NATO/Warsaw Pact force balance

[alexkvaskov]

Can anyone provide an approximate overview of NATO and Warsaw Pact forces facing off across the border in Germany during the late 80s? (if even possible)

i.e. how much of what and where was deployed on each side of the border

 

[Beatmaster]

Can anyone provide an approximate overview of NATO and Warsaw Pact forces facing off across the border in Germany during the late 80s? (if even possible)

i.e. how much of what and where was deployed on each side of the border

There was a online balance sheet but i cannot find it anymore.
But it is commonly know that the w-pact did have almost twice the numbers of NATO.
However NATO maintained a edge in technological and advanced weapons.
So the Russian maintained the WOII strategy numbers over quality.
For example the MBT's of NATO and its airplanes where by far better then most of the units Russia could field, but against 1 NATO MBT there where like 3 MBT's of Russia.

But here is a good example:

The command structure of NATO is designed for a purely defensive war but it would function effectively only if provided with two main factors:
Those political decisions to assign national forces are taken quickly so that NATO forces can mobilise in time to meet a surprise Warsaw Pact attack.
That the Atlantic air and sea passages are kept open to allow the crucial US reinforcements to cross to Europe.

Preparing contingency plans, pre-positioning huge stocks of equipment and supplies in Europe, and conducting large scale exercises with an emphasis on heavy mechanised forces were some of the main NATO tasks carried out to prepare for a possible Warsaw Pact attack.

The organisation of both sides stayed much the same throughout the 1970s and 80s, as NATO and Warsaw Pact armed forces continued to grow in quantity and quality. At its 40th anniversary in 1989, NATO stood at 16 members, having been joined by Spain in 1982. At that time, 7.5 million Warsaw Pact soldiers and almost 8.5 million NATO soldiers were in the active and reserve ground forces alone. Warsaw Pact soldiers were backed by 145,000 main battle tanks and artillery pieces, against NATO's 61,000. Successful as it was as a collective defence organization, NATO had but to sit and prepare in the event of a direct military attack from the Warsaw Pact

Source:

Anyway a good thumb rule is that W-pact outmatched NATO 3 to 1 in numbers.
And NATO outmatched W-Pact in terms of Tech and quality.
I am sure that others on this forum have more accurate info.

 

[alexkvaskov]

WARPAC's numerical superiority is something that crops up every time when hypothetical WP/NATO conventional scenarios are discussed.

Thank you for the link and for taking the time to respond to my question.

 

[Waylander]

I wouldn't go as far as saying that NATO had a big advantage in technology when it comes to ground forces.
MBTs is a good example. The Abrams and Leopard II were very good but they were not the sole MBT in NATO. The Challenger I was ok. But a big number of NATOs tank force was still compromised of M60s, M48s, Leopard Is, AMX-30s and Chieftains. Taking this into account and looking at the numbers of T-64/72/80s with T-55s forming the second line and reserves in the WarPac forces it is hard to see an advantage in quality for NATO. The same applies to IFVs.
Or look at artillery/MLRS or Air Defense. Arguably NATO had neither an advantage in quality nor in quantity.

My point is that it is hard to generalize and one should refrain from doing so. The force composition in the late cold war is too complicated for this.

 

[kato]

Eh, it's not that complicated. "Come at us with too much and we nuke you". Pretty simple. On both sides, although a bit more refined and lower-level on the NATO side.

 

[Waylander]

Well, that's the simple plan...
Nukes are the reason why Cold War what ifs are not fun. It's like two children hitting the playboard with all it's beautyfull little tokens screaming "I win!".

 

[Beatmaster]

I wouldn't go as far as saying that NATO had a big advantage in technology when it comes to ground forces.
MBTs is a good example. The Abrams and Leopard II were very good but they were not the sole MBT in NATO. The Challenger I was ok. But a big number of NATOs tank force was still compromised of M60s, M48s, Leopard Is, AMX-30s and Chieftains. Taking this into account and looking at the numbers of T-64/72/80s with T-55s forming the second line and reserves in the WarPac forces it is hard to see an advantage in quality for NATO. The same applies to IFVs.
Or look at artillery/MLRS or Air Defense. Arguably NATO had neither an advantage in quality nor in quantity.

My point is that it is hard to generalize and one should refrain from doing so. The force composition in the late cold war is too complicated for this.

True, and i was not trying to say that NATO did have superiority compared to the former USSR but specially with the backing of both the UK and the US there where several key elements where NATO did have the edge in terms of tech towards the massive numbers of the W-pact.

What comes into mind is that USSR did have more nuclear weapons and a much bigger army, and vast resources stockpiled.
I honestly do sometimes wonder how long it would have taken NATO to actually bring the soviet storm to a halt IF such a disastrous war would have opened up.
And specially without the use of nukes i could see the US choosing to trade a HUGE part of Europa to stop a hypothetical confrontation from getting to the point of no return.

Because after reading some online sources it was clear that W-Pact + its resources would have been able to triple their army if push came to shove in a reasonable short timeframe.
And i cannot see the EU to withstand that amount of army for very long.

But back in topic the W-Pact was by far bigger then NATO and the capacity was largely underestimated back then by western leaders.
After the fall of the great wall documents revealed how much the USSR could bring into the fight, and according to books and such IF Russia would have gone into war with NATO that conventional there was no way that NATO could hold out.
BUT it is largely considered that in such a event the EU mainland would be occupied by W-Pac soldiers and that the UK would be the next battle ground where the US would be able to stop them for the first time.

So in terms if numbers the w-pac was huge, and NATO did have a false sense of security.

 

[crest]

Can anyone provide an approximate overview of NATO and Warsaw Pact forces facing off across the border in Germany during the late 80s? (if even possible)

i.e. how much of what and where was deployed on each side of the border

Going to need to be a bit more spicific then the late 80s as forces tended to fluctuate aswell as are you just looking for ground forces? or do you wish to conciter all avaible forces that could be quickly brought to bear in the area in a short amout of time. Such as balistic missles and mainland bombers and fighters with refuling capablity flying bombers and escorts to russian was option even in the 80's

also i think doctrin has a big place here the sovit style of fighting was quite a bit diffrent then ours and realy worth looking into if your not familer with there systome
and just a note i always feel needs to be pointed out for all the talk you hear of russian tanks its importent to remember that they were a artillery army above all elce with some massive divisions of guns aswell as every foce had its own artillery
erourp is very lucky thoes guns never went into action not much would have been left standing affter a full soviet satruation

 

[alexkvaskov]

Going to need to be a bit more spicific then the late 80s as forces tended to fluctuate aswell as are you just looking for ground forces? or do you wish to conciter all avaible forces that could be quickly brought to bear in the area in a short amout of time. Such as balistic missles and mainland bombers and fighters with refuling capablity flying bombers and escorts to russian was option even in the 80's

also i think doctrin has a big place here the sovit style of fighting was quite a bit diffrent then ours and realy worth looking into if your not familer with there systome
and just a note i always feel needs to be pointed out for all the talk you hear of russian tanks its importent to remember that they were a artillery army above all elce with some massive divisions of guns aswell as every foce had its own artillery
erourp is very lucky thoes guns never went into action not much would have been left standing affter a full soviet satruation

Primarily ground forces, but some general numbers regarding aviation would be nice as well.