And give Clancy credit he was the first author in an unclassified source to describe how Iceland could play a major role in WW III if occupied by Ivan. From a Soviet view, what's the point of occupying Western Europe if it's been turned into a desert and most of the industry, population, and resources are so much slag? Even if the Soviets only strike West Germany with nukes, there'd be so many U.S., British, and French military casualties as a result that release of strategic nuclear weapons by the various NCAs would result.Īs for RSR goes, I find the conventional-force scenario described very credible. Variant B was a conventional-force only version of the attack. Suvorov did mention two: Variant A was the all-out offensive with nuclear and chemical weapons clearing the way for the invasion of Western Europe. The Soviets would have been stupid just to have one plan on the table, andĪny planners in the Soviet Defense Ministry worth their salt would have had to assume varying contingencies in Europe, the Middle East, and Far East, and have appropriate plans for those contingencies. No way to tell, of course, if that was the real one or not. I've read Suvorov as well (Inside the Soviet Army is the book where the war So we should be lucky that no war came into being, for we Europeans would have been nuked by our own allies. This was founded on their trade relations (think about the law that no US company was allowed to make business with the USSR) and their proximity to the USSR itself. Europeans viewed the Soviets far less gruesom than in America, I believe. Better red than dead!", especially because the latter was an attitude only not predominant in the US. Well, I wouldn't be suprised if a German chancellor would say "Nope, we're not going to nuke central Germany to stop a soviet advance. To add to that, the Warsaw Pact was dominated by Russia, while the NATO explictly said that every decision would have to be achieved by a vote of its members. The US might have had the biggest military in the world (though I think the Warsaw pact had more in the end), but the Warsaw Pact had standarised weaponry, while a Belgian aircraft could not get replacement parts in Germany or France. NATO actually wanted to use the missiles at first, simply because NATO was inferior to the Red Army in terms of conventional warfare. Why conquering Europe, if you nuke it to shreds beforehand? What does wasteland offer for further use except for endless military costs trying to conquer and hold it. I love 'em but the Soviets defiently would have at least sunk a few.Īs far as I know, it was actually the other way round - The USSR did not want to use nuclear missiles, and the reason is quite easy. One thing that any WWIII book needs however is the loss of more than one US Carrier.
(Which was one of the more suprising things in the book, I couldn't believe it! The US counteroffenisve was hurting the Soviets hitting right into their flank.and NATO collaspes! ) Red Army is also nice being entriely from the Soviet prespective and the fact they win. Like others have said The Third World War is excellent and The War That Never Was in my opinion is the only one I've read that makes me feel like its a World War. However NATO's lack of mistakes in the book and some lopsided numerical battles (Ironicaly one of my favorite parts where a ragged group of M-1 tanks holds off multiple Soviet Regiments). Once US reinforcements come pouring in things can quickly swing to NATO's favor. The Soviets can advance at a heavy cost while NATO wins the Battle of the Atlantic. That any slugging match between NATO and the Warsaw Pact (with no Nukes) ends up in a WWI style slugmatch.
0 kommentar(er)
