Posted on Aug 22, 2019
SPC Angela Burnham
9.36K
144
95
36
36
0
6f3ebf56
A gentleman I did security with a long time ago served in the Berlin Brigade in the 80s, and said that if a conventional WW3 ever broke out, all of West Germany would have likely fallen in less than a month, West Berlin far sooner. How long do you think they could have lasted against a sustained assault from all directions?
Avatar feed
Responses: 33
SPC Kevin Ford
17
17
0
Not long. The real reason they are there is for a similar reason the 2ID sits in front of the Chorwon Valley, to ensure a war with the US is triggered if they attack with associated US public support. It is a heck of a deterrent.

Are you sure you want a huge war with the US? Are you really sure, because guaranteed that's what's going to happen if you attack here.
(17)
Comment
(0)
SPC Angela Burnham
SPC Angela Burnham
>1 y
Thats an excellent point SPC Kevin Ford!
(2)
Reply
(0)
CPL Joseph Elinger
CPL Joseph Elinger
5 y
Suicide mission
(0)
Reply
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
MSG Thomas Currie
>1 y
CPL Joseph Elinger - What do you think ALL the US forces in Germany were from the mid-1970s when we moved everyone east to be closer to the Inner German Border.

The technical term for such forces is "tripwire" -- the same thing as the 2nd ID that SPC Ford mentioned in Korea, and the same reason we sent the 82nd for Desert Shield.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MAJ Ken Landgren
15
15
0
I think they would have been a speed bump.
(15)
Comment
(0)
SSG Dave Johnston
SSG Dave Johnston
>1 y
That is an interesting "Alternative History" idea maybe even worth a 'Sci-Fi" novella or novel; but consider this tidbit... 56 Bde. FA, Pershing, had 12 tactical nuc warheads ready for launch from 4 Combat Alert Sites from the early '70's.
http://www.coldwar.org/articles/50s/pershing_missiles.asp
http://pershingmissile.org/
Something to think about... Some DOD planners actually had the FRG capitulating to GDR and Soviet demands of removing NATO troops from Berlin
(1)
Reply
(0)
MSgt John Cina
MSgt John Cina
5 y
I think they would have pushed us hard for about 30 days until their supply chain collapsed! Air superiority would have been on our side, and their cargo aircraft- while larger than ours - were primitive to load and required much more manpower!
(1)
Reply
(0)
MAJ Ken Landgren
MAJ Ken Landgren
5 y
MSgt John Cina - A very likely scenario.
(1)
Reply
(0)
MAJ Ken Landgren
MAJ Ken Landgren
5 y
MSgt John Cina - I think it will be a knockout brawl for strategic and tactical air superiority.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
PO3 Donald Murphy
5
5
0
Remember that estimates and guestimates and best planning are based on pre-Berlin Wall falling. Post fall of the wall, we know a ton of stuff that we kinda suspected. MI-6 and MI-5 were pretty much 99 [login to see] 9% right-on-the-money with their "estimates."

1. Solidarnosk - Poland never truly recovered from the "uprising" and the Russians denuded a lot of the area due to trust issues. As a result, the East German garrisons fielded the best gear. Poland will be a staging area but will not be trusted to perform a major role. This requires extra security/KGB forces.

2. East Germany - receiving the lion's share of training and gear the DDR was the cream of the crop of WARPACT forces. However, when the USN bombed Syria in 1983 and Libya in 1986, several key pieces of Soviet AAW tech failed. Or maybe 'we' invented a suitable jam for it? Hard to say. DDR then noted that their role was still the same even tho they had weakened gear. Being made up of mostly wasteful Russian-front veterans, even the dumbest among them could read the writing on the wall. Spy-talk tells of a sudden "turn to the left" should the order to cross the border be given.

3. USN - everything we had up to that time, worked like it was supposed to work. Hornet is now on Med-based carriers and bases and all subs have sub-launched Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles. Tons of subs in the Med and close by. The Tomahawks "could be" the BGM-109 bomblet variety with an anti vehicle, airfield use. Others could be the cratering heavy warhead variety. Sixth Fleet has two carriers and Atlantic Fleet has two active with two in refit/repair. Indian Ocean Fleet's carriers operate close enough to jump the border if needed. Each carrier during 80's Cold War has 86-90 aircraft. The USN up until early 1989 has had several Alpha-Strike moments. Each one "doing what it was intended to do." Operations El Dorado Canyon, Prairie Fire, Prairie Fire II, etc. Russian stuff in the hands of others, is being destroyed "at-will" with little impact to the USN.

4. RAF - Tornado and Jaguar in Desert Storm performed as intended. RAF shelters also perform as intended. Once the ball drops, the RAF will do it's well rehearsed kamikaze raid and take out as many formation toys as it can. Soviet radar in Soviet hands will do no better than Soviet radar in Iraqi hands. They will shoot down the RAF (like Iraq does) but after the bombing has already happened. Shooting down the bomber AFTER he bombs you is counter productive...

5. USAFE - virtually all AWACS and tanker assets the USAF owns have a hotel room in Europe. Additionally, one of the USAF's biggest bomb dumps is in the UK (RAF Scunthorpe). Bases in Spain, Netherlands and Italy are always on hair-trigger alert to back up the pre-meditated fall of the German bases. Once the RAF sorties, the USAFE will be free'd from any "mother-may-I" conditions and will start doing what it rehearsed daily: control of the air. Within minutes, F-15's and F-16's will be "directing traffic" over the Fulda Gap. F-111's and F-15E's will join the RAF Tornado's in surgical killing of Soviet comms and infrastructure. Laser works. As does jamming.

6. USA/USMC - the troops performed the way they were supposed to during Desert Storm so there is no need to assume that their performance would be any less spectacular. TOW is the killer it is advertised to be and the 25mm chain gun mounted on the Apache and Bradley is actually a lot more killerific than previously thought. Also, the US Army and Marine's penchant for charging outnumbered into Iraqi positions was rehearsed from Soviet attack planning. So the American man-on-the-ground will not buckle/waver over being outnumbered by a Soviet blitzkrieg. MLRS and M-109 are more devastating than imagined. And also against Soviet trained/equipped forces.

7. British Army Of The Rhine/French Berlin Forces. Well...the fact is that the British and French Army saw successful combat during Desert Storm. So the only small niggle will be the marching orders. Do the Brits/French fall under West German command when the whistle blows or do they make their way to safety as they see fit? This aspect of "Berlin" was never rehearsed publicly. Regular British Army stuff on West German ground would do what NATO planning accounted for.

**********************************

Whistle blows - WarPac attacks. Note that Berlin is actually in East Germany. So will there be "bombing" and "arty strikes?" Counter productive, right? Also, DDR will know that it is the "start line" and therefore "it" will be the rock upon which the NATO wave crashes itself. Peter Wright in Spycatcher and others feel that only the die-hard zealots will head West. The majority - possibly half to two thirds - of the East German armor/infantry will deliberately stall/peter out. Should this happen, NATO air heading for Soviet throats gets to the Soviet throat quicker. Even barring a neutral loving Italy telling the Soviets "they may not join in" it will be brutal for the Soviets within the hour. If the East Germans do not falter, then it will be Easting 72 all over again as they travel down well sited roads and areas. West Germany has minefields and arty of its own.

2nd hour - NATO (USAFE) air superiority over the battle area. Should Moscow understand this, it will then contemplate whether to leave Europe to its own devices or replace losses from Frontal Aviation stocks. Once planes start sorties from Russia proper, the motherland then opens itself up to strikes from two inbound USN alpha strikes which it already knows it can't beat. Should Russia stay put, then NATO owns the air.

3rd hour - keeping American, British and French tank scores what they are, where would the Warsaw Pact Forces be? Germany did not take part in Desert Storm so we don't have a 1989/1990 quotient for them. We assume they will fight to the death and at least take one tank with them for every Leopard killed, but we have no data.

At this point, giving NATO a historical accuracy that it had during Desert Storm, here's what we have: no RAF in Europe left. No Russian command infrastructure, radar or initiative. Limited East German. As the Russians were eerily the first to cave in when the Berlin Wall fell, we have to give them that point. This would leave all of Poland and most of East Germany alone wondering where to go. West German and NATO psyops would be quick to let the Warpackers know they are alone and Poland sealing off East Germany's butt would be all but guaranteed.

Any Russian forces would be separated and picked off as advertised. East German forces would be separated in the hope that they seek a settlement. Peter Wright (and others) reckon a silent movement over to freedom's side, by the DDR component. As the DDR are really the best shots, best this, best that, the Russian component will sadly fall to pieces in death.

It would take 24 hours using comms of the day to settle everything and get the Russians to agree to leave Europe. Keep in mind that the Russian reasoning for this is Europe only. Not to start a world war we would hope. Also keep in mind that the USN and RN together have 200 subs with nothing better to do than sink Soviet ships. At least 100 of them would be in/around/near Europe when the ball drops. Soviet ships would be unable to supply their efforts and USAFE air superiority keeps Frontal Aviation out of the battle. Should the Russians decide to go whole hog and support the invasion of West Germany with Russian-based air, they would fare little better as (a) we're bombing their bases and (b) their infrastructure wasn't/isn't that great to begin with. We don't know that in 1989, but they do...
(5)
Comment
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
CPT Lawrence Cable
5 y
PO3 Donald Murphy - If you look at General Horner's air war plane, the opening phases of the war were direct attacks on radar sites and command and control of the SAM sites, and after months of build up for his forces. You wouldn't have gotten that in Europe. If you really study the tactics of the Soviets during WWII, the Tank wasn't the real punching power in an Offensive, it was Massed Artillery and Rockets. The old 152mm Howitzer has a range of about 18 miles, so that TOW with it's 3000M range is going to have to sit though a pounding before he ever gets a shot. The Soviet equivalent of the TOW did pretty good in the Sinai against the Israelis and their SAM stuff did pretty well too, and Soviet maneauver units had tons of it.
I don't think you can compare the early WWII Soviets and the WARSAW PACT military. I agree that by the end of 1980's we had a technological advantage, but to assume that it would have been the equivalent of Iraq is not comparing apples to apples.
(0)
Reply
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
PO3 Donald Murphy
5 y
CPT Lawrence Cable Keep in mind that the operation has only one of two purposes: liberate Berlin or start WW3. WW3 all bets are off. Anything else? Then sadly from first red round, your countdown clock starts. Yes you’re shooting 122mm’s but again - once your first round leaves the barrel, the first NATO pilot will also be strapping in. We know from history how it will work out. It was only “theory” in 1960, but 1992 validated a lot. Soviet Saggers were countered after a day or two by the IDF.
(0)
Reply
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
CPT Lawrence Cable
5 y
PO3 Donald Murphy - With NATO pilots flying into a Soviet AA umbrella.
If you look at the CIA assessment of the Yom Kipper War, their assessment was that while the Isreali Air Force didn't sustain heavy losses against the Egyptians, the in depth AA defense made their air attacks relatively ineffective, so much so that the Egyptians were able to maintain their supply train across the Canal.
The Israelis lost 160 tanks in the first 24 hours. They stopped getting those loses when they went back to a combined arms attack with infantry and artillery support instead of tank only.
The big conceptual difference between the Soviet Doctrine and US/NATO is that the Soviets maneuvered with Army Groups, we maneuver with Divisions and Brigades. They also don't mind taking heavy casualties if it allows the Army to breakout.
(0)
Reply
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
PO3 Donald Murphy
5 y
CPT Lawrence Cable - Some great points. I would be interested to know if Warsaw Pact maneuvers and exercises ever rehearsed taking Berlin not as part of a larger picture. Russia's 1945 problem was simply three Army groups in the battle: two to take Berlin proper and one to wheel around to the West and prevent the untrustworthy USA/UK/France from stealing Berlin out from under them. While Russia has only one battle group in 1965/75/85, they still have East Germany to contend with. If East German forces are not involved (whether for solidarity or moral support) then the outcome might/may be different. But once you get two groups with separate command, logistics, etc, operating in one confined space, then Russia's back to square one which is 1945.

While taking casualties is acceptable to the Soviet mind-set, these are not Soviet citizens. So I'm thinking the "mother of all artillery barrages" may not be unleashed in the force that the Soviets would need to guarantee an overwhelming quick victory. Unless of course, all of the citizen killing was left to the East Germans. Its anyone's guess.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close