USSR vs. USA

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Vrylakas
If you Include the -Stan's, Ukraine, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Eastern Germany, probably they've would have got help from China after their revolution, and then we're closing to 2 billions, atleast 1,5 (inhb, not soldiers)

Depends when, again. I've already mentioned that Eastern Europe was a part of the Soviet empire and had little love for it; they would not have fought for it. China might have sent soldiers to aid a Soviet war effort at certain times, but not others - remember that China and the USSR fought a border war in 1969, and Mao sided with Nixon to isolate the USSR in the 1970s. [/B]

In 1945, the KMT were still holding the mainland. The Chinese Communists were in no condition or mind, to send soldiers out to help the Soviets, esp when Stalin didn't give them much of any help either, during the course of their struggle with the KMT. The KMT itself had cosy relations with the Soviets, esp in the early years, and its organisation was actually based on the CPSU. Jiang himself studied in a military college in the Soviet Union.

In 1949, when the Chinese Communists finally emerged on top of the struggle with the KMT; everyone was surprised, incl Stalin and the Soviets. I think Stalin was suspicious of the PRC, viewing them as competition for the leadership of the Communist bloc. There're no love lost betw the two sides.

In any war betw the Western Allies and the Soviets, the Chinese were probable to stand aloof, to concentrate on developing their devastated country...

 

[AccessDenied]

Who would have won?
Interesting.

In 40s-50s US developed many plans of an attack on USSR such as famous "Dropshot" (year of development - 1949; Projected beginning of the war - 1957; 300 atomic bombs + 250,000 tons of conventional bombs in the first month of war on USSR), but the US command decided, that USSR is too strong to defeat and didn't attack.

If the war started in 45-48, Soviet Union probably would have occupied Western Europe (or at least part of it), but wouldn't be able to invade UK or US.
US starts atomic war, but because of lack of bombs and especially bombers with little success.
Great starvation and economical crisis in Extended Soviet Union. Resistance in Western Europe
Then, 3 variants:
1. EUSSR creates it's own A-bomb in a short time. Rapid economy growth. EUSSR wins.
2. EUSSR can't create it's own A-bomb in a short time. Economy can't fully recover after WW2 and war against US-UK in Europe.
US develops good strategical bomber. US wins.
3. Mix of #1 and #2. Long, long war with millions dead.

If the war starts in 49-54, after the creation of A-bomb by USSR.
USSR occupies Europe in short time.
US drops 100-300 A-bombs on USSR's main cities but loses strategical aviation and unable to continue mass-bombing.
USSR loses millions of people, industry is heavily damaged, economical crisis, mass starvation.
Long war, US wins only if able to overpass Soviet air defense in a very short time; USSR wins if able to recover after powerful A-bombing and create Tu-95 and ICBM in a short time.

If war starts in 55-58.
US starts mass air attack on USSR and drops hundreds of A-bombs on USSR. USSR occupies Western Europe. USSR attacks USA. Millions dead in USSR, USA and Europe. At that time US nuclear forces were much stronger, than USSR's. Still not strong enough to achieve guaranteed victory.

If war starts in 59-64.
USSR would have beed able to survive after US strike and occupy Western Europe. USA would have been nuked. Terrible economy crisis in the world, the recovery would have taken decades.

If war starts in 65+
Nobody would have won in the last war.

==============================================

If any nuclear weapon is restricted.


USSR always had strong ground forces, and USA had powerful fleet. (that's because of geography of these countries)
So, if the war would have started, USSR easily could occupy the whole Europe.
After that, USSR would have become much bigger and stronger, than USA and would have won economically.

 

[allhailIndia]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade


Tsk. Stick to what you know, little boy. Whatever that may be is as yet uncertain.

On what examination of the US SIOP of the early 1960s do you base your 100% casualty rate? Back up your statements with precise targetting data and casualty estimates, or they are simply baseless and wild speculation.

The SS-4s and SS-5s could not hit New York from the Soviet Union; they are MRBMs, rather than ICBMs. The Soviet arsenal that could touch the continental United States at this time was extremely limited, and vulnerable to a first strike.
The Soviets did not have a great satellite surveillance capability at that stage; this was only 5 years after Sputnik, and should not be confused with the technological situation in later years.

As to it being constantly ready, this is not the case. The Soviet nuclear arsenal was not on its highest state of readiness during the Crisis, by virtue of the fact that it could not be due to operational problems. This particular piece of intelligence was supplied to the US by Oleg Penkovsky, thus enabling Kennedy to call the Soviet bluff in regards to such matters; he knew what cards they were playing with.

Nuclear winter is a theory, rather than gospel. Bringing up China does show the flaws inherent in your argument - They did not test their first nuclear bomb until October 16th, 1964, nor test their first nuclear capable missile until 1966 - some two and four years later, respectively.

The Soviets relied upon their bombers as a nuclear attack force at this stage - Tu-95 Bears, Tu-16 Badgers, Tu-4 Bull and M-4 Bisons, with quite a small missile force that was rather vulnerable to SAC.
Some Il-28 light bombers were deployed to Cuba, but otherwise could not hit the US, and would have had a hard time getting through TAC anyway.

Compared to this, the US outnumbered the Soviets with better quality bombers waiting at failsafe points around the Soviet Union 24 hours a day, had vastly more ICBMS, more Polaris SSBNs, and many aircraft carriers with nuclear capable A-4 Skyhawks and A-3 Skywarriors.

The Russkies realized this. There was a MASSIVe strategic imbalance, which they unsuccessfully sought to rectify by placing missiles in Cuba.

And finally, the "10, 20 million dead tops" line is from General "Buck" Turgidson. Reflect on that.

I admit I may have gotten my military facts wrong,
but his much I know and the loss of 1/8 of its population, mostly male, would not have left the US in great shape either. Plus, the radioactive dust and debris thrown up by these nuclear warhead, would have blanketed the earth and cut off the sun and trapped greenhouse gases at the same time!!!
It is a little hard to believe that 3000 nuclear bombs unleashed in the atmosphere, would have no effect whatsoever on the entire planet

 

[Simon Darkshade]

For further clarification, the quote of '10-20 million dead tops' is from the film Dr. Strangelove.
The actual figure would probably have been substantially lower with a US first strike, combined with their edge in defensive fighters as against smaller numbers of Soviet bombers.
The nuclear winter scenario you put forth is just one scenario, and one theory. Most of the weapons would have been low airburst or ground burst.

And in regards to AccessDenied, the US certainly did NOT lack bombers in 1945-1948. They had thousands of them.
The USSR was not creating operable Tu-95s and ICBMs in the early 1950s, particularly in the aftermath of nuclear attack.
Up until the mid 1960s, the winner of such a conflict, with the employment of their full arsenal, was undoubtably the US.
During the US nadir and the USSR build up of the 1970s, the Reds were in front.
After 1983, when the big 5 started to come on line fully in combination with new training, doctrine and organisation, Ivan would have been kicked again.

 

[allhailIndia]

Ground burst or low-air burst weapons aren't any more eco- friendly my dear Darkshade, they unleash Gotterdammerung on the world anyway.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

A better world was born out of Götterdämmerung.
Anyway, your understanding of nuclear weapons and nuclear war is flawed by your conception that they are some sort of magical eldritch world ending devices, when all they were and are is rather powerful bombs with some interesting side effects.

 

[EdwardTking]

Three points:

(1) The USA was surprised by the Japanese at Pearl harbour; the USSR by the Germans with Barbarossa. Both the USA and the USSR had plenty of intelligence information; but chose to ignore it.
After that; they both became very wary.

I really don't think that either side could ever have launched a substantive preemptive strike against an unsuspecting enemy.

(2) Various assumptions are made about allies. If the USA had
asked Britain to join in an attack; it would most likely have been told; that is a stupid idea and Britain would have stayed neutral.
What possible interest could there be for Britain in invading the USSR?

(3) Troops would have been reluctant to fight.

(4) The people at home (whether in the USA or the USSR) would not support a high casualty aggressive war.

(5) There would not necessarily be any winner.

(6) China, Japan & India would most likely remain neutral and
would have dominated the world by the end of the 20th century.

 

[MadScot]

Originally posted by EdwardTking
Three points:

(1) The USA was surprised by the Japanese at Pearl harbour; the USSR by the Germans with Barbarossa. Both the USA and the USSR had plenty of intelligence information; but chose to ignore it.
After that; they both became very wary.

I really don't think that either side could ever have launched a substantive preemptive strike against an unsuspecting enemy.

Afghanistan 1979. September 11th. Fall of the Shah. How many intelligence failures post war shall we recount?

(2) Various assumptions are made about allies. If the USA had
asked Britain to join in an attack; it would most likely have been told; that is a stupid idea and Britain would have stayed neutral.
What possible interest could there be for Britain in invading the USSR?

For USSR substitute Iraq.

(3) Troops would have been reluctant to fight.

Never been a problem at the start of a war before. Germans fought on to the ruins of Berlin in WW2. French d*mn near destroyed a generation in WW1 before mutinying briefly, then returned to the fray.

(4) The people at home (whether in the USA or the USSR) would not support a high casualty aggressive war.

War weariness in WW1 did not set in for most combatants until approx 2-3 years after major casualties were incurred. I see no reason to believe any differently of a well motivated population. (i.e. propaganda is a wonderful thing)

(5) There would not necessarily be any winner.

Britain entered WW2 not really expecting to "win" by any reasonable estimate. Sometimes the result of not fighting is perceived as worse than the result of a war.

(6) China, Japan & India would most likely remain neutral and
would have dominated the world by the end of the 20th century.

I'm sure the two superpowers would have found a few spare nukes to take down any likely post war rivals. After all, what are they going to do. Make the US or Rusiian rubble bounce some more. (Similarly, I doubt the Russians would have spared the UK or France, regardless of their stance regarding a war. It's easier just to press the big red button, I suspect.

 

[allhailIndia]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
A better world was born out of Götterdämmerung.
Anyway, your understanding of nuclear weapons and nuclear war is flawed by your conception that they are some sort of magical eldritch world ending devices, when all they were and are is rather powerful bombs with some interesting side effects.

Sure when you are sitting 10,000 miles away, watching the Ashes series.

Also, I don't think military planners usually take in the best case scenario

 

[Simon Darkshade]

You're just jealous because we whipped the absolute pants off you in the World Cup.

 

[allhailIndia]

I admit defeat on that front, but I continue to maintain that a 3000 nuke exchange would have left no victors on any side!!

 

[AccessDenied]

Simon Darkshade
And in regards to AccessDenied, the US certainly did NOT lack bombers in 1945-1948. They had thousands of them.
Wrong.
Strategical nuclear bombers by years:

1945 - 15
1946 - 148
1947 - 319
1948 - 556
1949 - 525

Bombers Weapons (Force Loadings) - Total (Force Loading Weapons):

1945 - 6
1946 - 11
1947 - 32
1948 - 100
1949 - 200

The Data is from NRDC - Natural Resources Defense Council
www.nrdc.org

Up until the mid 1960s, the winner of such a conflict, with the employment of their full arsenal, was undoubtably the US.
.
Wrong.
If US had enough chances to win, it would have attaked.

After 1983, when the big 5 started to come on line fully in combination with new training, doctrine and organisation, Ivan would have been kicked again.
Ivan... Kicked again...
Yeah, very "well-reasoned" statement

 

[allhailIndia]

Whew, I thought I made a few sahafisms.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by AccessDenied
Simon Darkshade
And in regards to AccessDenied, the US certainly did NOT lack bombers in 1945-1948. They had thousands of them.
Wrong.
Strategical nuclear bombers by years:

1945 - 15
1946 - 148
1947 - 319
1948 - 556
1949 - 525

Bombers Weapons (Force Loadings) - Total (Force Loading Weapons):

1945 - 6
1946 - 11
1947 - 32
1948 - 100
1949 - 200

The Data is from NRDC - Natural Resources Defense Council
www.nrdc.org

Up until the mid 1960s, the winner of such a conflict, with the employment of their full arsenal, was undoubtably the US.
.
Wrong.
If US had enough chances to win, it would have attaked.

After 1983, when the big 5 started to come on line fully in combination with new training, doctrine and organisation, Ivan would have been kicked again.
Ivan... Kicked again...
Yeah, very "well-reasoned" statement

In terms of the post war period, the US had thousands of bombers. They had well more than 15 B-29s in 1945, not to mention the earlier heavy bombers able to be adapted to carry the bomb.

Secondly, that is a political matter, and a consideration for history. In terms of strategic nuclear arms and the means to deploy them, the US vastly outnumbered the USSR in the 1950s. If it had hit the fan, then things would have worked out this way. To presume that the US would have attacked the USSR in this period is not backed up by reality.

Thirdly, 1983 was when the technological and qualitative developments of the US in the late 1970s and early 1980s started coming on line in force - the M1 Abrams, the M2 Bradley, the Patriot, the AH-64 and the UH-60. In combination with other capabilities, such as the increased Pershing II strength, and the ALCM deployment, as well as conventionally with the MLRS, Ivan would have been very roughly handled. All of the pundits who have examined capabilites and doctrine, such as AirLand Battle, have come to this conclusion. The technological and qualitative edge evaporated the quantitative edge that Ivan had developed. It would not have been a walkover, but in a conventional conflict, NATO would have defeated Ivan.

 

[allhailIndia]

However, it was in the eighties that Gorby came to power and threw the spanners of Glasnost and Perestroika into the works of the Commies.

Besides, the Allied govts, were already getting the real info about the USSR's tottering economy from several moles and defectors, who were later betrayed by Aldrich Ames and saw that onlt a gentle nudge would send the entire edifice of the USSR into dust.

 

[AccessDenied]

Simon Darkshade
In terms of the post war period, the US had thousands of bombers. They had well more than 15 B-29s in 1945
I never argued about that.

US had more than 15 B-29, but only 15 B-29 bombers were in the Strategic Air Command active inventory in 1945.

The same source gives additional information:

"Not all B-29 Boeing bombers were modified to carry nuclear weapons. On 31 December 1946 there were 23 nuclear modified B-29 bombers; on 1 March 1947 there were 35; on 1 December 1948 there were 38; in mid-January 1949 there were 66; and on 1 January 1950 there were 95. See David Alan Rosenberg, "U.S. Nuclear Stockpile, 1945 to 1950," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May 1982, p. 30. The Strategic Air Command was established on 21 March 1946 as a combat command of the Army Air Forces. On 18 September 1947 the Department of the Air Force was created as a military service and SAC was reorganized and realigned."

"Not all of the 385 Convair B-36 bombers that the Air Force accepted were modified to carry nuclear weapons. On 1 December 1948 there were four nuclear modified B-36 bombers; by mid-January 1949 there were 17; and by 1 January 1950 there were 34. Effective 1 October 1955, SAC's four heavy Strategic Reconnaissance Wings were redesignated heavy Bombardment Wings in recognition of the conversion of the RB-36 from a reconnaissance airplane to a bomber."

"Not all of the 370 Boeing B-50 bombers that the Air Force bought were modified to carry nuclear weapons. On 1 December 1948 there were 18 nuclear modified B-50 bombers; by mid-January 1949 there were 38; and by 1 January 1950 there were 96. The B-50 was basically a B-29 that was to be a stopgap to be used until an aircraft more suitable for atomic weapon delivery became available. On 1 July 1950 there were a total of 264 nuclear modified B-29, B-36 and B-50 bombers. SAC's five wings of atomic-capable B-50s began to exchange their aircraft for new B-47s at the end of 1953. Those wings were the 509th (Walker AFB, NM), 43rd (Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ), 2d (Hunter AFB, GA), 93rd Castle, AFB, CA), and 97th ( Biggs, AFB, TX), all activated in July and August 1948."

I gave you the link, go and check yourself if you don't believe me.

To presume that the US would have attacked the USSR in this period is not backed up by reality.
Wrong.
US had several plans of agressive nuclear war against Soviet Union.
You think US developed these plans just for fun or what?

Thirdly, 1983 was when the technological and qualitative developments of the US in the late 1970s and early 1980s started coming on line in force - the M1 Abrams, the M2 Bradley, the Patriot, the AH-64 and the UH-60.
Abrams..., Apache..., Bradley....
So what?
Soviet Army had modern weapons too.

The technological and qualitative edge evaporated the quantitative edge that Ivan had developed.
Bullsh*t.

Want to compare soviet tanks/helicopters/planes/etc. with NATO's?
I am ready, are you?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

When even the thinking of former Soviet generals and officials that their window of the 1970s had passed by the time that the modernizations and reforms of the US military came on line in the 1980s.
Further, experiences since tend to show the result of putting Soviet equipment and doctrine up against that of the US and NATO.
The big 5 were just the equipment part of the transformation of the Army, and were markedly superior to what the Soviets had, especially when combined with the US edge in airpower.
The Soviets had modern weapons, but the US weapons were better than them as systems, as they were designed to be. The view was taken that they could not match the Soviets tank for tank, so instead went for quality. No amount of red loving and hagiography changes the quality match up of US equipment against Soviet equipment.

The US had plans for war with the Soviet Union, but to suggest they did not put them into action just because they didn't think they would win is a jump of logic and a presumption of intent and grand strategy that is not supported by the facts. There are other reasons and calculations.

The US hollowed out its military in the period of 1945-1948, reducing it to a shadow of its size and capabilities in WW2. If this end of hostilities and subsequent disarmament had not occured due to a new war against the Soviets, the the numbers would not have declined as sharply.

 

[El Tee]

Ah...the discussion here reminds me of another thread on this forum...

I'm not counting all the discussions regarding events prior to say, the late 80's as it seems to be stuck fighting over single points (trees for the forests) rather than the war as a whole.

I have two theories, one assuming, for whatever reason, the (highly unlikely) non-use of nuclear weapons, and the second assuming the use of nuclear weapons. And, again, both assume a military state of readiness of the late 1980s to 1990s.

1. [Assuming a conventional-only conflict] USSR/WarPact invades western Europe. Simultaneously, they push the North Koreans to invade South Korea to tie up American resources and launch an invasion into the Middle East to secure oil reserves. Already there is a lot of assumption; could the Soviets have managed all of this without western intelligence finding out? But moving on...

The USSR, given some level of strategic surprise, rolls forward with massive armored presence and strategic bombing of key locations and troop concentrations. Initial gains would be more than they suspected; though it pains the NATO allies, they give ground in order to deal more damage to the invading forces, but NATO needs time to bring reserves to the front and reinforce their troops. The US is hampered greatly, given their relative weakness in airlift/sealift capability, which is being stretched to the limit as it deploys reinforcements to Korea and Europe and is tasked with deploying in rapid fashion the RDF to the Middle East. The Soviets/WP drive deep into Germany, until a counterattack stabilizes the front somewhat. As reinforcements stream in from both sides (Cat2 and Cat3 Soviets being called up to serve as follow-on and rearguard; US mobilizes Reserve and NG forces en masse, but are needed in front-line action).

Eventually NATO achieves a workable level of air superiority (crucial to the AirLand Maneuver strategy) and pushes Soviets back across the West German frontier - by now, the USSR/WP central command is being hit by deep-penetration bombers, cruise missiles and stealth bombers and C3 is disrupted in large part. NATO's air and sea assets neutralize the USSR/WP air and sea assets but are mostly neutralized themselves due to losses.

Without the large air presence, NATO's drive to Moscow is stalled, and the front in Europe is a static line, as both sides change their strategies continually as losses mount.

In the final accounting, Europe is left a devastated wasteland, as is Korea (which I believe would fight to a stalemate at roughly the 38th parallel) and the Middle East (although which side will control the oil reserves is uncertain - the Soviets would likely have control of territory into Iraq).

2. [Assuming use of nuclear weapons] The war begins much like the conventional only scenario, but as losses mount, NATO and WP both use tactical nukes to shield retreats or withdrawals. Eventually, both sides unleash their strategic arsenals, devastating the entire world. In this case, no one wins.

When I was in the Army, the junior and mid-grade officers would wax poetic about what would have happened if the "big one" happened. We spoke of how the US would certainly win eventually, given the technological advantage arrayed by the west (and of course, we'd been trained to believe we were the best). One time, a Colonel dropped in on our conversation. He essentially said we were right. The US would lead NATO to victory, but it would be hard fought. He pointed randomly to all of the officers there, except two (there were eight of us) and said, you'd all be casualties. Our families would be decimated. The enemy would be even worse off.

My theory is that both sides during the cold war didn't really want to fight a massive war in the end (though they planned and trained for it constantly). The powers that be on both sides had to realize that there was no way to start such a war without billions of lives lost as a result, not to mention the absence of any "pre-war" global superpower.

I've given it quite a bit of thought, and while I come to the conclusion the US would prevail, the cost would be unimaginable. I'm certain we could all agree to that last point.

 

[SunTzu]

Lets put a little switch a roo on this. What about now?
Lets get into a good discussion about presently, could the US defeat the russians with their old military technology? A Non-nuclear war of course.

Also i'd like to hear if u think the US should beef up its military again like in WW2 that would be better i think

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Your thread in OT has good information on that type of thing, Sun...