat on NATO invasion, but it doesn't include plans for responses in the rest of USSR, nor does it include a plan for global strategic exchange.

The plan could fail if too few survive the initial attacks, if too many NATO survive tactical nukes. If USSR loses Survivors vs Survivors engagement. But not because of muh fuel or muh nbc slow.

>>64159365
They had several. With https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RK-55 being the closest.

>>64159437
kek that war would have been actual hell

>>64159573
NTA but when your argument boils down to "the level of their actual performance doesn't reflect the performance I'm imagining right now" then you yourself know you're full of shit.

>>64158260
>is it true that they gave it only 7 days because they believed most soldiers would be incapacitated from radiation after a week?
Well this looks like a nuclear scenario, but as I remember things, 7 days is how long it would take for the US to ship their main armored forces from america to europe. So if war broke out, there would be a week of rapid deep penetration, and when the US shows up it would all stalemate and the goal was basically to take as much as possible before negotiations commenced

>>64158247
And what made them think that they wouldn't get nuked back?

>>64159694
Well see, dipshit, that isn't what was said. NATO certainly believed that USSR forces in the area were a credible threat, and you have exactly zero reason to doubt that because you're a crackhead and they were generals and shit, and they were ready to start a nuclear war to defeat these formations.

And before you try to appeal to
>Muh 2022 invasion
I must remind you that the theater in the exercise featured Poland, Czechoslovakia and East Germany, with the most immediate backup coming from Ukrainian SSR, and all of them were high-readiness troops native to these countries, from units that spent decades preparing for this Cold-War-Gone-Hot in Europe, so even that angle is inapplicable here.

And there's no other angle to even try, so fuck off.

>>64159712
The exercise in OP post starts with NATO executing first strike...

>>64159518
I mean, I visited kiyv a year back. There was a collection of kids paintings and writing. There were similar notions of "soon we will have our victory and be able to take on the world."

>>64159716
At which point all of the bases and troops they could have used would be gone. So let me rephrase that.Why did they think they would still have troops after they get nuked?

>>64159754
Advance warning systems combined with shelters, troop positions covering a large area, failure of some of the nukes to detonate, designated survivors. NATO couldn't nuke East Germany since their own citizens and forces are in immediate vicinity, especially in Berlin, so that would feature a conventional conflict rather than nuclear.

NATO never expected for its nuclear arsenal to be able to completely cleanse USSR troops from the theater, that's why conventional troops were massed around Western Germany.

>>64159367
>Based on the fact that USSR did not, ever, initiate a first strike, it is thus logical that the plan was defensive in nature.
This does not follow. The USSR could have been ready and willing to implement this plan but were deterred from implementing it by NATO force of arms. REFORGER exercises would be a good example of this - the deluge of fresh materiel and manpower arriving in a timely manner would heavily detract from this plan's feasability. The fresh NATO troops would meet exhausted USSR troops and mop them up, meaning the Soviets would have exhausted their fo ved and left their entire front effectively open for NATO troops to return the borders to their initial positions.

The USSR had no qualms about aggressively using force of arms when they thought they could get away with it - see the Korean, Vietnamese wars that they pushed allies into starting with lavish promises of support and their own Afghanistani intervention.

The logical scenario is one where the Soviets were successfully deterred by NATO.

>>64159489
>Best counter-argument to NBC equipment of soviet troops is 'well you can't move fast in that :^)'
Well I mean you can't? If you're all motorized or mechanized then maybe, if you have to footslog you're doomed

>>64159536
>repurposed Nazi external fuel tank

>>64159797
Yeah that's why soviet infantry was all motorized and mechanized in NBC-ready vehicles, that was the entire point.

>>64159788
>This does not follow
Well that's just a you problem based on your skewed perception of military capabilities and military history. Just look at you trying to blame USSR for Vietnam, when the war was funded mainly by Chinese and people fought in it mainly because the fucking French couldn't stop jacking off about "French Indochina", and the civil war ended the moment both French and the US left, displaying how pointless the whole thing was.

To address your specific concern. The plan specifically outlined conditions of NATO first strike, and thus it set the stage for NATO invasion on the move upon stunned forces of USSR.

The plan was inapplicable in an aggressive war because you would never start an aggressive war at a disadvantage with all of your troops nuked while the enemy all good.

An entirely different plan would be called for, and it would feature an entire reverse of the situation, where it was USSR on the move while NATO European forces would be decimated, trying to scramble an interception before soviets took West Berlin.

Hence why this specific plan in OP is explained as defensive in nature, and it wasn't the question of 'why would USSR fight such a terrible war, were they stupid?', it was 'If such an attack happened upon USSR, would USSR's plan to repel the attack work, or would NATO defeat the survivors and continue the invasion'.

>>64159800
Yes, this is a sign of how overwhelming Soviet llogistics were.
Pllease ignore that thehy weer actualllyl railbound and sized their logistics elements on the basis of programmed losses per day.
Because surely dumb HATO will not destroy bridges or trucks, only tanks and BMPs.

>>64159806
Thhey're equuiupped to punc hthhrough smeom contaminated area, like a tacticall nuk grouundu zero.
They can't stay in their BMP for more than a day and remain combat effective, and that is assuming the filters hold.

>>64159818
>Talking shit about railbound logistics
The rail is so easy to repair and so hard to destroy it's not even a military target, the best you could ever do is try to place your forces in a way that would let you attack trains, meaning they'd be easily detectable by the opponent very much interested in completing its train runs.

Shit's literally made out of standardized segments.

>>64159822
>They can't stay in their BMP for more than a day and remain combat effective, and that is assuming the filters hold.
Hence why the plan demands them to Force March towards European cities, rather than remain in ground zero of Poland or Czechoslovakia. The faster they get to Germany, the less likely they're to be tactically nuked, and NBC recon would plot a course around ground zeroes of tactical nukes dropped on NATO formations.

Meaning that the real danger to the soviet troops would be surviving NATO formations in the 'pockets' between impact zones, and the risk of being too slow and too bunched up to summon a NATO tactical nuke on their heads.

Not fuel, not water, not timelimit on filters or presence in the vehicle. As long as the vehicle is mobile, there's a certain amount of distance they can make away from Poland/Czech before they meet NATO.

>>64159816
>plan in OP is explained as defensive in nature
That plan is an attack plan, with a note tacked on 'defensive, trust me bro'

It's like that West German plan that had 'active forward defensive measuures' to 'generate room for maneuvers', or in plain Ennglish 'let's take Leipzig and Rostock'

>>64159832
>Our attack plan begins with 'most of us in Poland are dead, what do?'
You fucking imbecile...........

>>64159829
>Force March towards European cities
>get to Germany from Poland or Czechoslovakia
>the real danger is not fuel
Yeah, maybe check the road range of those BMPs.

Also why would NATO stop nuking the Soviet divisions?

>The Soviets planned to use about 7.5 megatons of atomic weaponry during such a conflict.
You're all fucking retarded, 8 megatons in selective strikes throughout Europe is not enough to create radiation zones that would incapacitate the Soviet troops en masse. Most would not even be affected.

You will notice that they drop 1 megaton on Vienna and Hungarians are supposed to liberate the city afterwards and THAT would cause radiation casualties. The satellite states were to take the brunt of the dirty fighting but the main armored steamroller push would simply AVOID irradiated zones. For fast crossing of radiated areas all Soviet vehicles were in theory ABC proof. There you go problem solved.

Nuclear weapons are not a magical death ray and the US once employed them on a squad level, their use subject to Sgt. Tyrone's judgement. You can fight a war perfectly well using nuclear weapons without some sort of a retarded apocalypse and 50 years ago everybody was planning for that.

>>64159840
>Yeah, maybe check the road range of those BMPs.
You know you can refuel vehicles, right? With a fuel tanker. That's part of the same force on the move.

>Also why would NATO stop nuking the Soviet divisions?
Limit on number of tactical warheads, combined with soviets not trying to bunch up to become a valid tactical target, combined with nuclear counter-attack at launch sites and NATO formations, combined with hope that some weapons will fail and some divisions just get lucky.

It's a plan of action, not a fucking vision of the future. It might just not work out.

>>64159848
>>64159840
Additionally, at some point soviets may reach NATO divisions advancing so any nuking of the soviets would also be nuking of NATO guys, so this encounter would have to be decided by conventional arms.

And if NATO abandons advance, this is already a bonus as USSR response actively sabotaged the invasion operation, and they also fixed NATO invasion force in place for a solid tactical nuke.

>>64159843
What would keep a battlefield exchange of tactical nukes from escalating into a global thermonuclear war?

>>64159297
>highly mobile and dispersable launch vehicles with multiple loaded missiles...
...and some sexy MAN tractors. This shit would make me want to join the Air Force in the 80s.

>>64159840
Fuel zisters, I don't feel so good...

>>64159853
It's always a danger, which is why the Soviets were not planning to nuke France and UK in this scenario. Until you're trading nukes on the battlefield and you're making territorial gains fast enough they were OK with getting hit in return, but probably wanted to avoid their cities being hit.

>>64159853
The lack of strategic deployments on enemy's side and general lack of interest in suicide. Advance warning systems were a big thing in nuclear deterrence.

You are a US Army infantryman in Estonia.

Your Bradley has 300 km of fuel left. By the time it runs out, the petrol stations will have been emptied by looters.

The highways have been blanketed with fallout and are unsafe to use, normal fuel trucks are not well protected.

Every port in the Baltic has been nuked.

Railroads are blocked by rubble. No fuel trains.

Geiger counter says 600 mSv per hour outside the vehicle. You're not dismounting just yet.

You have a headache, you're not sure if it's the radiation.

Several members of your family are probably dead. You worry about those who survived.

You've been given the order to advance on what used to be St. Petersburg.

Your unit advances. Who knows? Maybe a T-72 will spot you and put you out of your misery?

>>64159864
>Railroads are blocked by rubble. No fuel trains.
The constant slander of railroad is perplexing. Only a direct hit on a rail line would cause damage to the railroad that makes it unusable, meaning you must explicitly target a specific segment of it instead of an enemy division. And then they take a detour.

>>64159816
>Vietnam
You're extremely naive if you think the USSR weren't alongside the red Chinese in supporting the communist north Vietnamese from the very beginning.

I've tried to find original sources for the claim that this would be in response to a NATO first strike, but there are none. The cited articles on Wikipedia are all secondary sources and make no mention of it being a counterattack. I can't find the original document, translated or original

Given the oppressive nature of the USSR over the whole of eastern Europe, it's not outlandish at all to suggest the plan, if it existed at all, was aimed primarily at extending the communist engine of misery further across Europe, based no doubt on the misguided idea that capitalism is inherently evil and that Soviet evil is a justifiable replacement.

>>64159876
>I've tried to find original sources for the claim that this would be in response to a NATO first strike, but there are none
You lying piece of shit, it's literally in the op post link.

>>64159879
Wikipedia is not a source you imbecile. I've been trying to find the original polish documents that it references but does not link to.

>>64158373
>Sotshi in the Crimea
Sounds like bullshit.

>>64159869
Anon you still have the issue of locomotives not having an NBC system who is going to operate the train through the fallout to deliver the fuel?

>>64158513
ideologues man, fuck those niggers

>>64159822
>Thhey're equuiupped to punc hthhrough smeom contaminated area, like a tacticall nuk grouundu zero.
...wow

>>64159850
>>64159848
>>64159829
>>64159816
Nta, but I'm reading through the chain and your side of the argument comes off as "well we will just win because... because we WILL, okay?"
It seems your setting everything up fir this perfect push where the soviet units have everything they need, have perfect logistics, perfect coordination, fuel, food, human needs, vehicle maintenance, breakdowns, etc, are not a concern, the troops are fine being cramped in claustrophobic metal boxes with no room to move for days at a time, NATO forces are all uncoordinated and have no communications or ability to use nuclear devices, no engineering units set obstacles or demolish infrastructure, and none of the many plans to curb a Soviet advance by various nations come into play.
Oh, and the roads are all clear, there's no traffic jams, and the ground is dry and hard, and easy to drive on.
It's very, very, wishful thinking.

>>64159896
>>64159843

>>64159931
>We
Stop projecting
>Will win
I never once said USSR would win, fucking mongrel.

Not even gonna bother reading the rest of your shit, you should go take some meds for your dyslexia.

>>64159896
>But who’s gonna drive the train??
The privates in NBC gear I tell to drive the train, tardnuts

>>64158225 (OP)
>were soviets out of their mind with this plan?
Thats literally one (1) wargame, not a definitive warplan.

>how did they expect to fight after nuclear cataclysm with half of europe completly devastated?
By building their doctrine around the assumption that the battlefield would be a toxic wasteland.

>>64159936
Re-read, plebeian. Your insisting the ussr will have all their advantages and nato will get none of theirs, and what's more the roads will be clear, the vehicles work perfectly, the logistics just work, the troops won't mind being crammed into BMP's like sardines, etc....
It's pure wishful thinking.

>>64159986
>Your insisting the ussr will have all their advantages and nato will get none of theirs
I never once said that you fucking imbecile. The only wishful thinking here is your idea that you're experiencing some kind of 'gotcha' moment while you're just making fun of yourself here.

Find one post of me saying USSR will win. Just one. And make a direct quote.

Find one post of me saying that USSR has some sort of advantage while NATO doesn't get any. Just one. And make a direct quote.

You will fail but I'd like to see you try.

>>64158278
>even if all contact with higher command was gone
On the flip-side, this is why targeting NC3 nodes and governments was viewed with skepticism in some of the Western deterrence literature of the 1970s and 1980s since it could make it harder to "turn off" any conflict.
>>64159658
>>64159365
From what I've seen, the land leg of the Soviet tactical/sub-strategic/NSNW delivery systems seems almost exclusively Ballistic Missile based with RK-55 being mainly a naval system.

>>64158288
when will planners learn

>>64161363
It’s motivated reasoning. Governments like quick and decisive wars, so they’ll fit the data to support that outcome.

>>64159714
>NATO certainly believed that USSR forces in the area were a credible threat, and you have exactly zero reason to doubt that
so true, Mig-23 in the low orbit with 100:0 kill ratio proves it zister
>nd all of them were high-readiness troops native to these countries
lmao

>>64159823
>The rail is so easy to repair and so hard to destroy it's not even a military target, the best you could ever do is try to place your forces in a way that would let you attack trains, meaning they'd be easily detectable by the opponent very much interested in completing its train runs.
yes, rail bridges, depots and crossings are repaired in a day once a nuke goes off over them, very smekalka comrade

please ignore the fact that there were no direct rail lines from the ussr to germany too while you're at it.

I just want to say that it's kinda wild that the Soviet garrisons in East Germany agreed to just pack up and go home. No serious negotiations or drama.

>>64162529
yes, probably the greatest contribution of the soviet union.

>>64159939
Anon for the record I was hoping you would tell me that the US army had a railroading divison or some shit. Fucking better then railroaders in the states getting drafted then sent to operate the rail network in Vietnam nothing worse then being stuck on rail during an insurgency maybe they can throw a fifty cal on the nose or some shit?

>>64162529

Uh, no? The Soviets agreed to withdraw all of their forces from the former East Germany by 1994 as part of the negotiation of 2+4 treaty in 1991.

They spent three years packing all of their muntitons from their bases in the former East Germany and relocating it to Russia, which was slow because it had to be moved mostly by sea because the Czechs wouldn't let them move the munitions over their territorial railways.

The forces on the ground actually didn't want to leave because while they were still there, they were being paid in West German Deutsche Marks instead of Rubles.

>>64162911
Other than the protection of Soviet war memorials, what real concessions did the Kremlin receive in exchange for the total withdrawal of their most forward and ready combat formations in Europe?
Not being accusatory, I'm actually asking.

>>64162928

Russia was such a mess internally at that time dealing with their own power struggles that they didn't particular give a shit about anything going on outside Russia. At the time of the collapse, Russia pretty much fragmented into a bunch of semi-independent autonomous regions and it took a decade for central federal power to be reasserted.

NATO-Russia relations were actually pretty good in the 90s and until about 2004, when Putin really consolidated his grip on power completely and the Ukrainians started to makes moves to leave the Russian sphere of influence.

Being able to keep the troops in Germany until 1994 rather than being forced to leave immediately was the concession. Afterwards, the Russians actually wanted to withdraw the troops faster than scheduled because keeping them deployed in Germany cost money, but they had to keep them there because there was no housing for them in Russia, and the Russian generals in Germany were stealing everything that wasn't nailed down and selling it sold it on the black market.

>>64162928
>what real concessions did the Kremlin receive
US financial aid and content over the complete upheaval, robbery and submission of russia to KGB via organized crime. apparently no US bases in the former east germany either but with how much russians screech about it it's probably a worthless thing anyway.

but realistically they simply didn't have the means to sustain that deployment without robbing nearby german stores at the time, as well as being crushed by the fall of berlin wall politically. they were probably concerned with looking like the spiteful commies we now know they still are as part of shelepin's plan they'd been trying to put into action, pretending to be a peaceful democratic country populated by real humans.

>>64162928
Concessions? The newly formed Russia was hard out of cash, so they just took the opportunity to have Germany pay for the former Soviet troops for three years.
And Germany was all smiles, waved goodbye to the Soviets and there was a little ceremony for each unit that left.

Also, Gorbachev alllegedly asked Kohl if Germany wanted Kaliningrad back during the 4+2 negotiations but Kohl declined.

>>64162911
>which was slow because it had to be moved mostly by sea because the Czechs wouldn't
I am gonna stop you right there. The reason it was slow is because russians never had neither living space nor warehouse space for the people and stuff they had to move out. That crap literally had to be built using western money inside russia.

>>64162928
>what real concessions did the Kremlin receive
They didn't get bankrupt and didn't die of famine, which as we all know now was a big mistake

>>64162505
See what I mean? You have to resort to moving goalposts by adding bridges, depots and crossings. When it's just 1,000 miles of rail through wilderness you can't do shit to it. And guess what, all those depots and crossings and bridges are never singular, there's always a way around at some junction.

>>64162505
>please ignore the fact that there were no direct rail lines from the ussr to germany too while you're at it.
Poland had a rail connection to Eastern Germany, retard. They literally share a border.

>>64163278
>Poland had a rail connection to Eastern Germany, retard
what's a rail gauge for 11, vladimir?

>>64163272
>When it's just 1,000 miles of rail through wilderness
where is this exactly? in your fantasy lalaland where pidor union isn't just an army of raped conscripts?

>>64163289
>>64163286
>Paying for bots and projecting just to win an argument over railroads
Control yourself, retard.

>>64162489
Damn, NATO was absolutely delusional. I thought the bomber gap myth was crazy but this is next level. Mach 4.5? Lmao. Got any other examples?

>>64163352
here's another one, and there's also a cruiser gap

>>64163350
>reeee stop disproving my shitskin delusuions

>>64163368
You're straight up schizophrenic. The original post with the railroad discussion was about a Bradley crewman bemoaning that he wasn't getting supplies by NATO railroad.

It's you who went all retarded and started botspamming, inventing some nonsensical narrative related to USSR.

The OP's exercise plan didn't even feature train logistics or any logistics other than divisional reserves on cars or apcs.

Money well spent, turdbrain?

>>64158225 (OP)
Don't make me tap the sign.

>>64163373
>reee bots
>actually i wasn't sucking up to the soviets, i swear

>>64163364
I like how every American wunderwaffe of the 20th century was a byproduct of paranoia that turned out to be completely baseless. The Soviets should have been 100% transparent about their merely adequate military and technological progress, then the US never would have felt the need to try hard. F-15 wouldn't even exist.

>>64163390
here's another one: this is the expected survival rate of Minuteman silos in case of soviet first strike, based on their assumptions about the accuracy and power of soviet ICBMs.

>>64163390
I don't know. They probably would have assumed they were sandbagging anyway.
For various reasons they didn't trust each other.

>>64163390
here's another case with some insight into how cold war planning with limited information went

>>64158225 (OP)
What a retarded plan.
>nuke europe
>le sissypee stronk!!!12
>gets immediately nuked back to the stone age by France and America
Then what? Fucking retarded vatniks.

>>64163408
The plan is a contingency response to NATO first strike.

>>64163414
still no source or evidence for this ridiculous cope

>>64163460
It's literally in the article and in the 3 sources for the claim. You're the one coping since you literally deny reality.

>>64163467
no actual sources are provided, just some hearsay that some ragged tranny like you could write(and probably did)

>>64162928
The biggest concession they got was not being gunned down from behind as they trudged out after occupying half of Europe for 5 decades. They deserved FAR worse. If you have to build a wall around your city to keep people IN, you are not the good guys.

>>64163472
That's false, see: the sources in the article.

>>64159823
Lol rail is actually pretty hard to repair dog. But it's harder to initially damage in general. Good thing rail lends itself to natural choke points like switching locations

>>64163487
Yes, it's true that Germans were the bad guys for building a wall to keep their own people contained, especially after the Nazi Germany fiasco. Hence why both sides kept sizeable military presence in both Western and Eastern Germany, to keep them huns in check.

>>64163497
none of them give actual sources, just restate the same hearsay they made up to whitewash and rationalize insane soviet delusions

blow it out your ass you disgusting tranny liar.

>>64163504
>Germans
>building a wall to keep their own people contained
hello bunkertroon, still making excuses for the soviets?

>>64163502
During WW2, Nazi engineers could immediately restore a damaged rail section to working order by welding on some scrap. The train could then pass this section at slower speed safely, losing very little time.

Afterwards, the repair crew could implement permanent repairs.

The so-called chokepoints on the train line are an advantage to the rail security - everyone knows where the strike or ambush will happen, so counter-ambushes and increased security are common.

>>64163487
>If you have to build a wall around your city to keep people IN, you are not the good guys.
That wall was built along the border of the whole bloc.

People from Bulgaria were trying to escape to Turkey, from Hungary and Czechoslovakia to Austria.
It's just that the Berlin wall was the most visible, and a constant source of bad press for the Soviets.

>>64163511
>The so-called chokepoints on the train line are an advantage to the rail security - everyone knows where the strike or ambush will happen, so counter-ambushes and increased security are common.
delusional

>>64163508
That's false actually, the articles report on the presentation made by Polish government. Also stop projecting your troon fetish on me, that's disgusting.

>>64159456 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods, an actual false flag against civilian targets, was approved by Joint Chiefs of Staff. Why wouldn't a crazy nook plan be in some drawer somewhere? There are plans for everything, Rule 34.

>>64163515
>That's false actually,
then give me a real quote rather than reports, you obnoxious soviet quisling tranny.

>>64163514
>The rail itself is almost impossible to damage, but easy to repair.
>Switching locations are easier to damage and harder to repair
>Ergo, it is smart to keep security on station at important elements of railroad like switches, depots, bridges, to ambush any saboteurs.

>NOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU'RE DELUSIONAL!!!!

Take meds.

>>64163511
>Ambushing
>Rail infra
We'll see here's another interesting thing about rail infrastructure, it's pretty fucking static. Good thing once again one segment of the world has prioritized high performance accuracy munitions and delivery from the ground. Also very funny joke about the Germans. They frequently lost literal campaigns due to damaged rail.

>>64163521
>The rail itself is almost impossible to damage, but easy to repair.
wrong.
>it is smart to keep security on station at important elements of railroad like switches, depots, bridges, to ambush any saboteurs.
how are you going to ambush a nuclear warhead, you absolute retard gorilla nigger?

>>64163504
>Germans were the bad guys for building a wall
That was built after orders were sent from Moscow to the East German puppet regime as a provocation aimed at the Kennedy administration.
Obviously, the East Germman colaborators were part of the evil clique that ran eastern Euurope into the ground for 50 years, but the core of that effort was still Russian.

>>64163519
Again, stop projecting your tranny fetish on me, I am not a tranny.

Then, your demands for evidence already presented are insubstantial. It's not my job to make you believe, it is actually YOUR job to disprove evidence provided, since it is valid for others. Hell, the fucking Radio Free Europe is one of the sources. Surely a US-funded propaganda outlet wouldn't try to paint USSR in a better light.

So you'll just have to deal with it, sweatie.

>>64163528
>We'll see here's another interesting thing about rail infrastructure, it's pretty fucking static
Trains passing through it aren't so static, and its reasonable to ambush them at chokepoints.
>Good thing once again one segment of the world has prioritized high performance accuracy munitions and delivery from the ground.
We're discussing NATO rail supply lines.
>Also very funny joke about the Germans. They frequently lost literal campaigns due to damaged rail.
LOL

>>64163534
you are a tranny that's making excuses for soviet crazies. give me an actual quote instead of shifting around like a lying kike. if you can't do this then shove your vatnigger fantasy up yours and shut up or fuck off to reddit where your crawled from.

>>64163529
>wrong
Actually true.
>how are you going to ambush a nuclear warhead, you absolute retard gorilla nigger?
I never said that, take meds.

>>64163537
Your tranny fetish is insane.

>Poland threw open the doors of its military archives to show how most of Europe would have been laid to waste in a nuclear conflagration between east and west. Dating from 1979, when presidents Jimmy Carter and Leonid Brezhnev were discussing detente, the map showed how Warsaw Pact forces would have responded to an attack by the Nato alliance.
- Nicholas Watt in Warsaw, Sat 26 Nov 2005

>Commander Waldemar Wojcik, the head of Poland's Central Military Academy, said: "This was an exercise based on the assumption of a Nato attack. The doctrine of the day was that the Warsaw Pact countries were peace loving." He added: "I visited the Pentagon in 2001 and was shown maps that were the mirror image of this."

>>64163535
>Western forces
>Ambushing trains
It's called a strategic air strike and Russians still have not unlocked this miracle tech. Marvel in wonder as the few heavy locomotives in a region are killed in one of their few storage places monitored by actual satellites with cameras better than can be bought at Western civilian camera stores (KGB source for best photography equipment). Gasp in amazement as train fags froth at the mouth wondering why night time on a set track isn't safe for their massive fuck me daddy please retard bus on its way to combat. Question logic as retards claim that heavy infra and machinery needs meat on ground to hit because static assets are harder to target. Beg for mercy (or brain damage) so that you took can KNOW that trains are actually good at dodging (even tho they have literal set paths) because they move!

>>64163549
>A huge ass post full of mad
>Amounts to "NATO will nuke its own rail because uhm fuck USSR"
Seriously, your pills.

>>64163555
>NATO will nuke its own rai
how many times will you deflect to screeching about NATO when corenered, you absolute loser?

>>64163557
Again, you should take meds. The topic of rails was brought up when anon made a post about a Bradley crewman was bemoaning NATO rail infrastructure failing to deliver fuel for his vehicle.

The Seven Days to Rhine plan did not account or rely on soviet rail resupply, with divisions moving westward entirely on their own sustainment due to the idea that NATO first strike would cut off reinforcements and supplies.

>>64163012
Kohl was stupid for that.

>>64163560
>The topic of rails was brought up when anon made a post about a Bradley crewman was bemoaning NATO rail infrastructure failing to deliver fuel for his vehicle.
No matter how much you deflect to this from your scummy defense of the soviets it'll still be obvious and it'll still be dunked on while you just sit and take it while squealing about NATO rail to cope.
>inb4 more parroting and tears about meds and bradley

>>64163565
What defense of the soviets, you schizophrenic?
Find a single post in this thread that says
>Soviets would win Seven Days to Rhine Exercise
or
>Soviets would use their indestructible railroad to win Seven Days To Rhine Exercise

You will fail, because it's all in your head. You're mentally ill.

>>64159367
Anon, ALL of the soviet war plans assumed a NATO first strike because their state ideology claimed that it was literally impossible for communist nations to start a war
step one of every single one of these plans was to preemptively first strike NATO in order to disrupt the "imminent" attack

>>64163572
This was already addressed in the thread. If Seven Days To Rhine plan/exercise was aggressive, it would not feature following condition:
>NATO first strike on Poland kills millions of people and shitload of soldiers.

Following this condition, majority of Polish forces would be dead and thus unable to participate in the exercise or the plan execution.

An aggressive plan, instead, would rely on majority of your forces alive and capable as you're taking the enemy by surprise, with your forces on the move, out in the field on exercise, or already in Germany, thus making the nuking of them harder.

Aggressive plan would thus feature measures to prevent destruction of your main force. This plan BEGINS with Poland destroyed and demands for understrength USSR survivors to take to the field and meet advancing NATO units in a suicide rush to western europe.

>>64163580
the point is that there is no NATO first strike, its just a bit of political technology to cover a planned war of aggression against the west

>>64163582
The point is refuted by the idea that soviets would devise and train for a plan that sends all of their Polish forces on a vacation, while NATO troops suddenly teleport into Eastern Germany on the move, rather than entrenched in West Germany.

You know, instead of planning for a full strength push towards NATO defensive forces.

>>64163561
realistically... they weren't going to report the inhabitants

>>64163610
deport*
so do you really want that anymore

>>64163610
There's six million Russian speakers in Germany today. The Oblast Kaliningrad has a population of 1 million so it wouldn't have made a big difference.

>>64158783
>ORKZ R MADE FER FIGHTING
zegroes are made for anal sex and drone videos

>>64159310
>The question isn't whether they'd use nuclear weapons.
You're right, the question is if they even can at this point. When was their last successful nuclear test?

>>64160028
Alright bunkercuck

>>64159829
>Not fuel, not water, not timelimit on filters or presence in the vehicle.
Right here for a start, when you just outright discount any logistical needs snd assume the Soviets will always be have what they need.
>ground zeroes of tactical nukes dropped on NATO formations.
And of course, all NATO formations already took a nuking and are now reduced to scattered pockets.... weird how the soviet formations remain fully formed and un-nuked.
>>64159573
There is also this post where you go into histrionics and claim that no bridges would be blown because NATO forces attacking over them would then need to retreat in close contact with Soviets. Ignoring that A) it takes a second to blow a bridge once rigged, and B) by your own measure, the NATO formations have already been nooknooked into oblivion.

There's plenty more examples, like how the soviet wonder trains will magically roll across Europe regardless of track gauge, and somehow none of the rail choke points will be taken out, or if they are the soviet engineer teams will just instantly repair them, whilst all Western logistics break down and their rail lines run into disarray. Or how the roads will be clear fir the ruskie push, and they will have all the fuel, but the NATO forces will have to cope with congested roads and no fuel supplies.
Just admit it, troony, your a bunkercuck and your giving every advantage to the Soviets and none to the West

>>64163629
Köingsberg should be cleansed

>>64163669
>Right here for a start, when you just outright discount any logistical needs snd assume the Soviets will always be have what they need.
Not a statement of Soviet victory, impending or otherwise. In discussion of a soviet plan, the soviet plan did not describe any such issues.
>And of course, all NATO formations already took a nuking
That was the plan they were hoping to execute. Not a statement of soviet victory, impending or otherwise.
>and are now reduced to scattered pockets
Never guaranteed that, never stated this would lead to or enable soviet victory, impending or otherwise. My posts in the thread state that the soviets could fail to achieve this result.
>There is also this post where you go into histrionics
Histrionics is you calling me a tranny or a cuck when I own your pseud ass.
>claim that no bridges would be blown because NATO forces attacking over them would then need to retreat in close contact with Soviets
Never said that, you're imagining things. I said NATO wouldnt blow up the bridges because they would need them to move eastward in execution of their invasion plan, and then that the soviets would strike at these sections with their nuclear weapons. I specifically said "move their troops eastward", NATO wouldnt retreat East.
>There's plenty more examples
That you're mentally ill, yes.

The rest of your schizoposting is total nonsense.

Reminder that you failed to provide a single quote of me saying
>one post of me saying USSR will win
>one post of me saying that USSR has some sort of advantage while NATO doesn't get any

>>64163718
Holy shit, I recognise this posting style. Nice Deamonette, is that you?

>>64163669
>like how the soviet wonder trains
Never said that...
>will magically roll across Europe
Never said that...
>regardless of track gauge
Never said that...
>and somehow none of the rail choke points will be taken out
Never said that...
>or if they are the soviet engineer teams will just instantly repair them
Never said that...
>whilst all Western logistics break down and their rail lines run into disarray
Never said that...
>Or how the roads will be clear fir the ruskie push
Never said that...
>and they will have all the fuel
Never said that...
>but the NATO forces will have to cope with congested roads
Never said that...
>and no fuel supplies.
Never said that...


>Just admit it
I admit that you're mentally ill retard.

>>64163725
>Okay you owned me totally and thoroughly.
>But I have one final trump card!
>See, I recognize your posting style!
>You're... someone

Wow, the brain damage you have is extensive. No I'm not your tranny girlfriend.

>>64163649
In 2018 they attempted to launch a nuclear powered rocket near Murmansk, which blew up killing around 190 people. The radiation was measurable all over Europe. So we know they have nuclear material capable of blowing up.

>>64163718
>>64163732
Oh hey, the pooskinians have their wires crossed.
>"everything I actually said I also didn't and my entire argued exists in a quantum state where it exists when I want it too but I never said it when others try to use it against me"

>>64158373
>>64158225 (OP)
>3 days to Kyiv

>>64163771
Except I never said any of that, that's why you can't find a single quote of me saying that and instead have to cope and seethe and hallucinate.

Take meds.

>>64163761
That doesn't sound very successful.

After the end of the Cold War the Americans sent over a bunch of military intelligence guys to interview a bunch of the ex-Soviet decision makers.

One thing they found was that because the Soviets did more land-based nuclear weapons testing, they knew significantly more than the West about the actual geological effects of thermonuclear blasts.

The Soviets were absolutely convinced the entire time that the Minuteman missiles in Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming were aggressive first strike weapons because the silos were far too close together and weren't hardened nearly enough enough to actually survive to be launched as second-strike weapons. If the Soviets had launched and hit the missile fields, the silo doors would have jammed shut and wouldn't have been able to be opened.

>>64163788
I think that is one of the biggest lessons to be taken from Cold War. Both sides have shown great restraint, and many apocalyptic scenarios they thought up never came to fruition specifically because they kept each other in check and believed in deterrence for the benefit of the future, not victory for the benefit of ego.

>>64163777
Odd, I recall you insisting on the soviet forces having no fuel issues as they roll through the West, whilst a squad in a Bradley had to contend with only what's in the tanks, roads packed with fleeing civilians, and all the infrastructure has been nooknooked.
Or how your magic trains where going to roll across Europe
Or how demolishing bridges was impossible even if plans where in place to do so
Or how rail lines where easy to repair and almost impossible to damage anyway.
Unfortunately for you, ramjeet, we do have basic reading comprehension here. Sniff fewer poos and you might do better.

>>64163797
>I recall
Well that's why you have mental illness, your recall is flawed. You're not quoting a single one of my posts, you just hammer down your delusions.

>>64163780
Well the nuke went off, didnt it?

>>64163806
I don't think the goal was to nuke themselves.

>>64163272
>When it's just 1,000 miles of rail through wilderness
There's never "just 1,000 miles of raid through wilderness", real life doesn't work like that. Eevn in the most bumfuck parts of russia the rail has to go through a ton of bridges, tunnels and other shit.

>>64163806
Well, the nuke went off in this case by all means, but it’s very unusual.

>>64164191
Technically it wasn't the warhead - it was supposedly the engine for their Project Pluto 2: Chernoblyataloo prototype

>>64158373
it's funny how the winter war humiliated russia and forced them to modernize their army, whereas the ukraine war seems to have done nothing but make them more obstinate and closer to being chinese vassals

>>64164204
Stalin was smart(?) enough to end the Winter War in a negotiated peace with reasonable terms.
Putin is incapable of offering reasonable terms, so the war must continue.

>>64164199
I'm just glad that the radioactivity came down beyond the environment. There is nothing out there. All there is is sea, birds, fish, clean-up crews.

>>64163804
>"d-dont just read upthread or follow reply c-chains"

>>64164295
Why aren't you reading the thread then and instead relying on your schizophrenia? I already dared you to quote specific posts like 10 times but you're still seething.

>>64163788
>The Soviets were absolutely convinced the entire time that the Minuteman missiles in Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming were aggressive first strike weapons because the silos were far too close together and weren't hardened nearly enough enough to actually survive to be launched as second-strike weapons. If the Soviets had launched and hit the missile fields, the silo doors would have jammed shut and wouldn't have been able to be opened.
Complete and total bullshit through and through. Minuteman silos were more than sufficiently spaced and more hardened than any soviet silo ever built, to the point that soviets couldn't ever hope to detroy them all. They were also viable first strike missiles because Minuteman II and III were designed with enough accuracy and power to destroy hardened silos themselves.

>>64163788
You forgot Missouri.

>>64164934
Oh and silo doors specifically are more likely to get torn off and sent flying than they are to be jammed shut, they have more thrust strapped onto them than the ICBMs themselves.

>>64164934
> Minuteman silos were more than sufficiently spaced and more hardened than any soviet silo ever built
That's not what I've read at all. The Minuteman silos can withstand 300PSI, while the Soviets built some super-hardened silos that could withstand like 1000psi, probably because they knew American RVs were way more accurate than theirs. Minuteman silos were not that hard in the grand scheme of things, although it was a sufficient level considering how imprecise their RVs were.

>>64158225 (OP)
its simple
air detonation has minimal surface contamination but it spreads basicly everywhere

surface detonation has no air contamination and has a fixed surface contamination

guess what happens on the second situation

>>64165145
>surface detonation has no air contamination
Surface bursts cause more highly radioactive short-term fallout.

>>64159573
>Germany won't blow up bridges because Soviet troops have NBC gear
Huh?

>>64159848
>Limit on number of tactical warheads
Try again

>>64158379
this

>>64159297
and this

>>64162529
It's not like the Soviet Union in 1990 was in any position either economically or politically to maintain 5 field armies in East Germany (and another 3 in other Warsaw Pact countries). They were already starting having trouble holding on to the SSR part of 'USSR'. The Soviets could either agree to a treaty that called for their withdrawal or they could withdraw unilaterally. The former might make them look peace loving and reasonable, the latter would have been announcing their condition was terminal.

>>64168387
You weren't supposed to read that part!!

>>64163364
The cruiser gap was just some congressmen complaining in committee, not an actual problem and we 'solved' it by reclassifying existing ships as cruisers. Which tbf, many of our "frigates" (which at the time meant "a destroyer but bigger", at least in the USN) and "destroyer leaders" were larger and more capable than the vast majority of Soviet "cruisers". But the Cruiser Gap wasn't like the Bomber Gap where the US military was actually worried to the point they inadvertently mogged the hell out of the Soviets in response (like building 2,000 B-47s to match the massive fleet of M-4 Bison bombers we thought the USSR would have within a few years--- they ended up building 125 in total)

>>64163376
>Spasm or Insensate War
Considering Herman Kahn made that list, I'm surprised he didn't go with "wargasm" instead.

>>64163511
Da, comrade. Stupid NATOhols would have wasted eleven billion dollars of C4 blowing up a bridge that can be repaired in an afternoon with $200 of concrete.

>>64163535
>We're discussing NATO rail supply lines.
How were the Soviets planning on preventing bridges they hadn't captured yet from being rigged for demolition?

>>64163560
>The Seven Days to Rhine plan did not account or rely on soviet rail resupply, with divisions moving westward entirely on their own sustainment
So by magic?

>>64163649
Anon, this thread is about a military exercise from 1979.

>>64158225 (OP)
What do you think the modern equivalent of Seven Days to the Rhine is within the Russian MoD?
Two Weeks to Berlin?

>>64165039
>The Minuteman silos can withstand 300PSI
Minuteman IA/B silos were hardened to 700 and 1000 psi respectively, which transltes to 48 and 68 atmospheres. Minuteman III silos were hardened to 2000 psi or 136 atmospheres, which is more than any soviet rocket silo ever built, which topped out at around 100 atmospheres in the 1980s. i didn't find any conclusive source on the Minuteman II but i assume it's the same as Minuteman III which was just retrofitted into the new silos with new control equipment.
>while the Soviets built some super-hardened silos that could withstand like 1000psi
super hardened soviet silos is another ridiculous US fantasy, in reality majority of soviet silos were basically unhardened until the soviet collapse. i'm talking about 2atm/30psi silo hardness. until the mid-70s virtually all soviet silos were like that and they had a small internal civlil war over the massive expense of actually making them stronger instead of just relying on their sheer numbers to survive a strike.

>>64168560
i agree that cruiser gap wasn't really like the other gaps and was just a way to extract more money on the new ships from congress.

the bomber gap reaction wasn't limoted to B-47s either, they also built 600 B-52s in the process while the soviets only constructed about 100 turboprop-powered Tu-95s at the time. the M-4 was supposed to be their jet intercontinental bomber but ended up lacking an intercontinental range when built and so was shelved. unlike the soviets US had the advantage of numerous air bases in Europe from which they could use smaller bombers like B-47 while the soviets had to fly over the ocean both ways to attack, making the disparity even worse.

of the real deal "gaps" that didn't turn out real but scared US into further arms development were two missile gaps, the first being the sputnik shock and the acceleration of US ICBM programs that resulted in 1000 Minuteman silos being built over several years, with more than one silo finished and put into service per day during the peak year or so. although it's not clear whether it was really a shock or a hoax since the satelite photos revealed just how behind the soviet ICBM program actually was compared to their estimations based on the U-2 overflights.

the second missile gap was actually over the supposed soviet silo hardness and their missile accuracy, which lead to projects like MX ICBM, with all the wild deployment options for it, introduction of new, more powerful and accurate warheads for Minuteman IIIs as well as Trident SLBMs.

>>64159522
You have to be either a chink or zigger to write something this stupid.

>>64158399
Russia was preparing to invade, they were going to be the pre-emptives, they were just typically retarded and didn't get all their ducks in a row before being beaten to the punch (they were amassing thousands of tanks+mechanized units on the border and laid thousands of miles of European gauge train rail on the borders for train logistics to supply their armies once inside Europe.

>>64159518
>not knowing AI slop in this day and age
ngmi

>>64170672
Was there not a third "missile gap" panic in the early 80s about Soviet superiority in short range nukes?

>>64163352
basically everything
The US always underplays their capabilities using propaganda (main stream media IE F35 IS SHIT!)
Russia always exaggerates because they are monkeys that can't control the need to lie and boast.
Chinese are a lot smarter and generally keep their mouths shut for the most part but leak a little for Nationalism sake.

>>64168642
probably their obsession with amphibious capabilities on their armor or snorkels.

Would there have been any POW's, POW camps etc. or would it have been more like interrogate the important guys for tactical info and then just shoot them?

>>64170774
the thing over SS-20 is kind of mixed. sure, it was an upgrade and a major threat to Europe but compared to the thousands of MRBMs that soviets had pointed at Europe previously it wasn't realy that great of a change in practice, just another vocal point over soviet military buildup in the mid 70s. US did respond by deploying their own highly mobile and lethal missile systems in turn but this was a political move more than anything and Tomahawk had been in the works for years and would've been deployed in the navy either way, not to mention other nuclear platforms. similar thing with the soviet reaction, it was overblown under the influence of the overall situation where they were realizing they were in deep shit once NATO reacted and matched their buildup, coupled with a massive technological gap that was rapidly expanding even further during the time. i don't count it as a "gap" because that time the soviet capability was real but also because it wasn't really as monumental as other strategic threats, at least for US and the US-USSR cold war overall. Europe was quite fucked by the presense of these mobile launchers deep inside the soviet landmass.

on the other hand i can count only two gaps which were both real and completely missed by the NATO intelligence for a time, which is where the biggest threat lied. for known threats NATO either estimated them correctly and usually had a sufficient lead or overblown it and overcompensated, gaining a major advantage in the process. it's the latter cases which are so funny and people love to hear about, the "gaps" in quotations because they weren't real until they ended up being the opposite of what was imagined in the first place.

>>64170884
>on the other hand i can count only two gaps which were both real and completely missed by the NATO intelligence for a time
I am going to out myself as a retard and try to guess.
Submarines and fighter jets?

>>64163364
>cruiser gap
>>64168560
>we 'solved' it by reclassifying existing ships as cruisers
I think this is fuddlore

I've never seen any actual discussion by reputable sources of a real cruiser gap. It might be something that the naval equivalent of Spreytards created.

>>64170910
close, the composite-armored T-64 and the Delta subs, with the composite armor and the intercontintal range missiles on the deltas. the rest of the features on those were quite unremarkable but the armor could frontally resist most NATO antitank munitions at the time and deltas could launch their missiles from their home bases where they were mostly safe, at least during the 70s when NATO willingly limited themselves and rolled back to just managing the GIUK gap. neither of these things lasted long but while they did they would've been a pretty big deal.

>>64159518
>war tourists now post AI
Jesus, giving internet access to brown people was a huge mistake.

>>64158373
>The one guy who is not a blind yes man and advices people to curb their expectations is sent on a "vacation"
How these idiots have managed to stay the same for decades if not centuries is fucking baffling

>>64158225 (OP)
Can you imagine the sheer fucking horror you'd witness...

>Be me
>24 year old conscript
>I don't understand what's happening, but the end has come
>We've been ordered to go west
>I ride in a BRDM-2 most of the time
>The further west we go, the worse it gets
>The air tastes metallic
>The leaves are red in April
>We pass crowds of survivors walking to nowhere
>They beg for help we cannot give
>Children with discolored skin
>Women with no hair
>Men who are thin
>We go west, to ashen fields of death.
>No loving God can forgive us.