During the cold war, how did NATO and the WP plan/expect to fight the conventional war after nuclear armageddon?

by SirJorn

Let's assume the cold war went hot and the WP launches their attack plans on western europe. Both sides use tactical nukes on each others forces and it eventually escalates into a full blown nuclear exchange - the nuclear holocaust is a fact. To say that it would be bad is an understatement, but what if not all military forces and capabilites were wiped out?

  1. Was the plan to just keep fighting "normally" in whatever capacity possible?
  2. How well did both sides prepare and train their forces for a nuclear battlefield?
  3. How well could you reasonably expect either side to perform on a nuclear battlefield?
  4. What was the projected military losses to nuclear weapons on both sides?
  5. How much did the strategies and tactics used by both sides take nuclear weapons into account?
  6. Did americas plans surrounding shipping over troops to western europe by sea and air take nuclear weapons into account?
  7. How would the naval aspect of the war be affected by nuclear armageddon? Was naval forces already at sea targets for nukes? If so, how was their ability to defend themselves?

If there are any other questions or aspects that would be interesting that I've left out, please feel free to bring them up and answer them.

Noakesy99

I can't answer all of these questions. But I do know that the Warsaw pact forces were massively more prepared for warfare on a nuclear battlefield than the West was. For example, the Warsaw Pact had given serious thought to developing various vehicles specifically for cleaning nuclear material off roads and other vital areas, whereas the British Army's only attempt at this was to issue the men with more fire extinguishers than were previously issued!

From a British perspective, most armoured vehicles developed during the later cold war, say 1970 - 1990, were built to operate in a nuclear environment also, for example the Warrior IFV and Challenger I and II were made in this way, and so were later marks of Cheiftain.

The Warsaw Pact's doctrine envisaged tactical nuclear weapons being used at key points, delivered by aircraft, as well as land base systems such as the Scud, made infamous by the First Gulf War, whereas The British and Americans planned first to rely on nuclear artillery, such as the Davey Crockett, and then later also switched to missile based delivery systems.

The Western focus on nuclear artillery over aircraft makes sense as the Warsaw pact was, and Russia certainly still is, far superior in terms of air defence, something that we will perhaps remember only after we try to invade Syria!

italicsThe Pentomic Eraitalics by Lieutenant Colonel Bacevich explains in much detail how the US Army planned to fight on a nuclear battlefield, and is also free as a pdf if you google it!

Will try to answer some other questions later if you are still interested

Tom