4 ms·
My father commanded a heavy weapons company on the Fulda Gap that included M-29s. Despite the fact that the Davy Crockett was very patently a suicide machine, t
by HillRat 12y ago
My father commanded a heavy weapons company on the Fulda Gap that included M-29s. Despite the fact that the Davy Crockett was very patently a suicide machine, the military did not explain to its soldiers that the warheads' radius of effect was larger than the gun's maximum range. However, since the gun operators were chosen from the most academically-accomplished of the enlisted ranks[1], they figured it out pretty fast (as did the platoon officers, who resolved to be very, very far behind the FEBA if the war went hot).
As my father pointed out, the concerns were really academic; if the Soviets did invade Western Europe, US war plans in the 1950s and 1960s involved so liberal a use of tactical and operational nuclear weapons that you wouldn't be safe anywhere between Bonn and Berlin. Victory measured out in teaspoons and kilotons.
[1] As opposed to his heavy mortar platoons, one of whom managed to nearly drop a round on the command tent during an exercise after a private failed to understand the operation of a compass. At least, that was his excuse....
Addendum: I should point out that pretty much every warplan the US came up with in the 1950s was a variation on "use nucs to slow down the Soviets until the Turkish military can mobilize." It wasn't until the professionalization of Western European forces, public hostility towards turning Europe into a smoking crater, and the use of game theory to describe how mobilization could become nuclear escalation that nuclear weapons as a standard battlefield play went away.
However, the Soviets never took the operational and tactical use of nuclear weapons out of their play book; Soviet blitz doctrine in the late 1980s still envisioned using widespread nuclear attacks to soften up NATO forces or deny ground in the face of NATO attacks.
- philwelch 12y agoIt seems a little troubling that the Turkish military was supposed to be the pivotal factor in World War III. Was there any particular reason for that, other than Turkey being right next to Russia and the Crimea? What if the Soviets went after Turkey first?
- HillRat 12y agoAfter WW2, the Turks were the largest standing army in NATO, had performed excellently in the Korean War, were a linchpin between Europe and the Near East, and had a longstanding historical antipathy towards Russia. Basically, the Pentagon trusted the Turks to be more effective war fighters than anyone else in NATO at the time, and to be able to get to any particular front line faster than any other ally. Eventually, the demilitarization of West Germany placed an effective front-line force in place, but in the early Cold War the NATO allies were not really very united.
- IkmoIkmo 12y agoTo this day Turkey has the largest standing army after the US of NATO members, it's not been a pushover for some decades now. Its also got a rather large number of armored units with few rivaling NATO members with the US as exception. It lacks Nuclear weapons (although it has the capacity to build and deliver, and participates in Nuclear sharing treaties, a bit like the Netherlands) and it's not better funded than say the UK, but it's pretty massive. Together with the reasons you mentioned (proximity) it makes a pretty decent case.
- jacquesm 12y agoThat's very much incorrect. China, India, North Korea and the Russian Federation precede Turkey as well. South Korea and Pakistan are close (and so is Iran but not so well equipped).
- Luc 12y agoI don't know if the comment was amended, but they're talking about NATO members exclusively. Turkey has a 'deployable military' of 495k according to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO#Military_expenditures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO#Military_...
- jacquesm 12y agoNo, my mistake, thanks for spotting that.
- digi_owl 12y agoThose numbers... F if i know how Norway manages to spend that much on military, when there is a constant complaint about it being underfunded. Btw, i think you need to roll the next 7-8 into one before matching the US troop numbers. Nuts.
- kybernetyk 12y ago> Soviet blitz doctrine in the late 1980s still envisioned using widespread nuclear attacks to soften up NATO forces or deny ground in the face of NATO attacks. Well, nowadays Russia considers "limited nuclear strikes" a form of de-escalation: http://thebulletin.org/why-russia-calls-limited-nuclear-strike-de-escalation http://thebulletin.org/why-russia-calls-limited-nuclear-stri...