Comments by "" (@tomk3732) on "How Would the Soviet Army Attack in the Cold War?" video.

@TheTrueAdept The Serbs were totally overwhelmed by a factor of 100 to 1 and had outdated tech. So your idea of similar combat is a joke. The Soviet plan was of deep thrusts with heavy armor very quickly. How are you going to attack these columns? Most of your aircraft in nearby bases are gone. What remains has to fight against enemy airforce that is still left and AA systems. There will be very little time to play some kind of a game of SEAD - your A-10s will attack enemy armor formations that are smaller and bigger will get nuked. Losses from air defense will be huge but you have zero time to play with HARMS etc - you will throw what remaining air force you have to attack enemy tank formations. Survival rate for US Hawk systems was minimal as well - Soviets would be the ones using HARM missiles more as there would be less tanks to deal with for them. Overall situation after 3 weeks would be dozens of millions dead, about 70% of Soviet forces and allies killed and around 95% of US and allies killed. At this point most of central Europe would be a pile of rubble and main problem for Soviets would be logistics of getting anything to their troops on French frontier. The bridges over Odra river in Poland were not to be taken out by US air force but by nukes. There were stubs placed to have at least 3 replacement bridges setup for each "regular" bridge around a mile away. US planned to use around 300 nukes and Soviets around 150. Tactical grade up to 100kn. No one in the US army had any illusions they can stop the Soviet armor with conventional forces and no plans were made to that account - you can ask anyone from the US army and they will confirm that - certainly you think you are better then US command.
4
@TheTrueAdept I studied WWII for over 20 years. I know published armor specs of most modern tanks from memory. You have zero clue as to what you are talking about. Bigger problem for radar operator would be blackout created by dozens of nukes going off every day within short proximity of each other then worrying about enemy HARM. It is unlikely a single US base in Europe will be still operational after 24h thus most aircraft that survived will operate off highways and operations with HARMs will be seen as a joke.
3
I doubt anyone would want the land back - NATO had plans to retreat into Spain behind the mountains. If it got that far it is almost certain there would be strategic exchange and there will not be US left to have troops come from. Most Soviet plans stopped somewhere around France - for both risk of full nuclear exchange and due to logistics.
2
@TheTrueAdept NATO plans did not hinge at all on aviation as Soviets made sure that nothing would fly. NATO plans hinged on massive use of nukes. Like 100s. There were nuclear mines all over western Germany. There were not plans for any convoys - it would be over in a month or less. Germany would be taken as well as Austria. After that it would be either end of the world or Soviets would move back. Germany would be a nature preserve. Your aviation would anyways be top priority in the begging and would get nuked on day 1 for both sides. Same as comments above from people manning actual US Hawk systems - they knew they would be a prime target.
2
The defensive strategy of the west was based on more or less blowing up whole Germany with massive amounts of nukes. Together with Soviet weapons over 500 were to be used. After such a barrage even if Soviets continued they would earn a devastated land, worthless. They would loose lots of useful land. Victory for the Soviets would by very phyric - i.e. not worth the fight. There was also a danger of strategic nuclear exchange. As for conventional combat, west had zero chances - all they could do is delay till nukes were flying. Even then taking all of Germany would account for first few weeks. Germany that would be a giant pile of nuclear waste.
1