In Defense of the Red Army

[natehale1971]

I'd like to say thanks to all the posters on this thread! I was so busy working on my post that I didn't skip out of the office early (no boss today) and catch an earlier train http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...mlhpid=topnews. (I go through there twice a day).

Thank God that he works in mysterious ways... There was an episode of "Crossing Jordon" where Nigel was on mass transit train, and gave his seat to a woman and the moment he left that car, it broke off the train and crashed. killing everyone onboard. He spent the entire episode dealing with survivors guilt.

But once more, thank God that you're okay.

[Legbreaker]

I agree that U.S. airstrikes and conventional cruise missile strikes could seriously disrupt those lines of supply, I'm not sure they could cut them completely. That's some harsh territory deep in rather vast Soviet territory. At least for the roads, you would have to hit them round the clock to shut them down. Train tracks would take longer to repair.

There are historical precedents (unfortunately none which I can point at from memory) of rail lines cut by air strikes or partisan activity being repaired and back in operation in mere hours.
Also, looking at Vietnam, entire bridges (road, not rail) were often rebuilt to a standard capable of supporting trucks and other cargo vehicles in less than 24 hours.

Something else to consider is the Soviet land routes are usually DEEP within soviet territory so the locations the routes could be cut are actually quite limited (strike aricraft do have some limits on range and refueling tankers are seriously vulnerable). Cruise missiles might do it, but for a result that may only last a day or two, it's a seriously expensive proposition.


As Rae pointed out, it's written in canon that the WP left the top end aircraft in the west AND that they equalled what the Germans had in quality AND outnumbered them by a significant margin. Airpower was significantly in the WP's favour almost from the moment the first shots were fired.

My guess is the Germans miscalculated their offensive, wrongly believing that with the war in the east, they'd really only be facing Polish forces (Poland, particularly western Poland has been part of Germany on and off over the centuries. It is believable that they only intended to "retake" the western half of the country).

As the German offensive ground to a halt and they were threatened with a reversal of fortune, they called upon the rest of NATO. Since the outbreak of hostilities could in some views be seen as German agression, France and (and a few others I think) would have been justified in refusing their assistance. Once Germany received reinforcements (mainly US and British troops) the offensive continued, this time with the larger aim of actually defeating the Soviets (more countries, more national objectives).

And then the Soviets "won" against the Chinese freeing up numerous battle hardened units....

The tides of war turned against NATO, which had obviously struggled somewhat against the units they already been facing. As retreat turned to rout, NATO commanders made the decision to use tactical nukes in a desperate attempt to at least slow the greatly increased strength of the WP forces now swamping them.

The WP did not need to use nukes in the west - they responded in kind after NATO used them and only on a one for one basis.

The above is almost entirely canon. There may be a few small differences (due to me working from memory), but they're only minor. As the WP did not need nukes until after the NATO strikes, it can be assumed they had more than enough strength to at least significantly slow (it took several months to move from NATOs start lines to their limit in western Russia) while at the same time carrying out a large scale and very costly (in manpower and equipment, most of which can be assumed to be less than their best - see aircraft above) war against China.

[kato13]

The WP did not need to use nukes in the west - they responded in kind after NATO used them and only on a one for one basis.

I remember the first nuke being used when a NATO unit touched Soviet soil. It is possible this was changed for V2


Page 25 referees guide

On July 9th, with advanced elements of the 1st German Army on Soviet soil, the Red Army began using tactical nuclear weapons. In the West, they were used sparingly at first, and for the first week were used only against troop concentrations no further than 50 kilometers from the Soviet border.

Sometimes the eidetic memory I had through my teenage years comes in handy. Of course reading it several dozen times probably helped.

[natehale1971]

There are historical precedents (unfortunately none which I can point at from memory) of rail lines cut by air strikes or partisan activity being repaired and back in operation in mere hours.
Also, looking at Vietnam, entire bridges (road, not rail) were often rebuilt to a standard capable of supporting trucks and other cargo vehicles in less than 24 hours.

Something else to consider is the Soviet land routes are usually DEEP within soviet territory so the locations the routes could be cut are actually quite limited (strike aricraft do have some limits on range and refueling tankers are seriously vulnerable). Cruise missiles might do it, but for a result that may only last a day or two, it's a seriously expensive proposition.


As Rae pointed out, it's written in canon that the WP left the top end aircraft in the west AND that they equalled what the Germans had in quality AND outnumbered them by a significant margin. Airpower was significantly in the WP's favour almost from the moment the first shots were fired.

My guess is the Germans miscalculated their offensive, wrongly believing that with the war in the east, they'd really only be facing Polish forces (Poland, particularly western Poland has been part of Germany on and off over the centuries. It is believable that they only intended to "retake" the western half of the country).

As the German offensive ground to a halt and they were threatened with a reversal of fortune, they called upon the rest of NATO. Since the outbreak of hostilities could in some views be seen as German agression, France and (and a few others I think) would have been justified in refusing their assistance. Once Germany received reinforcements (mainly US and British troops) the offensive continued, this time with the larger aim of actually defeating the Soviets (more countries, more national objectives).

And then the Soviets "won" against the Chinese freeing up numerous battle hardened units....

The tides of war turned against NATO, which had obviously struggled somewhat against the units they already been facing. As retreat turned to rout, NATO commanders made the decision to use tactical nukes in a desperate attempt to at least slow the greatly increased strength of the WP forces now swamping them.

The WP did not need to use nukes in the west - they responded in kind after NATO used them and only on a one for one basis.

The above is almost entirely canon. There may be a few small differences (due to me working from memory), but they're only minor. As the WP did not need nukes until after the NATO strikes, it can be assumed they had more than enough strength to at least significantly slow (it took several months to move from NATOs start lines to their limit in western Russia) while at the same time carrying out a large scale and very costly (in manpower and equipment, most of which can be assumed to be less than their best - see aircraft above) war against China.

BUT you forget that Nukes didn't get used in the West UNTIL after NATO forces stepped foot on Soviet soil. That's when the first tactical nukes where used, and it was the Soviets that used them first against the First German Army when it was on Soviet Soil. It also stated that the Soviets and Chinese had been using nukes on the Far Eastern Front pretty liberally, while nuke use on the Western Front was pretty conservatively done.

[Legbreaker]

It's definately in 2.0 and 2.2 that Nato fired first, although nukes had been flying for a while over in the east. Not sure off hand who fired first there, although I believe (and could be wrong) it was the Chinese.

[natehale1971]

Page 12 of 2.2 Core Rule book that: "On July 9th the advanced elements of the First German Army on Soviet Soil, the Soviets begin using tactical nuclear weapons. In the West, they are used sparingly at first, and for the first week are only against troop concentrations no further than 50 kilometers form the soviet border." Straight from the book. I dont want to sound short or snippy... so i'm adding this. doing three things at once at teh moment. Sorry about that.

[kato13]

Page 12 of 2.2 Core Rule book that: "On July 9th the advanced elements of the First German Army on Soviet Soil, the Soviets begin using tactical nuclear weapons. In the West, they are used sparingly at first, and for the first week are only against troop concentrations no further than 50 kilometers form the soviet border." Straight from the book.

I was just going to point out the same (aren't searchable PDFs wonderful). However it is quite possible that text somewhere else contradicts this.

There are lots of contradictory pieces of canon unfortunately.

[Legbreaker]

Ah, I see where I was wrong now.
Yes, the Soviets did use tactical nukes first however it was NATO that escalated to longer ranged strategic weapons.

In the west NATO begins deep nuclear strikes against communication hubs in Czechoslovakia and Byelorussia in an attempt to slow the Pact advance. The Pact forces respond with similar strikes against German industrial targets and major port cities. Throughout October the exchanges escalate but no ICBMs are launched due to the fear of starting total global thermonuclear war.
First military targets are hit, then industrial targets vital to the war (including the first strikes against continental USA.) Then economic and support facilities such as oil refineries. Then the facilities of neutral countries are targeted to deny their use by the other side. The civilian command structure is first decimated then destroyed until the exchanges finally peter out in late November.

[natehale1971]

If i remember rigth the first use of Strategic nukes was the Thanksgiving Day Massacare surigical strike to decapitate the American leadership. Because the Deep Strikes you're refering to where made by NATO Air Assets, not ICBMs.

[kato13]

Ah, I see where I was wrong now.
Yes, the Soviets did use tactical nukes first however it was NATO that escalated to longer ranged strategic weapons.

Yep.

In the west, NATO air units begin making deep nuclear strikes against communication hubs in Czechoslovakia and Poland in an attempt to slow the Warsaw Pact advance. The Pact responds with similar strikes against German industrial targets and major port cities.

I am actually glad that I am re-reading this as it validates my opinion on the rubble on the T2k maps being nuke strikes.

[Legbreaker]

If i remember rigth the first use of Strategic nukes was the Thanksgiving Day Massacare surigical strike to decapitate the American leadership. Because the Deep Strikes you're refering to where made by NATO Air Assets, not ICBMs.

Yes, ICBMs were avoided in the beginning, but they had to have been used at some point to reach some of the more distant targets. Sure ballistic subs might reach some targets, but....

There is nothing I can see anywhere in canon that states the early deep strikes were delivered by aircraft. I would think it just as feasible they were missile borne.

Tactical strikes (in my view) are basically anything fired at less than say 100km - artillery shells, missiles and airstrikes. Anything greater than that is definately NOT in the scope of a tactical engagement as even the most widespread division would be thinly stretched and hard pressed to cover that sort of area, especially in the relatively crowded European theatre with strong enemy presence (different matter in wide open deserts against poorly trained and led troops such as in Iraq 1991-2).

As the actual "combat zone" might only be a few kilometres in depth (even though it's location might vary from hour to hour by miles, even tens of miles, depending on current operations) one might even say a divisional, perhaps even brigade rear area could be considered a "strategic" strike.

Just because an individual attack isn't carried out with an ICBM, doesn't mean it's not in the strategic category....

[natehale1971]

I just read that they did use Theater Missiles, but not strategic ICBMs until the TDM. But the 2.2 timeline said that NATO had used their Air Assets to make the deep strikes, and said that they had used Theater Missiles to hit troop concentrations and other military targets (industrial cities in German as well as the ports).

[Legbreaker]

I just read that they did use Theater Missiles, but not strategic ICBMs until the TDM. But the 2.2 timeline said that NATO had used their Air Assets to make the deep strikes, and said that they had used Theater Missiles to hit troop concentrations and other military targets (industrial cities in German as well as the ports).

I'd like to know where it actually says that. I can't find it.

[kato13]

This is a tough one. It depends on what you mean with Strategic vs Tactical. For weapons systems it is pretty clear cut. But strikes are another matter. I would say you could use strategic weapons for tactical strikes and vice versa. A suitcase nuke going off in front of the White House is IMO a strategic strike.

[natehale1971]

Further on page 12.

The paragraph that starts "In the west, NATO Air Units begin making deep nuclear strikes against communication hubs in Czechoslovakia and Poland in an attempt to slow the Warsaw Pact advance."

Further in the paragraph it states.. "Fearful of a general strategic exchange, neither side targets the land based ICBMs of the other, or launches so many warheads at once as to risk convincing the other side that an all-out attack is in progres. Neither side wishes to cross the threshold to nuclear oblivion in one bold step, and so they inch across it, never quite knowing that they have done so until after the fact."

Then the paragraph after that has what they targeted.