Alternate History World War III: 1988, aka "The War of '88"

Tiamat

I've seen the future...
I may also post this somewhere in the War College subforum, but here's a declassified document from 1980 compiled by U.S. Intel services of a document a source within Eastern Europe provided to them. It was essentially a document utilizing a mathematical formula (still not entirely understood) that purported to show what the Soviet military leadership thought of the overall capabilities of their own equipment vs NATO equipment. Some of the ratios are a bit surprising....

Apologies for the wall of text, as I'm trying to link to the document that's been posted on FB.

Also note this was in 1980. It wouldn't take into consideration later advances made by both sides toward the end of the 1980s, particularly in the West, as well as the theoretical advances in some capabilities with the expanded TO&E lists in this particular universe.

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/CIA%20-%20COMBAT%20POTENTIALS%20of%20the%20Armaments%20%281980%29.pdf?token=AWwuCJUq4ef2Nx2X8xjVoBW9MeWp8u27m_01dcr2V_zXCcLfJFdcPuvDJ2m9KmmTNB2oo-ojifKDNGFMl6gZ1aoW66hQDwtbaVI07VGsvWuQ7NvbE4jBQ0rxUIl239RDde2L9mH8Tp_V1jV-RthNewurjFpXUlEIxqC4w_gHwfyxCI_SK5oPBM3mcj6lQPhVRMUmnbmrJz4g0CcK2QHJOqDJjfp76XbFeZclwfU21Foy09mRhGQqNf5lXInfEcdkTQsqU8845zLDAlU7uJw1o9lKf6LYs3YanW6lyFBnh68i52mTT84KObNKUeBDHgkRkoo&h=AT14p5nmW9CRjnmtsMY_fwwZrxvLe8QRcCPOYIyxL1Qa8mJDmtn3P9UEODKwGY8hkVwYRQKSlUvCcdC-o28Daf2yGlv5_KWix9UR0KL0NGOaoJ2jkn65xxLfUSlMviNjQmsGwEN9oak&__tn__=H-R&c[0]=AT3db3J8dKSy7_OKV2uqbE6aOth_pS-6z7o3J6__H8YyBi3zqc8RLF-Db6fmMDW7qpoJL0VDOQk-R8pv7qdCkVwfqPZMe_yijVUD7SxkvNXfhn6XCRSeXD9eh_lcBJ50wjLIeQh-Ayj8PKnVLoaswbrQ-CWepcbQeWUbVuXcn8Mo7Z0q
 

Airedale260

Well-known member
That view that numbers have a quality of their own is just so wrong when you are dealing with hardware that is more than a half generation out of date.

It means that the Soviets might see first hand what happened to the Iraqi Republican Guard first hand with their downgraded units.

That sort of thing is not good for moral.

Well, not really. The thing about the Iraqis is that they were so incompetent they didn’t understand things like how to use their tanks’ fancy gear, didn’t understand basic tactics, etc.

Also, the Red Army did have a very good chance of actually overrunning NATO positions in Germany -sure they may have been running older stuff but the U.S. learned the hard way that their roundout brigade concept in case war broke out was a dismal failure. So the U.S. would have been three brigades short in terms of personnel. Superior firepower and training do help, sure, but the disparity wouldn’t have been that dramatic, and as we learned from the Gulf War, our air to air missiles actually sucked against Soviet decoys.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
Well, not really. The thing about the Iraqis is that they were so incompetent they didn't understand things like how to use their tanks' fancy gear, didn't understand basic tactics, etc.

Also, the Red Army did have a very good chance of actually overrunning NATO positions in Germany -sure they may have been running older stuff but the US learned the hard way that their roundout brigade concept in case war broke out was a dismal failure. So the US would have been three brigades short in terms of personnel. Superior firepower and training do help, sure, but the disparity wouldn't have been that dramatic, and as we learned from the Gulf War, our air to air missiles actually sucked against Soviet decoys.
Mostly due to the fact that Iraq 'coup proofed' the vast majority of their army, and that is detrimental to one's war-making ability. It's telling that even with that sort of thing going in on the background that the Iraqis managed to give the A-10 a major kick in the keaster.

Hell, even Serbia managed to keep pulling fast ones against NATO too.
 

Tiamat

I've seen the future...
Well, not really. The thing about the Iraqis is that they were so incompetent they didn’t understand things like how to use their tanks’ fancy gear, didn’t understand basic tactics, etc.

Also, the Red Army did have a very good chance of actually overrunning NATO positions in Germany -sure they may have been running older stuff but the U.S. learned the hard way that their roundout brigade concept in case war broke out was a dismal failure. So the U.S. would have been three brigades short in terms of personnel. Superior firepower and training do help, sure, but the disparity wouldn’t have been that dramatic, and as we learned from the Gulf War, our air to air missiles actually sucked against Soviet decoys.

How was the U.S. Army brigade concept as you say, a failure? And what are you talking about in regards to AAMs getting decoyed in the Gulf War by Soviet decoys? And where are you getting this information from?

Mostly due to the fact that Iraq 'coup proofed' the vast majority of their army, and that is detrimental to one's war-making ability. It's telling that even with that sort of thing going in on the background that the Iraqis managed to give the A-10 a major kick in the keaster.

Hell, even Serbia managed to keep pulling fast ones against NATO too.

Please define “kick in the keester?” As the Iraqis managed to damage a total of 13 A10s but only successfully downed 4.

Edit: That’s for a fleet of 132 A-10s that performed 7983 sorties.
 
Last edited:

Airedale260

Well-known member
How was the U.S. Army brigade concept as you say, a failure? And what are you talking about in regards to AAMs getting decoyed in the Gulf War by Soviet decoys? And where are you getting this information from?

Read it again, I was saying the “roundout brigade” concept turned out to be a failure. That is, 1st Cavalry, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th, & 24th Infantry all deployed short-handed to the Gulf because their third brigades were NG formations (well, 6th was a Reserve formation) and not up to U.S. Army standards for deployment. Could it have stood up eventually, yes, but being able to wait 90 days to deploy additional brigades to West Germany seems impossible. Now, if NATO managed to hold firm (not impossible but also not exactly likely), they could deploy but still. Why the hell would you deploy multiple divisions while they’re short a brigade against a peer opponent?

Here’s a research paper on it



As for missile issues, it’s the Sidewinder in particular that had problems. It turned out that it was designed to counter American made flares, not Soviet ones, so in the late 80s when they finally got hold of some, it turned out they spoofed the missile pretty essily


I’m not saying this out of a “NATO deserves to lose” shtick or anything, quite frankly I’d hope for the world’s sake NATO wins. But some of the commentary seems to suggest that the Red Army was a paper tiger. It was technologically inferior, yes, but it was still a significant threat.
 

Tiamat

I've seen the future...
Read it again, I was saying the “roundout brigade” concept turned out to be a failure. That is, 1st Cavalry, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th, & 24th Infantry all deployed short-handed to the Gulf because their third brigades were NG formations (well, 6th was a Reserve formation) and not up to U.S. Army standards for deployment. Could it have stood up eventually, yes, but being able to wait 90 days to deploy additional brigades to West Germany seems impossible. Now, if NATO managed to hold firm (not impossible but also not exactly likely), they could deploy but still. Why the hell would you deploy multiple divisions while they’re short a brigade against a peer opponent?

Here’s a research paper on it



As for missile issues, it’s the Sidewinder in particular that had problems. It turned out that it was designed to counter American made flares, not Soviet ones, so in the late 80s when they finally got hold of some, it turned out they spoofed the missile pretty essily


I’m not saying this out of a “NATO deserves to lose” shtick or anything, quite frankly I’d hope for the world’s sake NATO wins. But some of the commentary seems to suggest that the Red Army was a paper tiger. It was technologically inferior, yes, but it was still a significant threat.

Fair enough, reading further I missed the "roundout" part. There has been some controversy about the whole idea with the "roundout brigade" concept, with some saying the regular Active-duty Army never liked the idea in the first place and wanted the idea to fail, but YMMV. Keep in mind of course, this was not a problem unique to the U.S. Army, where the Soviets had issues with CAT III divisions where it had a slated 10-30 percent of the units were in fact combat ready, but the rest were units typically getting formed from former conscripts who had been out several years or longer and had done little if any refresher training and weren't even typically attached to any particular unit, basically "Tell us where you are if you need to be called up", while their equipment typically would have been kept in storage or mothballed, and needed to be brought to a ready state first. I would agree that 90 days or longer is not an ideal timeframe to get a U.S. Army unit to stand to, but the Soviets experienced this same problem, only worse with CAT III that would have taken at least a minimum of two months, but more likely four to six.

As for the Sidewinder issue, I'd like to do some more digging on that. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you'll have to forgive me if I'm a little leery of using National Interest as a source, but it's quite possible as no weapon however "perfect" ever really quite works that way in a real threat environment. That said, I would have appreciated it if you'd been a little more specific than just saying "U.S. missiles suck at Soviet decoys", but hey, water under the bridge.

I don't think the commentary here should in any way suggest the Red Army is a paper tiger, far from it. This is the same Red Army that came roaring back from nearly getting pushed to the brink by the Nazis only to conquer half of Europe and successfully lay waste to Berlin, albeit the Allies Lend-Lease certainly helped. If there was a conflict to take place in say, the earlier decades like the 1950's, 60's or even 70's? I think everyone would have a very legit reason to be worried if it came to a conventional war scenario. But by the 1980s? The cracks are starting to show visibly in the U.S.S.R. They have a very top-down centralized and extremely vulnerable logistical network with an over-reliance on rails and poor roads (which will become very important, hint hint), a horribly mismanaged and poorly efficient infrastructure, ditto with their agricultural sector which has become increasingly dismal in productivity, hence why the U.S.S.R. was literally buying grain from the U.S. of all nations. The Soviets were spending a quarter of their GDP if not more on their military trying to keep up with the increasing sophistication of the West who were overtaking the Soviets in terms of capabilities, while continuing to prosecute a war in Afghanistan that was eating up units and morale (yeah, that came back to bite us in the ass too, but that's another story), and this doesn't take into account the other increasingly pressing domestic issues like ethnic tensions, something the Soviets were never particularly subtle at and usually involved the business end of a rifle.

In this timeline, not only are they facing a Reagan administration that has gone back to labeling the Soviets an "Evil Empire" after the coup and are continuing even further military investment and mobilization, they're now facing a grain embargo that's threatening to strain internal issues even further with longer breadlines even as the Soviets are still trying to keep some military technological parity with the Soviets, with mixed results at best. The Soviets are approaching a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" critical moment with the West: Go to war with what they have NOW, or stall for time and try to catch up with the West even as they're pushing ahead and the grain embargo continues to cause suffering of many Soviet citizens? And if they do go to war, how long can the U.S.S.R. sustain that with the added pressures involved?

In short? The Red Army is a very significant threat and will do a lot of horrific damage...but Ivan isn't a ten-foot tall unstoppable juggernaut as the Soviet TASS network loves to suggest either.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
Please define “kick in the keester?” As the Iraqis managed to damage a total of 13 A10s but only successfully downed 4.

Edit: That’s for a fleet of 132 A-10s that performed 7983 sorties.
It was 20, 13 damaged, 7 rendered destroyed/inoperative. Against something that is hamstrung against being effective because the leaders are afraid to get overthrown (aka 'coup-phobic').

Now extrapolate it to even a quarter (not half, a quarter) of Serbia's competence when it comes to keeping their AAA assets (the Serbs managed to keep their airforce and AAA assets largely intact despite NATO spamming ATGMs, guided munitions, and HARMs like they were going out of style) alive and not being hamstrung by coup-phobic leaders.

It doesn't paint a pretty picture for the NATO air forces. Especially when it was part of the USSR's (and is part of Russia's, just with 30mm autocannon instead of 23mm cannon) doctrine to use Shilkas as essentially AMS systems against ATGMs in general.
 

Airedale260

Well-known member
In this timeline, not only are they facing a Reagan administration that has gone back to labeling the Soviets an "Evil Empire" after the coup and are continuing even further military investment and mobilization, they're now facing a grain embargo that's threatening to strain internal issues even further with longer breadlines even as the Soviets are still trying to keep some military technological parity with the Soviets, with mixed results at best. The Soviets are approaching a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" critical moment with the West: Go to war with what they have NOW, or stall for time and try to catch up with the West even as they're pushing ahead and the grain embargo continues to cause suffering of many Soviet citizens? And if they do go to war, how long can the U.S.S.R. sustain that with the added pressures involved?

In short? The Red Army is a very significant threat and will do a lot of horrific damage...but Ivan isn't a ten-foot tall unstoppable juggernaut as the Soviet TASS network loves to suggest either.

Fair enough.

As far as the original article goes it was in a Aviation Week but the link was dead so I had to go with one that quoted it. And yes, I am aware of the grain shipments we sent (ironic, I suppose, but then again our issue was always with the Soviet government).

And yes, I agree the Soviet strength is somewhat overstated, but it certainly could have wrecked West Germany. Not “just rolled over NATO” by any stretch but they could have done significant damage.

Though if NATO does focus on transport links, yeah, even with Red Army spearheads on the wrong side of the IGB, it’s kind of hard to do anything if you don’t have fuel, ammo, and information.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
It was 20, 13 damaged, 7 rendered destroyed/inoperative. Against something that is hamstrung against being effective because the leaders are afraid to get overthrown (aka 'coup-phobic').

All the more reason to update it in the EA-10 Warthogzilla... piloted by controversial maverick Air Force General Bradley Elliot of the High Technology Aerospace Weapons Center. It's maiden flight as a prototype against a new Soviet mobile anti-missile laser defense facility... maybe its last...
 

Ash's Boomstick

Well-known member
I'm not sure if this was brought up before, but have you read 'The Third World War' by General Sir John Hackett? If not then i suggets you try to get a copy as the story is interesting and well put together, its semi-fictional reference book about a nuclear war in the 1980s.
 

Tiamat

I've seen the future...
I'm not sure if this was brought up before, but have you read 'The Third World War' by General Sir John Hackett? If not then i suggets you try to get a copy as the story is interesting and well put together, its semi-fictional reference book about a nuclear war in the 1980s.

There is admittedly, some influence...😉
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
Now that I've read through your synopsis of events, this is playing like a Technothriller version of ZDF's World War 3. Gorbachov and his reformists get removed from power, the hardliners prepare for war, and shit goes downhill from there. @Tiamat, have you watched that mockumentary by any chance?
 

Tiamat

I've seen the future...
Now that I've read through your synopsis of events, this is playing like a Technothriller version of ZDF's World War 3. Gorbachov and his reformists get removed from power, the hardliners prepare for war, and shit goes downhill from there. @Tiamat, have you watched that mockumentary by any chance?

I might have... 😈

However, the war as illustrated in ZDFs mockumentary was very much confined to the European theater. Here, the war will be a bit more, okay, a lot more wide and complex. It won’t all be just confined to Europe and the Atlantic, as I’m hoping some hints I’ve been dropping should make it clear...

Can’t let the rest of the world miss out on the fun, can we...?
 
Last edited:

Von_Lohengram

Well-known member
That ZDF mockumentary was better than I'd expected going in, expect for one glaring flaw in the "research": Stealth Bombers being used in daylight.
I put research in quotes, because not using bombers invisible to radar during the time they can be spotted visually isn't something you should have to even do research for.
 

Tiamat

I've seen the future...
That ZDF mockumentary was better than I'd expected going in, expect for one glaring flaw in the "research": Stealth Bombers being used in daylight.
I put research in quotes, because not using bombers invisible to radar during the time they can be spotted visually isn't something you should have to even do research for.

Well, the buildup to conflict in that mockumentary was actually done pretty well. The war itself however....felt a bit rushed and not very well executed.

There were several points I saw issues with. First...the Soviet Navy tries to blockade the entire Atlantic Ocean? :LOL::ROFLMAO: Oh, ho ho, hahahhahahah...no, sorry, the Soviets themselves knew better than that. Sure, the Soviet Navy was certainly nothing to sneeze at, especially with their submarines and anti-ship missiles, but blockading all of Europe vs what the USN did with Cuba? Not happening. Not to mention the USN and RN (and probably the other NATO navies as well) would have essentially and rightly said FUCK YOU, and blasted right through them...which of course, they did.

Second....the Soviet Navy, again, this time invades the FRG from the Baltic Sea unilaterally unopposed and lands naval infantry and vehicles by the bushel catching NATO completely by surprise. :cautious: Sure...except there would have been more than likely a NATO naval presence waiting to say "Guten Tag!" to the Soviets when they showed up, as everyone knew the Soviets had plans to try to use the Baltic Fleet to force an exit out of the Baltic Sea and invade Denmark to secure the northern flank. And the Germans would have happily shot up the Soviet naval infantry as they landed, as their early warning radar would have picked up the invasion fleet long ago. Invading and securing Denmark? Very doable and likely, albeit at a bloody price. Landing completely in force and by surprise on the North German plain from the Baltic Sea where the US, UK and West German submarines and aircraft would be having a field day shooting up the ships and landing transports? Don't think so.

Third point....West Berlin. Once the balloon had gone up, West Berlin wouldn't have been left to wait for invasion, it would certainly have been already under siege by a mixed East German Force of Motor Rifles, Grentzruppen, Volkspolizie, Combat Groups of the Working Class, possibly the Wili Sanger paratroopers, and one Soviet Motor Rifle Brigade. They had plans for the whole thing which actually saw the light of day, surprisingly enough. And their estimates were a bit rather sunny too. I heard about 5 days they estimated they could take all of West Berlin....I think it would have lasted a bit longer than that, and would have come at a terrible price. Ask the Soviets how much it cost them to take Berlin (albeit all of it) in 1945, they'll tell you.

Fourth Point...Soviet Frontal Aviation (along with I assume the WARPA aviation forces) launch a full aggressive assault on the NATO airfields and take out a number of aircraft. Now the first part would be almost a given, assuming the majority would successfully get through NATO anti-air defense. However most likely a lot of the NATO aircraft, especially the attack squadrons would have already taken off with orders in their own strike folders to hit predesignated targets in East Germany and Poland, they wouldn't just be sitting on the ground once the balloon went up as they seemed to imply. And that's assuming the Soviet and WARPA aircraft can outmaneuver and dodge the interceptors getting thrown their way by airborne AWACS.

Some points they did touch upon though made sense, like how NATO would have gone after the Soviet and WARPA logistical and command structure, one of their primary Achilles Heels as it turned out. That and the pressing domestic and ethnic issues in Eastern Europe and the USSR, which would have likely exploded as the situation collapsed as they also did in the film.
 

Tiamat

I've seen the future...
All the more reason to update it in the EA-10 Warthogzilla... piloted by controversial maverick Air Force General Bradley Elliot of the High Technology Aerospace Weapons Center. It's maiden flight as a prototype against a new Soviet mobile anti-missile laser defense facility... maybe its last...

Is it wrong I want THIS theme playing when that happens....?

 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
I might have... 😈

However, the war as illustrated in ZDFs mockumentary was very much confined to the European theater. Here, the war will be a bit more, okay, a lot more wide and complex. It won’t all be just confined to Europe and the Atlantic, as I’m hoping some hints I’ve been dropping should make it clear...

Can’t let the rest of the world miss out on the fun, can we...?
Well, if it wasn't then the nukes would fly much sooner, by any reasonable account from what I can tell. That didn't fit thematically. ;)
That ZDF mockumentary was better than I'd expected going in, expect for one glaring flaw in the "research": Stealth Bombers being used in daylight.
I put research in quotes, because not using bombers invisible to radar during the time they can be spotted visually isn't something you should have to even do research for.
Remember, that was made in the early '90s, where the nitty-gritty of Gen1 stealth tech was still classified as hell.
 

ATP

Well-known member
I might have... 😈

However, the war as illustrated in ZDFs mockumentary was very much confined to the European theater. Here, the war will be a bit more, okay, a lot more wide and complex. It won’t all be just confined to Europe and the Atlantic, as I’m hoping some hints I’ve been dropping should make it clear...

Can’t let the rest of the world miss out on the fun, can we...?

So,Cuba would support soviets,just like their afrocan puppets Angola and Ethiopia.North Korea,too.
But i do not see how commies in Africa could hurt USA/althought they surely would genocide a lot of people there/
Cuba and North Korea are another animals.
And China would of course do nothing to help soviets - in fact,i think they would attack soviets when they start loosing to reclaim "their" parts of Syberia.
Fun thing - all part of Syberia which was part of China did so when China was ruled by Emperors ,most during Tang dynasty,and it would be fun when China commies would reclaim something which belonged to China emperors.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top