1980: could NATO stop a Soviet tank rush in Europe?

Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC or Mobile:
Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days!

Imagine an alternate history 1980, at the height of the Cold war. Things between NATO and the Warsaw pact get out of control. Political tensions turn into skirmishes. Both sides mobilize. And, after a few months, the unthinkable happens, as skirmishes give way to larger scale attacks.

Images used in thumbnail:
T-72 na poligonie (07)
Ministerstwo Obrony Narodowej, Attribution, via Wikimedia Commons

World War III, 1989: NATO vs Warsaw Pact

NATO vs Warsaw Pact: The Naval War (1989)

NATO vs Warsaw Pact: The Air War (1989)

[Binkov]

Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC or Mobile:
Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days!

[isurus]

When I was young I served as an officer in the Czechoslovak People's Army and the task of our Army was following: In the case of the war with NATO, 130-150 massive nuclear strikes on the southern part of West Germany and France from the territory of Czechoslovakia would be used in the first tens of minutes to destroy the military facilities and troops, the command posts and underground headquarters of NATO and the important industry in the big German and French cities as well. This would be followed by a mass tank counter offensive (the scenario assumed we would be attacked by countries of NATO first) using vehicles equipped with elements of anti-nuclear and chemical protection. Mostly T-72, T-55 and BMP, over 4500 tanks and at least 5000 light fighting vehicles. The route of the offensive should be in the direction across the south Germany (in conjunction with the Czechoslovak airborne forces secure the bridges across the Neckar and Rhine rivers) to Strasbourg and Dijon in France defeating the French Army and reaching the Atlantic shores in two weeks. I remind you that in 1989 the Czechoslovak People's Army had 200 000 men in arms, plus 70 000 Soviet troopers deployed in the territory of Czechoslovakia. This would be the operational task for the Czechoslovak People's Army in the case of an aggression and the outbreak of war by NATO. I don't know if we would be able to do it, but we were young and determined. But what I do know for sure is that I would not be here today if the war really broke out. It would be Armageddon, and the survivors would envy the dead. Greeting from an old soldier of the Warsaw Pact.

[SuperLusername]

Soviet commander: "Rush B!"
Staff: "Berlin?"
Soviet commander: "No. Barcelona!"

[williamrooth]

I was an Armor Officer, Platoon Leader in 1980 with 3/32Armor. We were to fight in the Fulda Gap. We were told that Ivan had 10 howitzers per mile. We had the new M-60A3's and 1/32 had the M60-A2's with missiles and 152 mm main gun rounds. We didn't know that our positions were known to the Soviets, thanks to a mole at the ASA. The A-10 Warthogs were not mentioned here, They and the Cobra's would have clogged up the battlefield. It would have been bad for all involved and would probably have gone nuclear at a specific point.

[brianfoley]

Everyone makes the same mistake with these "What if" scenarios...they fail to factor in the variables of maintenance, logistics, weather and terrain. If you took a column of T-80 tanks and were able to drive, unopposed across Germany towards France, you might arrive at the French border with a third of your tanks after two weeks of slogging it cross country. Tanks can be defined by many features and description but one that doesn't get the attention it deserves is that of "gas guzzling, self-propelled self-destructing pillbox". Just a cursory look at World War Two, the last war with large armor formations hunting each other, reveals more losses from maintenance, logistics, weather and terrain than enemy action.

[Wonkabar]

NATO at The Fulda Gap
"This is where we hold them! This is where we fight! This is where they die! " 💥 300

[somethingelse]

Right, I’m off to play Wargame: AirLand Battle

[laketaylora]

I served in the army during the Cold War. Our European scenarios always orbited around the question of, "When will NATO be forced to resort to nuclear weapons to stop the Soviet advance?"

After the Cold War ended, and particularly after the re-unification of Germany, we got access to some of the Warsaw Pact war plans courtesy of former East Germany, and they were interesting...

Soviet war plans were simple: if war began, they were going to hit us with everything they had, from the beginning: not just an invasion, but the nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. They were not going to wait around for NATO to debate about when to use nukes. They'd already made that decision.

Soviet war plans were for the Red Army to be on the English Channel and the Pyrenees Mountains within six weeks. With a radioactive, chemically contaminated, disease-ridden wasteland behind them. No doubt, their use of NBC weaponry would have provoked a similar response.

The only question was whether a war that began as a "regional" conflict in Europe could be confined there, or whether it would spread to a global nuclear war.

[AntiTankFight]

*Conflict of Nations features historical accurate borders*
*Also Conflict of Nations shows Russia as USSR and other soviet republics somehow marked separately *

[azj_]

This is Soko-1. Red Dawn. I say again: Red Dawn. Make me proud.

[mikey]

All great powers train their militaries using Conflict of Nations

[zagreus]

So in short, we get a “World in Conflict: Soviet Assault”

(It is an old RTS game for those who don’t know)

[ThePRCommander]

As a former danish soldier, I recall, when we were trained on the TOW system; even if you hit every target (which they expected of us), we won't have enough anti-tank missiles for you. It is a long time ago, however, if I recall it correctly, we expected the Warsaw Pact, to use its poor platforms first, in order to drain our missile stock. Hereafter, their better weapons would be employed. So, at least here in Denmark; bad odds. Not to mention the amount of tactical nukes they had planned to use; devastating. In Jutland alone, it was a huge number.

[Lorian]

Night Vision would have given NATO tanks a really big edge in the 80s. Soviet tanks only had infrared or basic NV, while NATO tanks where already in 2nd or 3rd generation.

[thomashogan]

According to a former US TC I worked with, he was given the choice of 1 year in Vietnam or 3 years in Europe. He picked Europe. His orders were that if attacked he was to hold for 3 weeks until help arrived, (or the world ends in a nuclear apocalypse, whichever came first). He just threw in that last bit.

[AudieHolland]

You forget that the official numbers of men and material tell us nothing about some other key factors:
1. Troops morale, or will to fight;
2. Logistics;
3. NATO endurance (a combination of 1. and 2.);

NATO strategy was centered about the following painful fact: not enough ammo and not even fully standardized small arms and artillery calibers.
When NATO ran out of ammunition (not if, some calculated this would be as little as 48 hours), tactical nukes would be launched at Warsaw Pact armour concentrations, HQs and supply centers.

And the Soviets would respond to those tactical nukes with strategic nukes then the conflict would escalate into a full blown nuclear Armageddon.
NATO tried to counter this during the mid 1980s by emphasizing high tech weapons like helicopter gunships in anti-tank role and stealth strike aircraft to cut off the enemy's supply lines.

In my opinion, neither side was ever ready to start fighting and troops' morale on both sides was rather low. Nobody wanted to die in useless war that would inevitably end in a global nuclear war.

Much (propaganda) was made at the time of the wonder(ful) weapons like Cruise Missiles and Pershing II missiles which were specifically aimed at Soviet command centers but of course the propagandists forget to mention that the Soviets would strike back with strategic nuclear weapons in any case.

P.S.

Oh yeah, both Greece and Turkey would gladly take the opportunity to feign attacks into Bulgaria, when all they really wanted was to fight it out with each other.

[richardsveum]

As I remember it those of us in Europe at the time were supposed to fight a delaying action to try to hold off the Warsaw Pact until reinforcements could arrive, Tactical Nukes were definitely in play as a force multiplier.

[Raz.C]

If you speak to any (former) soldiers stationed in key zones like the Fulda Gap, they all have the same account:
They weren't expected to be able to stop the Soviets in a conventional war. Their only job was to try to delay the Soviet advance as best they could for as long as they could. Many of these soldiers are still alive today, since it wasn't that long ago. It would have been very easy to do the proper research for this one.

[jdee]

I was a Combat Engineer stationed in Germany in the 1980's. Every single key road through Germany had pre-made man holes specially made to put in explosives in case of Soviet invasion. We were task to blow them up. But I always though that if war came that it was very possible we might encounter Soviet special forces sent to stop us form doing that. I'm pretty sure they knew about those manholes, since they had tons of communist sympathizers among the Germans.

[edmundwoolliams]

Great video. I’ve been waiting for this one for a long time. I subscribed to your channel because of the quality and depth of your 1989 scenario, and wanted to see more NATO vs Warsaw Pact videos.

PLEASE also do videos for what would have happened in 1970 and 1960! It’s interesting to see how the power differences at those times would have made a difference to the outcome of the war 😄(or at least how far the Soviet advance would have made it to)