The Mediterranean and AFSOUTH in World War III...
- Thread starter MacCaulay
- Start date
I am not entirely sure that Yugoslavia would join the USSR--in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the USSR just considers Tito an enemy when they start the war. But regardless, the main goal here is to keep Istanbul, and the straits, in allied hands. Now, I know little about the details of the scenario-I assume the USSR troops outnumbered NATO ones, albeit not to the extent that they did in Germany. What I would probably do is use the geography to my advantage. For example, as long as you have air and naval superiority, which NATO will have, then Greece and Istanbul are fairly defensible. The narrow landmasses and mountains will inhibit the numerical superiority that the Warsaw Pact will have. On top of this, Italy will be a big player here, as a staging ground for incoming troops as well as counter-attacks into Yugoslavia.I doubt that the Warsaw Pact can launch an attack across the Adriatic Sea, but NATO may be able to, if they can spare the manpower. It could be worth it to keep Yugoslavia on their toes.
Edit: In RSR, didn't Greece stay out of the war?
Edit: In RSR, didn't Greece stay out of the war?
MacCaulay
Banned
Now that's an interesting thought...mobilize an amphibious assault and land in Yugoslavia during World War Three! Hey, it's one war late for Churchill, but he gets what he wanted...
I wonder what would be available for that?
Yup. Let's just assume they're in it.
Mikewritesfic
Banned
Biggest objective for the Soviets and Pact in the early hours would be to capture and hold the Bosphorous and Dardanelles to allow the Black Sea Fleet to break out into the Med. This would have been quite a feat.
Great idea for a thread, btw
Great idea for a thread, btw
In RSR , both Greece and Turkey remain neutral . I think that Turkey participating in WWIII opens up countless options . After all ,the U.S. can still use Suda bay regardless of what the greeks think about american military ventures, and they customarily do . Btw , does the A7 Corsair have the range to strike Sevastopol from the turkish Black Sea coast?
Mikewritesfic
Banned
Nope, those birds have short legs. They could do it with a lot of tanker support but not without
MacCaulay
Banned
I think that's one reason that the US was so happy the Turkish Air Force went with F-4s. Those things have enough mileage to get pretty far out into the Black Sea and keep any Soviet fleet/aircraft at a fair distance.
Unless, of course, they start using MiG-25s for point-and-click raids. Then something faster has to be brought in, or the Patriots and Hawks have to try and get them.
Either way, it'd be a neat scenario to have Incirlik actually being used for what it was built for.
Mikewritesfic
Banned
Incirlik was built as a torture camp lol Been there a few times on TDYs and it's rough. But yeah, Turkey had a huge military infrastructure set up by NATO during the Cold War for operations on the Southern Flank. A lot of it is still in place too
How big of an influence did the Soviets have over the Syrians in the 1980s? Is it possible to have the Syrians invading Turkey from the south alongside a Soviet invasion from the Caucasus? How successful would such an invasion be? I don't think it would be very successful if Syria was attacking alone, but if Turkey is under attack from the Caucasus and the Balkans, it could succeed.
One big question is how Israel would react. I think they would attack Syria and probably defeat them. I can't imagine the US standing by while their Middle East oil supplies are being threatened by a Soviet proxy. Depending on who sides with who in the Middle East, NATO might choose to put much of the forces it originally had earmarked for use in support of Turkey into the Middle East to protect the oil supplies, figuring that oil is more important than the Black Sea Fleet.
One big question is how Israel would react. I think they would attack Syria and probably defeat them. I can't imagine the US standing by while their Middle East oil supplies are being threatened by a Soviet proxy. Depending on who sides with who in the Middle East, NATO might choose to put much of the forces it originally had earmarked for use in support of Turkey into the Middle East to protect the oil supplies, figuring that oil is more important than the Black Sea Fleet.
Bad assumption.
I think it is very very unlikely Yugoslavia would side with WarPac in almost any plausible scenario in any decade of the cold war. Country would be screwed in any WWIII scenario, but still best hopes are to just scream "we are neutral" as loud as possible.
Now problems would come if one side violated that neutrality. Try to resist it and you get hammered. Try to resist them and ask assistance of opposite block, you get hammered a bit more slowly, and than nuked. Say "screw it, its not our war" and opposite Block is howling at you to do something
I think it is very very unlikely Yugoslavia would side with WarPac in almost any plausible scenario in any decade of the cold war. Country would be screwed in any WWIII scenario, but still best hopes are to just scream "we are neutral" as loud as possible.
Now problems would come if one side violated that neutrality. Try to resist it and you get hammered. Try to resist them and ask assistance of opposite block, you get hammered a bit more slowly, and than nuked. Say "screw it, its not our war" and opposite Block is howling at you to do something
Yeah thats sort of the problem with Syria. They HATE Turkey, but as long as they have a hostile Israel to the south its to dangerous to commit forces to Turkey.
Yugoslavia's military doctrine was pretty much total partisan war, not so good on offense, but a pain in the ass when they are being invaded.
In Hackett's book, Yugoslavia is invaded by the USSR resulting in a clash between US Marines and the leading Soviet troops. This in turn is the more direct cause of the invasion of Germany later. And RSR I don't think they get a mention at all. I have to agree with others that the Yugos stay out of it. There's little for them to gain from joining a NATO v Warsaw Pact war and a lot lose.
The general goals of a Soviet offensive against AFSOUTH have been outlined by other posts. Open the Black Sea to the Med while possibly knocking Greece out of the war. One should also remember that the Black Seas Fleet will also need to secure the Aegean Sea.
What about Libya during this? They were hardly a friend to US in the 80s, so might they jump in on the Soviet side. Libya would be a nice distraction for the U.S. 6th Fleet as it would take time to knock down their air and naval strength. Time that might help the Black Sea Fleet breakout while the USN carriers are distracted.
Syria joining the Soviets I could maybe see, but why would they attack Turkey? As you said their involvement is probably going to bring in Israel so they would have to worry about their flank on the Golan. Committing their troops on against Turkey is going to leave them vulnerable in the south. They couldn't stop the IDF when it started advancing in 1973, I doubt they can do it in 80s either.
How does the Third World War affect the Iran-Iraq War? Can the Soviets convince Saddam to make moves against Saudi Arabia or Kuwait? In turn they hammer the Iranians with their southern air power.
The general goals of a Soviet offensive against AFSOUTH have been outlined by other posts. Open the Black Sea to the Med while possibly knocking Greece out of the war. One should also remember that the Black Seas Fleet will also need to secure the Aegean Sea.
What about Libya during this? They were hardly a friend to US in the 80s, so might they jump in on the Soviet side. Libya would be a nice distraction for the U.S. 6th Fleet as it would take time to knock down their air and naval strength. Time that might help the Black Sea Fleet breakout while the USN carriers are distracted.
Syria joining the Soviets I could maybe see, but why would they attack Turkey? As you said their involvement is probably going to bring in Israel so they would have to worry about their flank on the Golan. Committing their troops on against Turkey is going to leave them vulnerable in the south. They couldn't stop the IDF when it started advancing in 1973, I doubt they can do it in 80s either.
How does the Third World War affect the Iran-Iraq War? Can the Soviets convince Saddam to make moves against Saudi Arabia or Kuwait? In turn they hammer the Iranians with their southern air power.
MacCaulay
Banned
I was trying to come up with some sort of reason there would be a ground war on AFSOUTH's doorstep, so I just picked Yugoslavia out of my butt to be honest. If we want to have the ground war in Greece instead of Italy, that's fine though.
So...Hungary and whatnot are now our chosen catspaws?
Question: Black Sea--how much do Soviets have in it? Enough for an amphibious assault on Turkey?
MacCaulay
Banned
Yeah, but the Turkish Navy was pretty much built for two things: operations around Cyprus (doing an amphibious assault) and countering the Soviet Black Sea Fleet (countering an amphibious assault/breakout).
Soviet Military Power 1989, the DoD's (admittedly biassed) assessment lists the region as the one where NATO has the highest concentration of front line divisions: the Greeks and Turks have 10 deployed in Thrace, the Bosporus, and the Dardanelles.
They've also said the Soviet power there tends to be primarily surface based warships, though they've got a VTOL carrier. There are significant MiG-23, MiG-25, and MiG-29 fighter concentrations in Bulgaria, Hungary, and the Ukraine.
It looks to me like the whole front could just be an exchange of pawns if you will. It seems almost very unlikely that the Warsaw Pact could actually the straits, but I'm sure they'd still assault them because you know what they say about the best defense.
MacCaulay
Banned
I read a book, Soviet AirLand Battle Tactics, by a retired US Army Colonel that had an entire chapter on the Soviet concept of "defense," and how they don't have a word for "offense."
The whole idea of defense in Russian/Soviet circles includes both attack and what we would term "defense." Offense, to them, is just another aspect of that same idea.
This is different to Western thought, which looks at on offensive action and a defensive action as two different things. In open combat, however, it does seem that the Soviets looked to out-and-out attack as the most preferable battle plan.