LTCMTS
Posts: 300
Joined: 1/6/2003 From: Newnan, GA Status: offline
|
First, before 1980, the US and NATO would actually stand down as they did in 1968 during the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia, since the US had accepted Eastern Europe as a Soviet sphere. After 1980, with the Reagan administration, there was a division within NATO on the response to be made to provocative Soviet exercises, the US and the UK (remember the Iron Maiden) on one side with (usually, the Germans and the rest) on the other as far as the policy towards Soviet troop movements in Europe. The US was usually able to drag the rest of NATO with it, so the usual response to most Soviet exercises until 1988 was to increase NATO intelligence activities. After 1988, the Soviets were required by treaty to provide notice of any exercise larger then 25K and allow NATO observers. If the Soviets were caught moving forces forward under the cover of an exercise or in denying access to neutral and NATO observers, the reaction would be one of heightened tensions and NATO readiness. The reality is that the Soviets could launch an attack at any point in the year given about 2 weeks notice to bring their forces up to war readiness at their kasernes in Eastern Europe. The choice of which month in the year would be based on Soviet political and military objectives. Certainly, certain months would be less likely because of the German weather, such as Nov and Dec when snow and cold rain or in Feb and Mar in the early spring thaws would turn much of Germany into a mud bath. These weather cycles aren't a sure thing and the thaws can last into Apr. NATO holds its major exercises in Germany in Sep-Oct because it avoids the early winter (though winter can come on early as it did in 1987), the heat of the summer (I can remember Reforger 82, when it was 105 one day in Sep and we had four heatstroke casualties within 15 mins after going to MOP IV), and the harvest is in allowing more maneuver space. May and Nov would seem bad because of the influx of conscripts, but the Soviets could hold the latest class and shunt the new class into training units. Of course, this would be a rather obvious indicator to NATO. Certain months are better for NBC ops, though the prevailing winds are mostly from the west and north, but the question would be if the Soviets used chemical weapons, which the US classified as WMD alongside nucs, would that provoke a NATO(US) response and pose the chance of escalation to a strat nuc exchange, which was NOT a Soviet NMS objective. The problem with 1989 as the game/sim year is the political situation in our historical time line. The Soviet sphere of influence in the WP was falling apart and the next chance the hard-liners would have had to reverse the flow would have been 1991. Then it would have taken a second Russian Civil War to re-unite the disparate parts of the Soviet Empire. In the mean time, Eastern Europe would be assimilated into the EU and NATO. Which means the war starts around 2001/2002 on the Soviet/Polish and Soviet/Czech (Slovak) borders. The other timeline would have Gorbachev being deposed in 1988 after failing to consolidate power between 1985-1987. The hardliners would take over, repress nationalist movements in Armenia, Ajzarbijan, the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. They would seek victory in Afghanistan by interdicting the Mujahdein, leading Soviet forces into Pakistan, Iran and the PRC. Then they would try to bring the Poles and Hungarians to task. This would take a while, so I couldn't see a "shooting" war breaking out before 1991. But with Soviet forces engaged in contested interventions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Poland and Hungary, something would have had to give. In both scenarios, however, there would have been a period, say six months to two years or more, in which the West would have recognized what was coming or needed to be done. This would have caused the OOBs we normally use to be expanded, since by 1988 the US could put 5 1/3 divisional equivalents into the FRG in two weeks.
|