U.S. VS. Soviet Union

**reve893** · 18 Mar 08,, 06:51

Well lets forget the nukes, cause then only bacteria would had survived. I guess it would depend who got Air Superiority the first few days. If the Soviet Union could gather enough momentum in the first hours, they could had very easily overloaded the front and destroy NATO. Lets not forget that Hitler's Armies, also had great technological tanks(Panther, Tiger, Tiger II, JadPanther...), but in the end the numerical superiority of the Allies using their cheap tanks(Sherman, and T-38) were able to overrun them. Now this could had been applied to the Cold War the Russian's huge tank arsenal could had overrun NATO, only if they achieved complete Strategic and Tactical surprise. If in the first week they didn't acquire Germany and made a significant breakthrough they would lose. Also if USSR could stop conveys for the first and second week, then NATO would be hopeless.

**Bad Karma** · 18 Mar 08,, 19:13

If it was a conventional war, and it happened today, not taking into account American forces are spread out in the Middle-east.

One really would just need to look at how well Iraq did in the Gulf and present war, armed with Soviet weaponry. The conventional war lasted mere days, and the Iraqi Army and Air Force were in shambles. There were very casualties sustained by the US during the conventional war.

However a lot of this was due to very clever diversions and stopping 200 Russian Kornet anti-tank weapons from entering the country. One could only speculate if the Soviets would fall for any of these ruses, and certainly they would have their anti-tank busters on hand. (A Kornet is the only weapon that can take out an Abrams.)

Their tanks are no match for an Abrams, and they lacked communications equipment. We would also have to take into account on which continent this pretend war would take place. Either side would have difficulty fielding enough logistically to fight a war. I think logistically the Americans would have the advantage in being able to quickly deploy troops, tanks and fighters to launch an invasion.

If the war happened in Russia I think the US would still have the advantage, because the Soviets were so interested in disinformation they printed false maps and the only ones using these maps were the Soviet Generals. Tank commanders regularly got lost on exercises. The US had updated imagery on a daily basis and made their own maps. Hopefully we wouldn't make the same mistakes Hitler and Napolean did in fighting on their turf in the winter.

After losing several battles, the Soviets in desperation would still launch their nukes and all would be lost anyway.

**gunnut** · 18 Mar 08,, 19:17

Anyone watch a Star Trek episode named Omega Glory?

**Stan187** · 18 Mar 08,, 22:04

Originally Posted by Bad Karma

One really would just need to look at how well Iraq did in the Gulf and present war, armed with Soviet weaponry. The conventional war lasted mere days, and the Iraqi Army and Air Force were in shambles. There were very casualties sustained by the US during the conventional war.

However a lot of this was due to very clever diversions and stopping 200 Russian Kornet anti-tank weapons from entering the country. One could only speculate if the Soviets would fall for any of these ruses, and certainly they would have their anti-tank busters on hand. (A Kornet is the only weapon that can take out an Abrams.)

Are you actually an idiot or just trying to be funny and ironic?

**Silent Hunter** · 18 Mar 08,, 22:20

The Iraqi tanks in Desert Storm had poorly trained crews and poor ammo.

**Bad Karma** · 19 Mar 08,, 15:53

Originally Posted by Stan187

Are you actually an idiot or just trying to be funny and ironic?

I'm not sure what you are considering funny or ironic. I did make a mistake and left out a word, the US sustained very few casualties.

If you think the Russian Kornet is a joke, then you are easily amused.

**tankie** · 19 Mar 08,, 16:45

Originally Posted by Silent Hunter

The Iraqi tanks in Desert Storm had poorly trained crews and poor ammo.

S/H the Iraqi tanks were no match in any shape or form against the US and UK tanks .They were destroyed before they were in range to get shots off , outgunned and totally outclassed .

**bolo121** · 20 Mar 08,, 05:56

Hmm want to refight (the hypothetical) WW3?
Just play World in Conflict
World in Conflict™ - War is Coming Home

**Stan187** · 20 Mar 08,, 06:24

Originally Posted by Bad Karma

I'm not sure what you are considering funny or ironic. I did make a mistake and left out a word, the US sustained very few casualties.

If you think the Russian Kornet is a joke, then you are easily amused.

Take a look at the things I put in bold, smart guy. The only joke here is you.

**Bad Karma** · 20 Mar 08,, 15:59

Originally Posted by Stan187

Take a look at the things I put in bold, smart guy. The only joke here is you.

I realized that you put things in bold, but I have no idea what your are disputing. I was being facetious that the Iraqi army did well in the war, I thougt the following sentences cleared that up. Are you saying that the Iraqis actually did well or did you not understand my sarcasm?

I said the Russian Kornet is the only threat against an Abrams. Are you one of those tankies that was put under the myth that the Abrams is invincible and the Kornet is not a threat? If that's the case we have no more to talk about, because the only idiot is you.

Are you saying there are other weapons in the Russian arsenyl that can easily destroy take an Abrams? If that's the case I should elaborate, I often jot things down in my haste, and for that I'm sorry and I realize that a 500 pound bomb from a MIG would take out an Abrams. Current US strategy however is that ground/tank forces are not sent into the battlefield until we obtain air supremacy. The Russian T-38 is no match for an Abrams, as evidenced in the War in Iraq, hence my statement; the only thing that would take out an Abrams is the Russian Kornet. Again I don't know what your dispute is, maybe you're disputing that Russian Kornets were being sold to the Iraqis, and if that's the case I will cite the link, it has been released to the media.

A little advice, if you are going to dispute something cite argument so people can understand you and it can become a discussion instead of name calling. Because when don't; you make it clear who the idiot is, and I will clue you in, it's not me. In fact I think I'll write you off as someone I will ignore.

**reve893** · 20 Mar 08,, 19:20

Guys any armor can be breached if the opposing troops are determined enough. History has shown that even a cocktail on fire can stop a tank. The Rapier missile could stop an Abraham if the opposing force was trained sufficiently and were willing to risk their life, more than average. The most armored tanks of World War II were stop by 4 pound warheads, when they were designed to resist a tank shell. If the Iraquis had been motivated an trained enough they would had taken out a few tanks. Especially in such a terrain.

**Bad Karma** · 20 Mar 08,, 20:46

Originally Posted by reve893

Guys any armor can be breached if the opposing troops are determined enough. History has shown that even a cocktail on fire can stop a tank. The Rapier missile could stop an Abraham if the opposing force was trained sufficiently and were willing to risk their life, more than average. The most armored tanks of World War II were stop by 4 pound warheads, when they were designed to resist a tank shell. If the Iraquis had been motivated an trained enough they would had taken out a few tanks. Especially in such a terrain.

A molotov cocktail would probably blacken the paint on an Abrams, but little else. Trust me the Iraqis are fairly clever and motivated when it comes to assymetrical warfare. A Rapier missile is a Surface to Air missile and not in the Soviet arsenyl, which is the scenario laid down for the thread.

**Sinister** · 20 Mar 08,, 23:34

There is no way that a Iraqi T-72 stood any chance against the abrams , the Iraqi T-72 was severly outdated with severly outdated ammo with severly incapable soldiers , thats the same as saying the Mig-29 which in my opinion is a good aircraft stands absolutely no chance against any F-16 because NATO destroyed them easly with AWACS.
Now im sure most of you would agree that west leads in tehnology but severly underestimating Russian tehnology just has no sense there are many areas where they are actually ahead.

Now on the topic its almost impossible too view this as a scenario because NATO had defencive doctrine aswell as the USSR , they both thought the other one would attack and never seek to view themself as agressor to a certain extent so its very hard to imagine this scenario when both focused on trying too stop the other one's invasion and the USSR even focused on China alot during some period of time , I for one do not see this scenario as something anyone would calculate that is without considering nuclear weapons which would result in MAD.

**Albany Rifles** · 21 Mar 08,, 17:59

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Hey Kid, take a hint.

I was there. The 4th Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group. And you are wrong.

Colonel when were you in the 4th CMBG? I was in the US 1st Infantry Division (Forward) 1981-1984. 1-26 INF...later 4-16 INF. We had partership units with the PPCLI and 3 RCR.

Bought my Volvo through the Canadian PX! Good O Club too as I recall. Didn't it have a Pirahna tank near the bar?

Purely conventional? NATO would have won but North Germany would have been lost.

**Bella** · 22 Mar 08,, 00:49

Without including Nuclear Weapons........U.S.A.
I mean com on!! Russia doesn't, or did have as many superior fighters, tanks, naval forces, ect, as the U.S.
After the U.S.S.R. fell, the only thing the U.S. has done, is destroyed Russian equipment sold to other countries with pretty much ease!