Nukes

[sapper32]

Its turn 7 nato wp tension 1979 im being torn to ribbons as nato not to much in the way of reinforcements to come,its starting to seem like West germany will fall the centre and south not to bad but the north is chaos UK 1 Corps on its knees and the West german forces are battered,have just started to think about using nukes??? 100 VP penalty i know but north west europe is on the brink of defeat.

[golden delicious]

NATO decided early on in the Cold War that the force required to stop a Soviet conventional offensive in Europe was impractical to maintain in peacetime. Therefore it was NATO doctrine to use nuclear weapons in the event of a full scale war, as the only means of preventing Soviet victory.

[sapper32]

Are we talking tactical nuclear weapons eg Lance missiles tube arty that sort of thing and what will the consecuences be for NATO units in adjacent hexes

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: sapper32

Its turn 7 nato wp tension 1979 im being torn to ribbons as nato not to much in the way of reinforcements to come,its starting to seem like West germany will fall the centre and south not to bad but the north is chaos UK 1 Corps on its knees and the West german forces are battered,have just started to think about using nukes??? 100 VP penalty i know but north west europe is on the brink of defeat.

Be sure to try to exploit the Warsaw Pact vulnerability to rear-area penetrations. There are four cities that can trigger a EG revolt, two that can trigger a Czech revolt, and four that can trigger a Polish revolt. These cities are best targeted with heli/airborne forces (commandos or paratroops). Often they are left unguarded. If successful, WP forces suffer temporary shock penalties and may have minor forces (EG, Poles, Czechs) withdrawn.

[sapper32]

Would be nice to chopper some troops into to these cities and it has been on my mind,but everything i have got is in the line or guarding my cities but might still be an option,nuclear weapons strikes have hurt both sides and has bought me some time i think.

[Curtis Lemay]

May I ask what forces were released upon the openfire?

French, Italians for NATO?

East Germans, Poles, Czechs, Hungarians for Warsaw Pact?

[sapper32]

Both the Italians and the French where released,the Danes and Austrians surrendered on second turn of hostilities,WP got EGs Czechs and Hungarians,Have now moved two and a half Italian divs into southern germany.

[BuddyDharma]

ORIGINAL: sapper32

Would be nice to chopper some troops into to these cities and it has been on my mind,but everything i have got is in the line or guarding my cities but might still be an option,nuclear weapons strikes have hurt both sides and has bought me some time i think.

If you look around, you will see that you have many 1/1 special forces units. These aren't much use in the line, but should be sufficient to capture any revolt trigger hexes that the WP player has left undefended.

I highly reccomend a nuclear alpha strike, though. NATO has more and better nuclear weapons the the WP. Spread your units out, no more than one BDE to a hex, and target airbases and SSMs initially to further reduce WP nuclear response capability. After his air force is weakened and his SSMs are vaporized, you can start targeting those dense divisional formations and rack up a very nice VP bonus from enemy losses.

I did this late in my last game, and my only regret is that I didn't do it sooner.

[BuddyDharma]

Also, those 1/1 special forces are great for airdropping on undefended WP SSMs. Both units are usually eleminated by this, but it's more than a fair trade.

[sapper32]

Thanks for all the advice,agree with u mister wolf should have used tactical nukes earlier i seemed to spend the entire game reacting to WP moves but was great fun Ian

[Trick37_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

NATO decided early on in the Cold War that the force required to stop a Soviet conventional offensive in Europe was impractical to maintain in peacetime. Therefore it was NATO doctrine to use nuclear weapons in the event of a full scale war, as the only means of preventing Soviet victory.

Actually, with respect, this isn't 100% true. Yes, in the 50s through the mid-70s NATO most likely would have used nukes, but it was known that this would've led to an all-out strategic strike, thus ending the world as we knew it.

However, once the new equipment started getting fielded in the late 70s/early 80s (i.e. M1 tanks, M2 Bradleys, Apaches.....Leopard 2 tanks, etc), it was thought to be possible to stop the Soviets and to wait on reinforcements for a counterattack. At that point, our equipment was far superior to the Soviet equipment.

The NATO navies also would've played a big part of it, especially with the newer surface ships and submarines (i.e. Los Angeles class) that were being fielded. These, along with superior carrier aircraft, could well have stopped the Soviet attempt to rule the Atlantic, thus allowing for a free flow of reinforcements to arrive into Europe.

Of course, a big part of the strategy to beat the Soviet ground forces would've been to convince France to "play ball" if the balloon went up. Without them, it may well have been a bit hard to beat the Soviets, especially if they came through the northern route.

[duckenf]

ORIGINAL: sapper32

Would be nice to chopper some troops into to these cities and it has been on my mind,but everything i have got is in the line or guarding my cities but might still be an option,nuclear weapons strikes have hurt both sides and has bought me some time i think.

That's a bit gamey -- especially against Elmer.

[Trick37_MatrixForum]

As far as using nukes in the scenarios goes, I also find it good to hit places where reinforcements come onto the board with the biggest nuke that you can use (basically, bombers).  The reasoning behind this is that it'll hurt the troops coming into the board because of the contaminated hex(es), and because it'll contaminte hexes around it, thus making the forces take longer to reinforce their formations.
 

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Trick37

However, once the new equipment started getting fielded in the late 70s/early 80s

Well, my concern is mainly with the earlier period- when Soviet conventional superiority made an attack much more likely.

(i.e. M1 tanks, M2 Bradleys, Apaches.....Leopard 2 tanks, etc), it was thought to be possible to stop the Soviets and to wait on reinforcements for a counterattack. At that point, our equipment was far superior to the Soviet equipment.

I wonder how long this would last, though. The difficulty of producing the ultra-sophisticated weapons systems NATO was fielding by the 1980s may well have meant that, on a high attrition battlefield, they would very rapidly have to be replaced with older, more cheaply made items. This would wipe out NATO's technical superiority; and Russia has always been more capable of taking losses.

These, along with superior carrier aircraft, could well have stopped the Soviet attempt to rule the Atlantic, thus allowing for a free flow of reinforcements to arrive into Europe.

I have no doubt that the Atlantic would be NATO's domain. But the simple fact is that the United States of the 1980s would not have been able to produce enough high quality troops at a sufficient rate to match Russia's ability to produce low quality troops- and I suspect there would have been a serious delay in switching over to a more low tech, basic training force.

In the event, I would think that NATO's armies would have to undergo a serious transition in the medium term. However I suspect that Russia would find that with the available technology and the highly urbanised terrain of western Europe, it would be much easier to defend that to attack, and would probably be stalled long enough for the immense wealth of the West to be turned over to arms production (a period of several years).

[Trick37_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Trick37

However, once the new equipment started getting fielded in the late 70s/early 80s

Well, my concern is mainly with the earlier period- when Soviet conventional superiority made an attack much more likely.

Possibly, before 1979, but NATO was making enroads to finally fix the flawed defensive posture and lack of troops and modern equipment that was available to other NATO nations by then. Maybe 1979 would've seen the use of nukes, but I'm not sure.....

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Trick37
(i.e. M1 tanks, M2 Bradleys, Apaches.....Leopard 2 tanks, etc), it was thought to be possible to stop the Soviets and to wait on reinforcements for a counterattack. At that point, our equipment was far superior to the Soviet equipment.

I wonder how long this would last, though. The difficulty of producing the ultra-sophisticated weapons systems NATO was fielding by the 1980s may well have meant that, on a high attrition battlefield, they would very rapidly have to be replaced with older, more cheaply made items. This would wipe out NATO's technical superiority; and Russia has always been more capable of taking losses.

True, however, we cannot forget that Europe, and troops that would've REFORGED to Europe, was the #1 priority for the fielding of the new quipment. The fielding also included the POMCUS sites (where arriving first-line reinforcements would draw their equipment. There was enough there for one or two Corps' worth, spread throughout all of Germany, Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg). The second-line reinforcements, which would've brought their equipment over from the States, would still have the M60A3 and A4 tanks, which were at least a match for the Soviet T-72 tanks.

We also have to consider, that in a short-term war, the Soviets would lose a massive amount of tanks and APCs in their "all-in" (or their "all-overwhelming") style of attack. By the time our first-line reinforcements would've come in, they most likely would have been down to their "B" units, meaning that the MBT would then be the T-62 tank, which was vastly inferior to the M60 tank, not to mention the remaining M1s, Challengers, Leopard 2s, and other NATO first-line tanks. By the time our second-line reinforcements arrived, the Soviets may well have been into their "C" units, meaning they would've have the already-outdated T-55 tank in the front lines. By then it may have been the Soviets that would've reverted to nukes first. (And remember, in a battlefield that may well have consisted of chemical warfare, the T-72 was the only Soviet tank that had NBC protection. Those "B" and "C" units would've been in a lot of trouble, considering their rubber NBC suits.)

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Trick37
These, along with superior carrier aircraft, could well have stopped the Soviet attempt to rule the Atlantic, thus allowing for a free flow of reinforcements to arrive into Europe.

I have no doubt that the Atlantic would be NATO's domain. But the simple fact is that the United States of the 1980s would not have been able to produce enough high quality troops at a sufficient rate to match Russia's ability to produce low quality troops- and I suspect there would have been a serious delay in switching over to a more low tech, basic training force.

In the event, I would think that NATO's armies would have to undergo a serious transition in the medium term. However I suspect that Russia would find that with the available technology and the highly urbanised terrain of western Europe, it would be much easier to defend that to attack, and would probably be stalled long enough for the immense wealth of the West to be turned over to arms production (a period of several years).

Like I said above, even though we may have had to revert to units with pre-upgraded equipment to fight, it would not have been a more low tech, basic training force that we would've fielded. Remember, our reserves and Guard are trained the same way that our active force is, and also remember that we didn't have the centralized command-and-control that the Eastern Block countries relied on. If you take out their commander, the rest of the troops are clueless (we actually trained to take out their command tanks first, as an example). This isn't true in our training as everyone is trained to take command if the superior officer or NCO is taken out.

A great example of that difference was what frustrated the Mujahadeen in the opening shots of the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. One Mujahadeen commander, when captured, reportedly said (and I paraphrase), "It's harder to fight the Americans than the Soviets. With the Soviets, take out their commander, and then it's easy to kill the other soldiers (or to take them prisoner) because they have no clue what to do. But with the Americans, you take out the leader, and the next in command takes over....right down to the last private, who will fight on his own if needed."

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Trick37

True, however, we cannot forget that Europe, and troops that would've REFORGED to Europe, was the #1 priority for the fielding of the new quipment. The fielding also included the POMCUS sites (where arriving first-line reinforcements would draw their equipment. There was enough there for one or two Corps' worth, spread throughout all of Germany, Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg). The second-line reinforcements, which would've brought their equipment over from the States, would still have the M60A3 and A4 tanks, which were at least a match for the Soviet T-72 tanks.

I just feel that far too much time is devoted to talking about this or that tank being better than the other.

Whichever tank it is, by the 1980s, it's worse than infantry weapons which could be fielded for the same cost. The MBT still had it's role- but, especially in the urbanised environment of western Europe, it would have rapidly become a specialist weapon rather than the star around which the rest of the army orbited.

Like I said above, even though we may have had to revert to units with pre-upgraded equipment to fight, it would not have been a more low tech, basic training force that we would've fielded.

Your existing army, even including the reserves and the national guard, would have been just far too small for a general war in Europe fought with conventional arms. How many divisions would NATO have fielded (even excluding losses)? 100? That's not going to be enough when the losses start piling up- at hundreds of times the rate they're occuring in Iraq.

This is not to say that those responsible for NATO's strength in the field were somehow in dereliction of their duty. If anything they should be applauded for doing enough to maintain a strong force without sacrificing Western values in trying to match Russia man for man. Nor is it to say Russia would have won- I doubt they would have. But it wouldn't have been the clean, mechanical victory you seem to be implying. It would have been a near run thing, and an incredibly bloody slog if there was to be any kind of victory.

[Trick37_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Trick37

True, however, we cannot forget that Europe, and troops that would've REFORGED to Europe, was the #1 priority for the fielding of the new quipment. The fielding also included the POMCUS sites (where arriving first-line reinforcements would draw their equipment. There was enough there for one or two Corps' worth, spread throughout all of Germany, Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg). The second-line reinforcements, which would've brought their equipment over from the States, would still have the M60A3 and A4 tanks, which were at least a match for the Soviet T-72 tanks.

I just feel that far too much time is devoted to talking about this or that tank being better than the other.

Whichever tank it is, by the 1980s, it's worse than infantry weapons which could be fielded for the same cost. The MBT still had it's role- but, especially in the urbanised environment of western Europe, it would have rapidly become a specialist weapon rather than the star around which the rest of the army orbited.

Okay about talking about the tanks, in regards to “mine’s better than yours.” [:)]

In the urban environment, we wouldn’t have placed too many tanks into the towns and cities, thus leaving them to fight in the open spaces, where they’re meant to be. The towns and cities would’ve been protected by light infantry with anti-tank weapons, in addition to “hunter-killer” teams employed by the Germans. These “hunter-killer” teams were actually part of the Bundesgrenzschutz (“Border Patrol,” who are now called the Bundespolizei, for “Federal Police”), who had a wartime mission as the “hunter-killer” teams. They were equipped to be “motorized,” and quick. Their defensive postures would be to hide in the towns of the German countryside, which are spread out every half a mile to mile apart. They would fire their weapons at the advancing Soviet formations, taking out as many as they can, and then fall back to the next town to do the same thing. (The bad thing here is that the Soviets would’ve hammered these towns with artillery, thus destroying it and killing civilians that may have stayed behind.)

Anyway. That’s one of the defensive strategies that NATO had in case of attack. Thankfully it wasn’t needed, although we came close to war about four times between the 1970s and October 1989, when the Wall fell (we were VERY close in October 1989. Thankfully Gorbachev didn’t take Honaker’s pleas to intervene during the tearing down of the Wall---he had the wherewithal to call Wester Germany’s Kohl to confirm if there were, in fact, riots happening in Berlin….which there wasn’t.) Had the Soviet division entered Berlin, war would’ve happened because the NATO units within the city were on high alert at that time.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Trick37

Like I said above, even though we may have had to revert to units with pre-upgraded equipment to fight, it would not have been a more low tech, basic training force that we would've fielded.

Your existing army, even including the reserves and the national guard, would have been just far too small for a general war in Europe fought with conventional arms. How many divisions would NATO have fielded (even excluding losses)? 100? That's not going to be enough when the losses start piling up- at hundreds of times the rate they're occurring in Iraq.

True, and I’m not really arguing that. However, the Soviets would’ve been taking more and more losses than NATO would have. We cannot forget the role of the NATO air forces, which were indeed far superior to the Soviet Block forces. NATO may not have achieved 100% air superiority (like we’ve seen in both Gulf Wars), but they would’ve had enough superiority in the air, as well as in technology, to make the difference. The NATO air’s ability to reek havoc through interdiction of the advancing Soviet columns would’ve made the difference…at least enough to give the land forces the advantage that they needed.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Trick37

This is not to say that those responsible for NATO's strength in the field were somehow in dereliction of their duty. If anything they should be applauded for doing enough to maintain a strong force without sacrificing Western values in trying to match Russia man for man. Nor is it to say Russia would have won- I doubt they would have. But it wouldn't have been the clean, mechanical victory you seem to be implying. It would have been a near run thing, and an incredibly bloody slog if there was to be any kind of victory.

I’m not saying, either, that it would have been a clear-cut victory (sorry if I made it seem that I thought that way). It would, indeed, have been a nasty fight, with unprecedented losses on both sides. I think that the Soviet attack would’ve fizzled at the last minute, just short of their goals. I’m also confident that NATO would’ve been able to counter-attack, which would’ve reeked havoc in their rear areas, thus cutting off supplies and forcing them to seriously consider a “fighting retreat” to try to reestablish the lines (which I think would’ve failed).

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Trick37

In the urban environment, we wouldn’t have placed too many tanks into the towns and cities, thus leaving them to fight in the open spaces, where they’re meant to be.

That's all very well, but 1980s west Germany was heavily built up, especially as you head towards the Rhine.

True, and I’m not really arguing that. However, the Soviets would’ve been taking more and more losses than NATO would have.

Possibly. But remember Russia took tens of millions of losses in the Second World War and still had a huge army at the end of it. Their whole society was just much better geared to producing a mass army at short notice than any of the NATO countries.

I think the situation in the medium term would be analogous to the first Chinese offensive in Korea; the Americans have better weapons, total air superiority and uncontested control of the sea. But on land they were just swamped. There was nothing they could do except pull back and regroup once their attackers had outreached their supply lines.

Naturally the US Army was better prepared in the 1980s than it was in 1950. But I think the same thing could have occured.

I’m not saying, either, that it would have been a clear-cut victory (sorry if I made it seem that I thought that way). It would, indeed, have been a nasty fight, with unprecedented losses on both sides. I think that the Soviet attack would’ve fizzled at the last minute, just short of their goals. I’m also confident that NATO would’ve been able to counter-attack, which would’ve reeked havoc in their rear areas, thus cutting off supplies and forcing them to seriously consider a “fighting retreat” to try to reestablish the lines (which I think would’ve failed).

I would think that the NATO counterattack would take years to reach large scale proportions, and would not be the "classic" breakthrough and exploitation, but rather a grinding battle to annihilate the countless divisions that the Russians would have been able to throw into the battle.

That's assuming no diplomatic solution was reached. I think that with a) Russia aware that she will inevitably lose but b) NATO unprepared to take two million casualties to win, it would either be that or a nuclear exchange.

[wolflars]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Trick37

In the urban environment, we wouldn’t have placed too many tanks into the towns and cities, thus leaving them to fight in the open spaces, where they’re meant to be.

That's all very well, but 1980s west Germany was heavily built up, especially as you head towards the Rhine.

True, and I’m not really arguing that. However, the Soviets would’ve been taking more and more losses than NATO would have.

Possibly. But remember Russia took tens of millions of losses in the Second World War and still had a huge army at the end of it. Their whole society was just much better geared to producing a mass army at short notice than any of the NATO countries.

I think the situation in the medium term would be analogous to the first Chinese offensive in Korea; the Americans have better weapons, total air superiority and uncontested control of the sea. But on land they were just swamped. There was nothing they could do except pull back and regroup once their attackers had outreached their supply lines.

Naturally the US Army was better prepared in the 1980s than it was in 1950. But I think the same thing could have occured.

I’m not saying, either, that it would have been a clear-cut victory (sorry if I made it seem that I thought that way). It would, indeed, have been a nasty fight, with unprecedented losses on both sides. I think that the Soviet attack would’ve fizzled at the last minute, just short of their goals. I’m also confident that NATO would’ve been able to counter-attack, which would’ve reeked havoc in their rear areas, thus cutting off supplies and forcing them to seriously consider a “fighting retreat” to try to reestablish the lines (which I think would’ve failed).

I would think that the NATO counterattack would take years to reach large scale proportions, and would not be the "classic" breakthrough and exploitation, but rather a grinding battle to annihilate the countless divisions that the Russians would have been able to throw into the battle.

That's assuming no diplomatic solution was reached. I think that with a) Russia aware that she will inevitably lose but b) NATO unprepared to take two million casualties to win, it would either be that or a nuclear exchange.

Or just flat out unlikely. The problem with US operational theory in the 1980s (ALB 2000) was that it was designed for the short run, light on the defense but heavy on localized attacks with intent to disrupt and dislocate. The US Army basically accepted that Soviet doctrine (which is essentially a large scale Recon-push) necessitates a thorough and detailed plan that is to be followed exact. This has several effects: 1) they would hit incredibly hard exactly where they intended and 2) it would be rather inflexible with little follow through or adaptation. US doctrine intended to take advantage of that but would have been almost wholly dependant on the successful deployment of men and equipment (therefore REFORGER). Assuming control of the Atlantic and at least local air superiority this would likely have resulted in just about the ugliest fight in modern warfare. Fast and lethal. The most favorable result the US could have hoped for was that after the 30 day window they had allotted themselves, both forces would be too exhausted to continue offensive operations. So, I guess at that point Nuke or Cease Fire with cease fire being the more likely option.

GD is right in his assessment that the high tech NATO force would exhaust itself and not be easily replaced. That was intentional on NATOs part, given the Soviet doctrine. However, I would hardly say the Soviets would have had “countless divisions.” Soviet doctrine just by its very nature “burns” itself out. Making matters worse would be the inept Soviet logistical network. Pre-battle shortages of tank transporters alone indicated that most of the CAT-III and a good chunk of CAT-II divisions would have still been sitting in assembly areas far from the AO weeks after the first shots rang out.

Would have been interesting and probably a near thing. The unstoppable force and the immovable object. Big Patton-esque drives would be rare. The conventional forces of both belligerents would just be trying to buy time whilst the diplomats figure things out, hopefully before any big red buttons are pushed.

The First Gulf War has always made me question the plausibility of the US doctrine at that time. It was, after all, supposed to be an example of the ALB 2000 in action. People don’t like to call it unsuccessful, but consider the fact that the great war machine ran out of steam in less than 100 hours (not the 30 days which would have been required in a NATO-WP exchange). Deployment took damn near forever too. Yeah, I know there was no pre-positioned equipment etc. etc.

Second Gulf War, different doctrine (ALB 2010). Different problems, different results. Deployment still took too damn long.

This being said about the two opposing doctrines. There was another very real possibility. NATO pre-emptive attack on the Warsaw Pact. This is another little gem people don’t like to talk about but the fact of the matter is that NATO had several options drawn up here. Likely they would have taken advantage of NATO significant offensive capacity (doctrine and equipment). The Soviets thought this was a real possibility and drew up plans as well. Political considerations aside….who knows. I would speculate this variation would see fewer attempts to exploit and more effort given to disruptive raids and posturing, both conventional and unconventional. Probably a pretty hefty air show too.

Prior to the 1970s, GD is correct. Nukes, courtesy of NATO. NATO just didn’t have the stopping power.


As far as resembling what happened in Korea. You’re way off the mark here for the 1970s and later but probably close for anything prior.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: wolflars

Or just flat out unlikely. The problem with US operational theory in the 1980s (ALB 2000) was that it was designed for the short run, light on the defense but heavy on localized attacks with intent to disrupt and dislocate. The US Army basically accepted that Soviet doctrine (which is essentially a large scale Recon-push) necessitates a thorough and detailed plan that is to be followed exact. This has several effects: 1) they would hit incredibly hard exactly where they intended and 2) it would be rather inflexible with little follow through or adaptation. US doctrine intended to take advantage of that but would have been almost wholly dependant on the successful deployment of men and equipment (therefore REFORGER). Assuming control of the Atlantic and at least local air superiority this would likely have resulted in just about the ugliest fight in modern warfare. Fast and lethal. The most favorable result the US could have hoped for was that after the 30 day window they had allotted themselves, both forces would be too exhausted to continue offensive operations. So, I guess at that point Nuke or Cease Fire with cease fire being the more likely option.

Or a lull while both sides scramble to mobilise their populations.

Anyway, it sounds like the Russians would have faced chaos in the opening days and weeks as their plan collapsed in the face of events. This fits the pattern of Russia starting all of her wars with a disaster.

However, I would hardly say the Soviets would have had “countless divisions.”

If the Soviets were serious about conquering Western Europe, they would have mobilised their population in the same way they did in 1941. This would lead to a force hundreds of divisions strong.

The First Gulf War has always made me question the plausibility of the US doctrine at that time. It was, after all, supposed to be an example of the ALB 2000 in action. People don’t like to call it unsuccessful, but consider the fact that the great war machine ran out of steam in less than 100 hours (not the 30 days which would have been required in a NATO-WP exchange).

I doubt that the 100 hour length of the campaign is an indication that the coalition had "run out of steam". I think it's an indication of the fact that the Iraqis had been resoundingly defeated in the field and that any more would have a) been gratuitous and b) exceeded the UN mandate.

Deployment took damn near forever too. Yeah, I know there was no pre-positioned equipment etc. etc.

Add that you had limited port facilities, and that it hadn't been planned for. I imagine that using all the ports of Western europe on an existing plan, you could get into the field faster.

Still; moving hundreds of MBTs half way round the world does take a long time no matter how you go about it.

This being said about the two opposing doctrines. There was another very real possibility. NATO pre-emptive attack on the Warsaw Pact. This is another little gem people don’t like to talk about but the fact of the matter is that NATO had several options drawn up here. Likely they would have taken advantage of NATO significant offensive capacity (doctrine and equipment). The Soviets thought this was a real possibility and drew up plans as well. Political considerations aside….who knows. I would speculate this variation would see fewer attempts to exploit and more effort given to disruptive raids and posturing, both conventional and unconventional. Probably a pretty hefty air show too.

I just don't see NATO's motivation for this. What I see as an interesting scenario is one where NATO intervenes in either Hungary 1956 or Czechoslovakia 1968. Not exactly a NATO offensive, but more pro-active than their usual role.

As far as resembling what happened in Korea. You’re way off the mark here for the 1970s and later but probably close for anything prior.

Why off the mark? Russia has fielded mass armies in every war they've fought for hundreds of years; I just can't see the NATO powers being able to provide anything to match the scale of the mobilisation of which Russia is capable.

Of course it probably wouldn't suffice for Russia to win. But it would be a big problem for NATO.