Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Type 6

[Purpelia]

Kind of makes you sad that we didn't get to see it.

[Virana]

We're also ignoring the fact that NATO made it fairly obvious that Soviet troops moving into West Germany would mean ICBMs flying at Moscow and pretty much every other USSR city.

(and, obviously, flying the other way in response)

[Gallia-]

No in 1945.
Unlikely in 1955.
Maybe in 1965.
Probably in 1975.
Yes in 1985.

The turning point was probably Vietnam. There the US realized how green they had become since WWII ended and a new generation of veterans set about rebuilding the countries military competency. US conventional power started to increase enormously after this culminating in Desert Storm. The Soviets began to realize the same thing in Afghanistan, which showed how big the gap between what the Soviet army in WWII was capable of and what they were capable of today really was, but the collapse of the USSR cut short any post-afghan introspection.

Other trends, like the growing economic and technological lead of the west, only accelerated this shift.

I was under the Impression that the Soviet Union had conventional superiority in Europe during the mid 70's and until the mid 80's, considering the introduction and widespread deployment of the T-72 and T-80.

It was conventional parity, if not slight superiority in NATO favour. The introduction of weapons like Pershing II and Abrams nullified any remaining Soviet advances in the technology front while NATO greatly increased its doctrinal capabilities with stuff like AirLand Battle.

Conventional superiority is pointless because any WW3 would be fought with tactical nukes in supporting fires roles, especially since AirLand Battle pretty much demanded their use to be able to conduct FOFA in concert with all the components of Assault Breaker.

[Roski]

We're also ignoring the fact that NATO made it fairly obvious that Soviet troops moving into West Germany would mean ICBMs flying at Moscow and pretty much every other USSR city.

(and, obviously, flying the other way in response)

This is a conventional war, not nuking immediately.
No one wins a nuclear war, and NATO and the USSR would leave under a major flag of genocide.

[Gallia-]

We're also ignoring the fact that NATO made it fairly obvious that Soviet troops moving into West Germany would mean ICBMs flying at Moscow and pretty much every other USSR city.

(and, obviously, flying the other way in response)

This is a conventional war, not nuking immediately.
No one wins a nuclear war, and NATO and the USSR would leave under a major flag of genocide.

America would have won a nuclear war in 1962 tbh.

[Roski]

I was under the Impression that the Soviet Union had conventional superiority in Europe during the mid 70's and until the mid 80's, considering the introduction and widespread deployment of the T-72 and T-80.

It was conventional parity, if not slight superiority in NATO favour. The introduction of weapons like Pershing II and Abrams nullified any remaining Soviet advances in the technology front while NATO greatly increased its doctrinal capabilities with stuff like AirLand Battle.

Conventional superiority is pointless because any WW3 would be fought with tactical nukes in supporting fires roles, especially since AirLand Battle pretty much demanded their use to be able to conduct FOFA in concert with all the components of Assault Breaker.

Unfortunately, you are right. Any major conflict with the United States and NATO involved will lead to nuclear escalation. This is actually why the military is protesting fighting for Ukraine at the moment. I agree wholeheartedly.

[Spoder]

It was conventional parity, if not slight superiority in NATO favour. The introduction of weapons like Pershing II and Abrams nullified any remaining Soviet advances in the technology front while NATO greatly increased its doctrinal capabilities with stuff like AirLand Battle.

Conventional superiority is pointless because any WW3 would be fought with tactical nukes in supporting fires roles, especially since AirLand Battle pretty much demanded their use to be able to conduct FOFA in concert with all the components of Assault Breaker.

Unfortunately, you are right. Any major conflict with the United States and NATO involved will lead to nuclear escalation. This is actually why the military is protesting fighting for Ukraine at the moment. I agree wholeheartedly.

"I do not know what weapons World War III will be fought with but I do know World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein.

[Roski]

Unfortunately, you are right. Any major conflict with the United States and NATO involved will lead to nuclear escalation. This is actually why the military is protesting fighting for Ukraine at the moment. I agree wholeheartedly.

"I do not know what weapons World War III will be fought with but I do know World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein.

And he is right there.

[Gallia-]

It was conventional parity, if not slight superiority in NATO favour. The introduction of weapons like Pershing II and Abrams nullified any remaining Soviet advances in the technology front while NATO greatly increased its doctrinal capabilities with stuff like AirLand Battle.

Conventional superiority is pointless because any WW3 would be fought with tactical nukes in supporting fires roles, especially since AirLand Battle pretty much demanded their use to be able to conduct FOFA in concert with all the components of Assault Breaker.

Unfortunately, you are right. Any major conflict with the United States and NATO involved will lead to nuclear escalation. This is actually why the military is protesting fighting for Ukraine at the moment. I agree wholeheartedly.

What?

Tactical nukes would be used to attack troop formations and facilities like airbases, they're too valuable to waste on cities.

[Spoder]

And actually conventional superiority does make sense, because it would be like gas in WWI. It's super-effective, but everybody's scared to use it. Same for nukes.

[Spoder]

Unfortunately, you are right. Any major conflict with the United States and NATO involved will lead to nuclear escalation. This is actually why the military is protesting fighting for Ukraine at the moment. I agree wholeheartedly.

What?

Tactical nukes would be used to attack troop formations and facilities like airbases, they're too valuable to waste on cities.

mmm no. Tacticals would be on the major pop to incite terror and confusion. Tungsten rods would be used on airbases and bunkers and military facilities.

[Roski]

Unfortunately, you are right. Any major conflict with the United States and NATO involved will lead to nuclear escalation. This is actually why the military is protesting fighting for Ukraine at the moment. I agree wholeheartedly.

What?

Tactical nukes would be used to attack troop formations and facilities like airbases, they're too valuable to waste on cities.

But the use of nuke would still initiate MAD

[Roski]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7oamJtBpdU

This is interesting, to say the least.

But this takes place in 2025ish or later, so keep that in mind.

[Immoren]

What?

Tactical nukes would be used to attack troop formations and facilities like airbases, they're too valuable to waste on cities.

mmm no. Tacticals would be on the major pop to incite terror and confusion. Tungsten rods would be used on airbases and bunkers and military facilities.

Wat?

[Anemos Major]

But the use of nuke would still initiate MAD

People tend to forget this, but MAD isn't a law of the land, it's an untested theory of nuclear warfare. Here's another.

We're also ignoring the fact that NATO made it fairly obvious that Soviet troops moving into West Germany would mean ICBMs flying at Moscow and pretty much every other USSR city.

(and, obviously, flying the other way in response)

Only insofar as saying so enhanced its value as a deterrent - but for the nuclear armed duo of Western Europe at the very, absolute least, the sight of Red Army tanks rolling into West Germany would probably change the context in which said deterrent existed. When both sides are more or less aware that any nuclear exchange will be one of a Pyrrhic victory or an absolute defeat, the enthusiasm with which a nation deigns to use their nuclear weapons will probably wane as the likelihood of their needing to do so increases.

[Tule]

This is a conventional war, not nuking immediately.
No one wins a nuclear war, and NATO and the USSR would leave under a major flag of genocide.

America would have won a nuclear war in 1962 tbh.

Yeah, not in the 80's.

When both sides have tens of thousands of easily deliverable strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, any questions about the effectiveness of conventional forces in a nuclear war become pointless. Everything required to sustain a war for more than a few hours would be annihilated, everything. The only thing that would escape would be the occasional tank and soldier who would only be able to rely on the supplies they carry with them.

What?

Tactical nukes would be used to attack troop formations and facilities like airbases, they're too valuable to waste on cities.

Unless said cities have valuable strategic targets, and many do.

Warsaw has bridges over the Vistula river essential to logistics? Better nuke em.
Biggest tank factory in the world is in Nizhny Tagil? Better nuke it.

[The Akasha Colony]

And actually conventional superiority does make sense, because it would be like gas in WWI. It's super-effective, but everybody's scared to use it. Same for nukes.

Except that gas wasn't super-effective in WWI, and was not used in later conflicts because it was far too cumbersome to use relative to its rather limited effectiveness. The same is not true of nukes, especially when you are already fighting the only other power that's in a position to retaliate anyway.

mmm no. Tacticals would be on the major pop to incite terror and confusion. Tungsten rods would be used on airbases and bunkers and military facilities.

All my wat. This is not what tactical nukes are for. Nor imaginary tungsten rod warheads that neither NATO nor the USSR had during the Cold War and which even now are only conceptual and likely carry the same possibility of nuclear retaliation since they cannot be distinguished until it's too late.

[Gallia-]

America would have won a nuclear war in 1962 tbh.

Yeah, not in the 80's.

When both sides have tens of thousands of easily deliverable strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, any questions about the effectiveness of conventional forces in a nuclear war become pointless. Everything required to sustain a war for more than a few hours would be annihilated, everything. The only thing that would escape would be the occasional tank and soldier who would only be able to rely on the supplies they carry with them.

What?

Tactical nukes would be used to attack troop formations and facilities like airbases, they're too valuable to waste on cities.

Unless said cities have valuable strategic targets, and many do.

Warsaw has bridges over the Vistula river essential to logistics? Better nuke em.
Biggest tank factory in the world is in Nizhny Tagil? Better nuke it.

1) That's assuming instant use of nuclear weapons, which would be unlikely. Perhaps inevitable, but not instantaneous. They'd be used for direct battlefield support, and attacking follow on forces, mostly. Considering the Warsaw Pact's logistics base is a few hundred-thousand kilometers behind the FLOT and NATO's is a continent and ocean away, the latter is much safer from attack anyway.

2) Collateral damage is not counter value, so this statement is meaningless. Ramstein is a town that will be wiped out by either nuclear weapons or air raid, that doesn't mean it's being targeted directly.

[Anemos Major]

Unfortunately, you are right. Any major conflict with the United States and NATO involved will lead to nuclear escalation. This is actually why the military is protesting fighting for Ukraine at the moment. I agree wholeheartedly.

I'm fairly sure this wasn't really the, or even a, major factor in the US decision not to intervene militarily in Ukraine. The debate had ended quite a while before nuclear escalation was even brought to the table - neither the military or the political leadership wanted to fight Russia in Ukraine, and most certainly not because of the potential for nuclear annihilation.

[Roski]

Unfortunately, you are right. Any major conflict with the United States and NATO involved will lead to nuclear escalation. This is actually why the military is protesting fighting for Ukraine at the moment. I agree wholeheartedly.

I'm fairly sure this wasn't really the, or even a, major factor in the US decision not to intervene militarily in Ukraine. The debate had ended quite a while before nuclear escalation was even brought to the table - neither the military or the political leadership wanted to fight Russia in Ukraine, and most certainly not because of the potential for nuclear annihilation.

I meant it was a reason.

But NATO is still terrified of the Russians, even though they are weak.

Also, how does everyone feel about CoD Ghosts? Or does anyone even know. I think the story is kinda bullshit.

[Spoder]

I'm fairly sure this wasn't really the, or even a, major factor in the US decision not to intervene militarily in Ukraine. The debate had ended quite a while before nuclear escalation was even brought to the table - neither the military or the political leadership wanted to fight Russia in Ukraine, and most certainly not because of the potential for nuclear annihilation.

I meant it was a reason.

But NATO is still terrified of the Russians, even though they are weak.

Also, how does everyone feel about CoD Ghosts? Or does anyone even know. I think the story is kinda bullshit.

I think it's bullshit that they use tungsten rods on cities (which is a waste of them and it wouldn't be very effective) and that those rods explode with the force of a cruise missile.

[Connori Pilgrims]

I'm fairly sure this wasn't really the, or even a, major factor in the US decision not to intervene militarily in Ukraine. The debate had ended quite a while before nuclear escalation was even brought to the table - neither the military or the political leadership wanted to fight Russia in Ukraine, and most certainly not because of the potential for nuclear annihilation.

I meant it was a reason.

But NATO is still terrified of the Russians, even though they are weak.

Also, how does everyone feel about CoD Ghosts? Or does anyone even know. I think the story is kinda bullshit.

No it wasn't. A greater reason they didn't want to fight the Russians there is because the nearest US units (and their associated logistics chains) are in Germany, which is quite far. Compare that to the Russkies whose units and support are literally across the border.

Everything CoD after CoD2 (except for World at War) was shit storywise.

[Spoder]

America would have won a nuclear war in 1962 tbh.

Yeah, not in the 80's.

When both sides have tens of thousands of easily deliverable strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, any questions about the effectiveness of conventional forces in a nuclear war become pointless. Everything required to sustain a war for more than a few hours would be annihilated, everything. The only thing that would escape would be the occasional tank and soldier who would only be able to rely on the supplies they carry with them.

Yep. Fallout was pretty accurate.

[United states of brazilian nations]

I'm fairly sure this wasn't really the, or even a, major factor in the US decision not to intervene militarily in Ukraine. The debate had ended quite a while before nuclear escalation was even brought to the table - neither the military or the political leadership wanted to fight Russia in Ukraine, and most certainly not because of the potential for nuclear annihilation.

I meant it was a reason.

But NATO is still terrified of the Russians, even though they are weak.

Also, how does everyone feel about CoD Ghosts? Or does anyone even know. I think the story is kinda bullshit.

i don't feel like this is the right place to discuss videogames, but nevertheless there is a thing that must be said.
in Ghosts, brazilian troops speak spanish.
spanish.
fucking spanish.

remove. paella. from. premises.
tapioca stronk.

[Kouralia]

I think it's bullshit that they use tungsten rods on cities (which is a waste of them and it wouldn't be very effective) and that those rods explode with the force of a cruise missile.

All of my many wats.

Yep. Fallout was pretty accurate.

Shit... Does anyone have more wats to spare?