Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
In those three months they also covered more territroy than they did in France, fought more battles, suffered more from partisans, etc.
what if the cold war had turned hot?
- Thread starter pi-r8
- Start date
SeleucusNicator
Diadoch
On the Patriot/Scud thing: my understanding is that what happened in the Gulf War is that Scud missiles had a higher than expected malfunction rate, and the United States assumed that it had shot down all these missiles, when in reality the missiles shot themselves down.
There is a professor at MIT named Barry Posen who is an expert on the Patriot missile system and has written extensively on this.
There is a professor at MIT named Barry Posen who is an expert on the Patriot missile system and has written extensively on this.
Right, that's why they lost 4 times more people dead than they did in France (to be exact, 4.3 times more). Doesn't seem like Russians were using cannon fodder tactics.
Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
Have you not read what I said about Stalingrad? Are you not aware of Zhukov's (in)famous quote about how to advance through a minefield? Of course they were using goddamn cannon fodder tactics. If you'd actually pay attention to what I posted, you'd see that you're on about a completely different time period than I am, in your usual quest to glorify everything Russian.
Many Russian troops were summarily executed by Germans. Hence fewer were taken captive than elsewhere. There were less deserters because Stalin punished desertion in a way that made the Germans less frightening than their own people. This of course made them fight harder than the French oftentimes - not that the French didn't fight hard - out of sheer desperation. If you pretty much guaranteed to die no matter what, it's best to go out fighting.
I still fail to see what any of this has to do with my original post that you felt the need to argue with.
This time my quest to glorify everything Russian started from message about miserable failures and huge casualties of Soviet army in 1941.
For the number of captives - you probably didn't notice, but the numbers I gave included total irrecoverable losses, KIA, MIA and captured. So, the fact that in the USSR there were less people captured doesn't change the whole number.
And I don't understand how using cannon fodder tactics can lead to relatively less casualties and in the end, better results than not using it. The possible explanations is that either allies in France used that tactics too, or they didn't manage to fight so well as Soviets did. But I doubt you will accept such explanation.
For the number of captives - you probably didn't notice, but the numbers I gave included total irrecoverable losses, KIA, MIA and captured. So, the fact that in the USSR there were less people captured doesn't change the whole number.
And I don't understand how using cannon fodder tactics can lead to relatively less casualties and in the end, better results than not using it. The possible explanations is that either allies in France used that tactics too, or they didn't manage to fight so well as Soviets did. But I doubt you will accept such explanation.
Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
You're beginning to vex me. Note the word "Stalingrad" in my argument. The USSR used your so-called "cannon fodder tactics" at "Stalingrad." That's a wee bit of a different time period than what you're on about in the first bloody place.
Nor did I say it should change the whole number. I did notice all of what you said. My point was that the reason the number of Russian deaths was so much higher than French was because there was more actual combat on the Ostfront, as France was a war of manoeuvre, whereas the Ostfront was more a war of attrition - not to say there wasn't a lot of manouvring there as well, my point is that there was significantly more attrition involved than in France - and the Germans were far less likely to take untermenschen Slavs captive than Aryan Frenchmen.
The real explanation is simple. Germany fought in France for less than three months. The French weren't as desperate as the Russians, due to the fact they weren't being summarily executed - not nearly as often, anyway - and the punishment for desertion wasn't a lifetime in a Siberian gulag. Finally, France was outmanoeuvred, so there was very little actual combat in the West compared to the East. It's like saying the Chinese were better soldiers and fought the Japanese with more success than the Americans because more Japanese died there.
Completely different situations, completely different geography and completely different methods create completely different results. France and Russia are completely different kettles of fish, so stop trying to illustrate Russian awesomeness and superiority by comparing them.
Well, you probably mean that Soviets used this tactics at Stalingrad, but didn't use it in the first three months of war? Correct?
At first, I was replying to your general statement:
The Soviet Union had a lot of soldiers. Lots and lots of soldiers. Their average age happened to be 15.7 years. 15.7 years! Stalin beat Hitler in large part by simply throwing troops at him.
I'm not going to disprove all the particular cases, like Stalingrad, because I'm not saying that Stalin or Zhukov never used such tactics, but claiming that USSR won the war in large part by throwing soldiers to death is incorrect. Big losses of the USSR in 1941 and later have another reason - the same as big French losses in 1940. That was the purpose of my illustration with numbers.
BTW, you didn't explain your strange passage about age.
If China won the war against Japan and the USA lost to Japan in a few weeks - I would say that Chinese fought the Japanese with more success than the Americans.
Situations were different. The enemy was the same, his advanced tactics and experience was the same, even better in 1941. And heavy losses of France and USSR at first were similar. The Soviet people, not only Russians won the war by hard fighting at the first place, not by piling the enemy with corpses of soldiers. Do you really see in this statement illustration of Russian superiority before other nations?
Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
Pretty much.
If you look at the paragraph you cropped that from, I mention Stalingrad in there. I'm not going back to check it, especially now I'm actually typing, but I'm sure I mention Stalingrad in there. And let's not forget, many major battles were fought like Stalingrad on a smaller scale, so there was most definitely an element of cannon fodder-ness (I invented a new word, I'm awesome) involved in Russian strategy.
You mean about the average age of Russian soldiers? I should point out that that's only soldiers, not officers, but it's correct within a decimal place or two. I'll try and find the book I got it from, either among my uni notes or online. It's a Russian book, translated.
I don't get what you mean by this.
Russia's materiel was also much better than France's. The T-34 was a fantastic tank, and the Russian air force was larger than the luftwaffe. The Russians had numerical superiority in many things, actually. They were completely different scenarios. Germany had never faced an equal enemy that they actually had to fight before. Of course they were going to suffer severe casualties, as they would have if France hadn't screwed up strategically.
For which period? In order to "compensate" age of only one 40-year old soldier you will need to have 36 of 15-years. Or 15 of 14-years. I don't understand how this is possible. The USSR must have army by 80%-90% consisting of children to get an average age of 15.7, whereas (IIRC) USSR didn't mobilize people younger than 18 at all.
I mean that the USSR was more successful in fighting with Germans (comparing to France in our case) not because they killed more Germans. The ratio of losses and the result of war were different. If you apply these criteria to China and the USA against Japan, you will get that Americans were more successful than Chinese.
Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
SeleucusNicator's post wasn't.PAGE FOUR
is all![[offtopic]](/images/smilies/offtopic.gif "Offtopic [offtopic]")
Yeah, I think we veered off the main point a while ago. But does anyone else have anything to say on the matter? I think we pretty much covered it, unless people want to get really specific with time periods or scenarios.
budweiser
King of the Beers
I grew up in and lived through the 80s. I dont think a conventional Warsaw Pact invasion would have gotten past Germany. I'm not so sure about a 70s conflict, except Russian tanks were pretty much designed to fight on steppes, not wooded hilly terrain and NATO pretty much had better planes even in the 70s anyway.
Gooblah
Heh...
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,282
I've been scouring the net for information on this recently, but I've been unable to find much of anything. I guess some of this stuff is still classified, but I'd love to see what people here know about this subject.
Let's suppose that relations between NATO and the warsaw pact (WP) broke down, and turned into a full-scale war. Suppose further that leaders on both sides are sane enough not to use strategic nuclear weapons, since it's pretty obvious that that would result in a nuclear Armageddon that would annihilate both sides.
However, some tactical nukes WOULD be used. From what I've read, it seems that the battle plans for both sides relied heavily on tactical nukes, so it's unrealistic to consider a war without them. Since these have never been used in any real conflict, it's hard to tell what they might do, but I guess they'd be pretty much the same as a very large conventional bomb.
The year matters a lot of course. In the 50's, it seems like the US had an overwhelming nuclear advantage, so no contest there. And in the 80's, the USSR was falling apart and Reagan massively ramped up US military spending, so probably no contest there either. I'm more interested in the 60's and 70's, which seem like more of a fair fight. Let's pretend that the Cuban missile crisis sparked the war, so we're talking mid 60's. Of course the USA was busy with Vietnam at that time, but I'm sure that in the event of a real war with the WP we would have immediately withdrawn all troops from Vietnam.
So, who comes out on top? The Godless communists, or the forces of Freedom and Liberty?
From what I can tell, NATO would not have stood a chance. We were badly outnumbered by WP troops, and we would have had difficulty transporting divisions from the USA to the front lines in Germany. I also think that politics would have worked against us, since the liberal democracies of the west would have been far more willing to talk surrender than the rulers of the USSR, especially after what they went through in WW2.
Read Pat Frank's Alas, Babylon, it deals with this quite realistically. Set in the late '50s/early 60's.
Basically, the US would be hoed except for extreme rural areas (which suck anyways), same with Russia. Europe would be gone. Parts of the Middle East would also be at play, but the rest of the world would be fine. China, Japan, India, and Brazil would take control of the world stage.
Imperialmajesty
Emperor
As we have seen, in a conventional brawl, Soviet equipment rarely comes out ahead against the American military. Why should we suspect that it could not come out any differently? Taking nukes out of the equation.
The time for the USSR to "win" seems to be in the 50's 60's and the early 70's. The scales began to tip decisively in the favor of Nato with the introduction of the F-14 and F-15, and I personally think the killer blow came with the introduction of the M1-A1.
For the USSR to win after the introduction of the M1 A1, I think they would have had to launch a truly massive blitzkrieg before the NATO war machine unlimbered. However, I doubt the USSR would be able to hide such a buildup.
Either way, Nuclear Weapons are the great equalizer.
Can anyone with a military background say whether I am out of my mind or not?
The time for the USSR to "win" seems to be in the 50's 60's and the early 70's. The scales began to tip decisively in the favor of Nato with the introduction of the F-14 and F-15, and I personally think the killer blow came with the introduction of the M1-A1.
For the USSR to win after the introduction of the M1 A1, I think they would have had to launch a truly massive blitzkrieg before the NATO war machine unlimbered. However, I doubt the USSR would be able to hide such a buildup.
Either way, Nuclear Weapons are the great equalizer.
Can anyone with a military background say whether I am out of my mind or not?
bender19
Warlord
In my opinion there's some strange views on nuclear confrontation. The assumption of a limited tactical nuclear war seems obscene to me.
If the Soviets starts wiping out NATO forces with tactical nukes and then strolling through the gaps surely you don't think NATO won't up the game. The first nuclear attack will result in an inevitable escalation with 2 possible results a diplomatic solution or total destruction.
Hypothetically lets say the Soviets hit NATO positions in the Fulda Gap. The rational NATO response would be nuke the staging areas for the subsequent attack, or the already in transit spearheads, the fuel and amunition supply depots supporting and the airfields supporting.
At the end of the day tactical nuclear warfare won't work and here's why: you open a gap in the enemies line with a nuke, you send your spearhead through. Inevitably the enemy will choose to stop your spearhead with its own nukes. So both conventional forces end up almost destroyed due to nukes and fighting in a nuclear wasteland, their supplies will likely have been nuked and they'll be carrying a force increasingly sick due to radiation. The nature of war is such that if you fire 1 nuclear shell you'll have 2 fired back, you'll then fire 3 or 4 next time and they'll fire 7 or 8 back.
You can't have a hypothetical where NATO forces gaurding the Fulda Gap are nuked and thus can't mass and not assume the opposite will also occur. If NATO can't mass troops to fortify areas than nor could the Soviets mass troops to form spearheads.
lovett
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 2,570
An early line of argument raised an interesting question in my mind.
Let's say that the USSR a conventional invasion and gets halfway through Europe before nuclear war inevitable breaks out. The Warsaw Pact is a smoking ruin and the USA is crippled. What happens to Europe?
Presumable the Soviet Union had most of the continent targeted with nuclear weapons. Would they go through with this, launch nukes at land they already controlled chock full of their own military? Especially when they desperately needed said weaponry to make up for the gap nuclear arms gap between themselves and NATO?
Would the USA target France, Benelux and West Germany? Seems a bit of a tough call to make. You'd have to change where your missiles were pointed and consciously target allies. Moreover, it seems likely that the US would be desperately trying to destroy Russian facilities. Nuking an ally might be troublesome.
So, what happens to Europe? Speculation anyone?
Let's say that the USSR a conventional invasion and gets halfway through Europe before nuclear war inevitable breaks out. The Warsaw Pact is a smoking ruin and the USA is crippled. What happens to Europe?
Presumable the Soviet Union had most of the continent targeted with nuclear weapons. Would they go through with this, launch nukes at land they already controlled chock full of their own military? Especially when they desperately needed said weaponry to make up for the gap nuclear arms gap between themselves and NATO?
Would the USA target France, Benelux and West Germany? Seems a bit of a tough call to make. You'd have to change where your missiles were pointed and consciously target allies. Moreover, it seems likely that the US would be desperately trying to destroy Russian facilities. Nuking an ally might be troublesome.
So, what happens to Europe? Speculation anyone?
This is the biggest crap I have encoutered on the internet so far.
Really.. I espacially joined this forum, on christmas day just for that.
What a load of bullsh*t.
Seriously friend.
You base that on what? Because of the CBRN protection on their later designs?
I'm a Dutch tanker, work on the Leopard2a6 tank an we teach a lot of countries how to work with tanks ( no thanks ) and we know al lot of them.
This is BS
Russian tanks are build for killing and swarming other tanks.. nother more, nothing less.
good night
Similar threads
