| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Manfred |
Posted - 03/28/2012 : 04:37:12
1， 毛子對西歐的突襲計劃裡究竟是完全依賴自己的軍力只是藉道盟國還是在某種程度上依賴一些盟國的軍力？如果是的話這種依賴度如何。
2， 前東歐集團軍隊對人員損失的承受度如何。因為前段時間研究柏林牆有報導指曾經有東德青年翻牆不成被擊中跌落東德界內，沒有東德士兵前去營救。曾經給的理由是不久前有東德軍官在柏林牆附近被西德軍擊斃。
|
| 6 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Manfred |
Posted - 03/30/2012 : 06:40:33
quote:
Originally posted by Bryan C
Red Storm Rising is different, due to USSR wanted to use chemical and biological weapons on both East and West Germany as first strike option, that the East Germany leadership was against it. And it resulted in USSR and the Red Army went to the war against NATO alone by itself, where you see during the "exercises" Red Army officers didn't use their East German Army guides while training in East Germany and got lost a few times.
As for a more complete picture of the WW3 with whole Warsaw Pact, you might want to read Team Yankee (c 1987) by Harold Coyle, which was based on a subset of General Sir John Hackett's novel The Third World War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_Yankee
>>>但北約方面在美帝大規模從本土增援前還是要靠西歐那些小兄弟擋一擋的。
Depends on which part. Before WW3 starts, US would have REFORGER of sending troops on civilian jet planes to Europe to meet up with pre-positioned depot full of tanks and APC/IFV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_Reforger
After the war starts, those heavy divisions' tanks and vehicles in US would have to be transported by ships to Europe, and Warsaw Pact Navies/USSR Red Banner Fleets would try to stop the re-enforcement.
And it also needed France to re-join NATO command and move its forces into West Germany before the war start. Remember, France was out of NATO command structure for most of the Cold War....
Many Thanks |
| LE323 |
Posted - 03/29/2012 : 12:17:22
quote:
Originally posted by dasha
現在關於部隊人員損失多少就會失去戰力,是依據兩次大戰的經驗,但當時的資料就顯示不同國家不同,常用的損失三成是德國,英國是損失1/4部隊就完了,奧匈與俄羅斯在那個時代更慘,但法國卻是驚人的1/3!
雖然這是前線部隊的損失比例,但前線部隊全數失去戰力時,你政府也不可能撐得下去--因為這些失去戰力的部隊,不是拿不起槍,而是不肯前進,但轉向後方對準自己國家首都,你會發現他們力量還強得很......
那日本軍隊要損失多少才會失去戰力
不會比法國的1/3更驚人吧 |
| dasha |
Posted - 03/29/2012 : 10:18:40
現在關於部隊人員損失多少就會失去戰力,是依據兩次大戰的經驗,但當時的資料就顯示不同國家不同,常用的損失三成是德國,英國是損失1/4部隊就完了,奧匈與俄羅斯在那個時代更慘,但法國卻是驚人的1/3!
雖然這是前線部隊的損失比例,但前線部隊全數失去戰力時,你政府也不可能撐得下去--因為這些失去戰力的部隊,不是拿不起槍,而是不肯前進,但轉向後方對準自己國家首都,你會發現他們力量還強得很...... |
| Bryan C |
Posted - 03/29/2012 : 03:19:12
Red Storm Rising is different, due to USSR wanted to use chemical and biological weapons on both East and West Germany as first strike option, that the East Germany leadership was against it. And it resulted in USSR and the Red Army went to the war against NATO alone by itself, where you see during the "exercises" Red Army officers didn't use their East German Army guides while training in East Germany and got lost a few times.
As for a more complete picture of the WW3 with whole Warsaw Pact, you might want to read Team Yankee (c 1987) by Harold Coyle, which was based on a subset of General Sir John Hackett's novel The Third World War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_Yankee
>>>但北約方面在美帝大規模從本土增援前還是要靠西歐那些小兄弟擋一擋的。
Depends on which part. Before WW3 starts, US would have REFORGER of sending troops on civilian jet planes to Europe to meet up with pre-positioned depot full of tanks and APC/IFV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_Reforger
After the war starts, those heavy divisions' tanks and vehicles in US would have to be transported by ships to Europe, and Warsaw Pact Navies/USSR Red Banner Fleets would try to stop the re-enforcement.
And it also needed France to re-join NATO command and move its forces into West Germany before the war start. Remember, France was out of NATO command structure for most of the Cold War....
|
| Manfred |
Posted - 03/29/2012 : 02:20:00
quote:
Originally posted by dasha
就像北約中美軍只是主力,不是一切,華約中其他附庸國也只是總兵力的一部份,試探敵方防線強度的第一波梯隊.
人員損失承受度大概都是假定損失三成,實際上沒打過很難知道.
Dasha:
小弟有此一問主要是受紅潮洶湧的影響。該書描繪的藍圖完全是蘇聯軍的作戰。其盟國基本不出力。但北約方面在美帝大規模從本土增援前還是要靠西歐那些小兄弟擋一擋的。
此外小弟的印像一直以為共產軍不是那麼的在乎傷亡至少應該比北約高不少吧？
|
| dasha |
Posted - 03/28/2012 : 09:28:26
就像北約中美軍只是主力,不是一切,華約中其他附庸國也只是總兵力的一部份,試探敵方防線強度的第一波梯隊.
人員損失承受度大概都是假定損失三成,實際上沒打過很難知道. |
|
|
