I saw the link on the Us vs. Russian armies in the present.
And I read a number of points in this thread that pointed out the era of closest parity as being the 1970s (after the US had missed a cycle of weapons development due to its involvement in Vietnam). Rather than discussing these times tangently- it would be more interesting to discuss these eras on their own. Especially since the idea of Russia fighting the US in a conventional in 2006 is not that interesting. Russia is certainly formidable and has built many impressive weapons systems...but seriously now.
But what do y'all think of US Army vs. Soviet Army-- lets say June 1945.
Armor: Despite persistent myths The Sherman was a match for T-34. The German tanks could club either down at will. But there were not many Pershings in Europe to combat the Stalin series tanks.
The US had the advantage in Airpower and Artillery.
The US Navy had a tremendous and insurmountable Naval advantage.
Nukes---NO NUKES in this discussion- conventional forces please.
Not sure how the Lend Lease thing would play out in that scenario. The Soviets depended HEAVILY on US trucks, uniforms and rations--but certainly had a formidable military industrial complex.
The Soviet Army in Europe was battle hardened, fully mobilized and victorious over the Germans. But they had suffered outrageous losses- according to far from "unbiased sources" (the German General's memoirs) they were 'bled white'.
The performance of US Forces in Korea is not completely relevant since they were materially inferior to their World War 2 equivelant. But it was a conflict where SU-76s and T-34/85s fought with Shermans.
Let the counterfactual history battle begin.
And I read a number of points in this thread that pointed out the era of closest parity as being the 1970s (after the US had missed a cycle of weapons development due to its involvement in Vietnam). Rather than discussing these times tangently- it would be more interesting to discuss these eras on their own. Especially since the idea of Russia fighting the US in a conventional in 2006 is not that interesting. Russia is certainly formidable and has built many impressive weapons systems...but seriously now.
But what do y'all think of US Army vs. Soviet Army-- lets say June 1945.
Armor: Despite persistent myths The Sherman was a match for T-34. The German tanks could club either down at will. But there were not many Pershings in Europe to combat the Stalin series tanks.
The US had the advantage in Airpower and Artillery.
The US Navy had a tremendous and insurmountable Naval advantage.
Nukes---NO NUKES in this discussion- conventional forces please.
Not sure how the Lend Lease thing would play out in that scenario. The Soviets depended HEAVILY on US trucks, uniforms and rations--but certainly had a formidable military industrial complex.
The Soviet Army in Europe was battle hardened, fully mobilized and victorious over the Germans. But they had suffered outrageous losses- according to far from "unbiased sources" (the German General's memoirs) they were 'bled white'.
The performance of US Forces in Korea is not completely relevant since they were materially inferior to their World War 2 equivelant. But it was a conflict where SU-76s and T-34/85s fought with Shermans.
Let the counterfactual history battle begin.
Comment