Non - nuclear war between Russia and US. Who would win?

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
Not really - what has that got to do with the OP - did the Soviet Union win in Afghanistan - who won the cold war?
Whether the US or Russia would 'win' depends entirely on the definition of 'win'. The US would almost certainly defeat the Russian military in a straight fight - as Germany did - but in the long term that didn't matter.
 


boldfenianman

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
1,534
The USSR did not produce more tanks than the other main belligerents combined. It produced about the same as the USA, approx 100,000. The claim that they were better tanks is also very debatable.
OK Just going by TV Docs. Probably shouldn't. Every tank after the T34 was based on the T34 or KV. On that I will give no ground at all. Vastly superior tanks to anything the Germans or allies had.
 

Merovingian

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
1,584
One for Sparky I think! I specify non- nuclear because in the alternative case we are all dead anyway. This is actually really difficult. How do they actually get at each other. Who invades who? Einstein called topics like these "exercise for the brain". Lets go dudes!
Whoever has Davy Fitz as their manager...
 

Fritzbox

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
2,592
I think the Russian tanks were certainly better than the US ones in the Russian battle fields. The US ones kept getting clogged with mud and breaking - the US stopped sending them and focused on sending support and logistics equipment instead.
None of this is true. The Soviets used American (and British/Canadian) built tanks right up to the end of the war.
 

boldfenianman

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
1,534
Haha I remember someone joking about something similar, but it involved in the event of the cold war turning hot, dropping the nukes on the Russian armies and then high tailing it to Iceland, they didn't seem to have to much faith in halting and then pushing back the soviet armies. But in fairness that was late 60s and 70s when those kind of jokes were bopping around. By the 80s with the American increase in defence spending and the big four developments i.e Abrams, Apache, Bradley, and Patriot there would have been a lot more confidence in the NATO ranks. But during the 60s and 70s NATO and America just out of Vietnam, at best would have been hard pressed to stop a conventional attack without nukes.
How interesting. My friend would have been eighties. Were they Jaguars? Cant remember.
 

boldfenianman

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
1,534
That might be true, but there were other categories of weapon and equipment production where the Soviets seriously lagged - I doubt if the entire military and industrial output of the Soviet economy was any greater than the UK's.
Do you mean in WW2?
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520

Fritzbox

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
2,592
He must have served a long time ago. The Royal Navy, not the RAF, have carried the UK nuclear deterrent since the 1960s.
The RAF had nukes right up to the 1990s, pretty sure of it.
 

Socratus O' Pericles

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
32,972
[video=youtube;1dyoTkX7Ypc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dyoTkX7Ypc[/video]

Alexander Belov!
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,627
There is a cold war today.

Under Obama's ultra liberalism, Russia and other countries with imperialist ambitions made unbelievable gains.

These interests, generally totalitarian in one form or another, are currently winning the information war. On thousands of sites like p.ie around the world, millions of susceptible malcontent westerners are parroting exactly the anti-Americanism they have been taught to.

If Trump returns to real-politik, as he seems to be doing, he may be able to make back substantial ground. But let's wait and see. Interesting times.
 

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
11,623
They still have them.
I am pretty sure they dont. The WE.177 free fall nuclear bomb was withdrawn from service in 1998 and dismantled thereafter. These were the last nuclear weapons in service with the RAF.
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
The only purpose of nukes to ensure that it will be no winners
The 'world ending' effect of nukes is exaggerated. An all out nuclear war would only kill about 20% of humanity. Most radiation would fade with a year, and the 'nuclear winter' idea is a myth.

Post war all the same countries would still be in place, minus the big cities, airports and some important infrastructure. After about 10 years things would return to normal, more or less. Nuclear war is actually the quickest way to achieve a non-nuclear world :)
 

boldfenianman

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
1,534
Whether the US or Russia would 'win' depends entirely on the definition of 'win'. The US would almost certainly defeat the Russian military in a straight fight - as Germany did - but in the long term that didn't matter.
Errr....you might care to reconsider this post!
 

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
11,623
They were simpler tanks but did just as good a job. I think I would pick a T34/85 over a Sherman any day. Pershing was a massive improvement albeit, but even at that not sure if I would fancy my chances in one against an IS-2 or IS-3.
It depends what model of Sherman you are comparing it with. The later model Shermans were major upgrades.
 


Top Bottom