Jump to content


US vs Russia


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

x Papadox #21 Posted 20 March 2019 - 12:36 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 15102 battles
  • 628
  • [RDDTX]
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

View PostStuftRock1, on 19 March 2019 - 09:14 PM, said:

Soviet Union would not have stood a chance. In 1945 they were in absolutely no position to wage another war. The German invasion left the western side absolutely devastated. Not to mention their supply was low. Armor wise the allies had them beat. By the end of the war, America was in the middle of developing a lot of new very promising tanks, such as the T29, T30, and T34. They didn’t really get far because the war ended and we didn’t really need them anymore. Later in the ‘50s, America had the Patton and M103, while France was developing the AMX 13 and AMX 50, Germany was developing the Leopard 1, and the Brits had the Conqueror and Chieftain. Sweden was also developing the KRV. What did the Soviets have? T-54? T-72? I’m not saying those tanks were bad, but the allied tanks would have prevailed. America also had a VASTLY superior air force. Keep in mind, America had first gen fighter jets like the P-80 Shooting Star. Even our non jet aircraft like the P-51 and B-29 were superior. On top of all that, we had the money and resources to basically vomit those things off the lines. As far as overall firepower goes, we had nukes. They didn’t. ‘Nuff said.

 

As long as Allied leaders weren’t dumb enough to invade the Soviet Union during the winter...

 

If you mention 1945, then most of what you said wouldn't have existed yet.  

 

In 1945, the Allies' best bets on technology were to look at the German's captured equipment(which is exactly what happened with jet technology).  The Soviets would easily have the armor advantage, as the IS-3 was already in production.  Look up "WW2 Victory Parade Berlin" and you can see the Soviets with several IS-3s that never saw combat.  The BEST tanks the western Allies could muster at the time were the Pershing, the Cent. Mk. I, and whatever captured German armor they could put into production.  During WWII, the strength in numbers tactic worked brilliantly against the Germans; that wouldn't work against the Soviets. 

 

As far as nuclear bombing goes, that might have been the only way to ensure a Western victory.  The West had a much stronger Air Force, and it wouldn't be obscene to believe that they could've tried to nuke Leningrad or ANY Soviet city west of the Urals.  Remember, Finland switched sides to join the Allies at the end of WWII, and they hated the Soviets.  They could definitely have worked with the West to provide air bases to launch bombing runs from.


Edited by x Papadox, 20 March 2019 - 12:38 PM.

"A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon." - Napoleon Bonaparte


StuftRock1 #22 Posted 20 March 2019 - 03:50 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 6470 battles
  • 338
  • Member since:
    07-29-2015

View Postx Papadox, on 20 March 2019 - 07:36 AM, said:

 

If you mention 1945, then most of what you said wouldn't have existed yet.  

 

In 1945, the Allies' best bets on technology were to look at the German's captured equipment(which is exactly what happened with jet technology).  The Soviets would easily have the armor advantage, as the IS-3 was already in production.  Look up "WW2 Victory Parade Berlin" and you can see the Soviets with several IS-3s that never saw combat.  The BEST tanks the western Allies could muster at the time were the Pershing, the Cent. Mk. I, and whatever captured German armor they could put into production.  During WWII, the strength in numbers tactic worked brilliantly against the Germans; that wouldn't work against the Soviets. 

 

As far as nuclear bombing goes, that might have been the only way to ensure a Western victory.  The West had a much stronger Air Force, and it wouldn't be obscene to believe that they could've tried to nuke Leningrad or ANY Soviet city west of the Urals.  Remember, Finland switched sides to join the Allies at the end of WWII, and they hated the Soviets.  They could definitely have worked with the West to provide air bases to launch bombing runs from.

 

The T29, T30, and T34 were all part of the same project and were almost identical minus armament and were developed to counter late war German armor in 1944 and 1945. They didn’t enter production because, well, the war ended. The Soviets had the IS-3 yes, but if they continued west the allies would have been MUCH quicker in putting a counter into production.

 

The allies didn’t quite steal jet technology from the Germans. Fun fact: Britain was developing their own jet engine at the same time as the Germans. The Germans just did it faster, and neither side knew the other was also developing jet technology. America got it by working with the Brits and some help from captured Me 262s. America put their first fighter jet, the P-59, into service in 1944, although it was inferior to the P-51 and was canceled after only 66 were built. Their next jet fighter, the P-80, entered service in 1945, just barely too late for WWII. It remained in service up until the 1970’s.

 

The only thing the Soviet Union had going for them was the IS-3, but that advantage would not have lasted long. There was a reason Stalin didn’t continue west. He knew that war would not go well at all for him.



x Papadox #23 Posted 20 March 2019 - 04:16 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 15102 battles
  • 628
  • [RDDTX]
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

View PostStuftRock1, on 20 March 2019 - 10:50 AM, said:

 

The T29, T30, and T34 were all part of the same project and were almost identical minus armament and were developed to counter late war German armor in 1944 and 1945. They didn’t enter production because, well, the war ended. The Soviets had the IS-3 yes, but if they continued west the allies would have been MUCH quicker in putting a counter into production.

 

The allies didn’t quite steal jet technology from the Germans. Fun fact: Britain was developing their own jet engine at the same time as the Germans. The Germans just did it faster, and neither side knew the other was also developing jet technology. America got it by working with the Brits and some help from captured Me 262s. America put their first fighter jet, the P-59, into service in 1944, although it was inferior to the P-51 and was canceled after only 66 were built. Their next jet fighter, the P-80, entered service in 1945, just barely too late for WWII. It remained in service up until the 1970’s.

 

The only thing the Soviet Union had going for them was the IS-3, but that advantage would not have lasted long. There was a reason Stalin didn’t continue west. He knew that war would not go well at all for him.

 

You're right about the jets, but even the U.S. Air Force admitted at the end of the war that the Me-262 was superior to the P-80.  The captured technology helped by paving the way to creating the F-86, which we all know is a much better jet.

 

As far as the tanks go, we can't be certain about what the West would do.  Keep in mind that the T29, T30, and T34 were primarily developed to counter Tiger IIs, not masses of T-34-85s, and while the IS-3 would certainly be a threat, the bigger threat would come from the greater numbers.  Developing a tank meant to counter well-armored tanks when facing many weakly armored(comparatively) tanks makes no sense.  The West would likely have to put their faith in the Pershing and Centurion, which both were admirable tanks that were designed for European conflict.  The timeline of British tank-development could be advanced, and tanks like the Conqueror could likely have seen production and combat.  American tank production is where the questions lie, as the Pattons were developed solely out of mobility inadequacies from the hilly landscape in Korea.  The M103 would most likely be developed earlier, however.  

 

There are no rights and wrongs to this debate, but we can agree that in 1945-46, the Soviets would have the advantage, but after that, they had no hope of success, as the West was just so far ahead technologically. 


"A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon." - Napoleon Bonaparte


StuftRock1 #24 Posted 20 March 2019 - 06:22 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 6470 battles
  • 338
  • Member since:
    07-29-2015

View Postx Papadox, on 20 March 2019 - 11:16 AM, said:

 

You're right about the jets, but even the U.S. Air Force admitted at the end of the war that the Me-262 was superior to the P-80.  The captured technology helped by paving the way to creating the F-86, which we all know is a much better jet.

 

As far as the tanks go, we can't be certain about what the West would do.  Keep in mind that the T29, T30, and T34 were primarily developed to counter Tiger IIs, not masses of T-34-85s, and while the IS-3 would certainly be a threat, the bigger threat would come from the greater numbers.  Developing a tank meant to counter well-armored tanks when facing many weakly armored(comparatively) tanks makes no sense.  The West would likely have to put their faith in the Pershing and Centurion, which both were admirable tanks that were designed for European conflict.  The timeline of British tank-development could be advanced, and tanks like the Conqueror could likely have seen production and combat.  American tank production is where the questions lie, as the Pattons were developed solely out of mobility inadequacies from the hilly landscape in Korea.  The M103 would most likely be developed earlier, however.  

 

There are no rights and wrongs to this debate, but we can agree that in 1945-46, the Soviets would have the advantage, but after that, they had no hope of success, as the West was just so far ahead technologically. 

 

We could have countered their masses of T-34-85’s with our masses of M4A3E8 Shermans and what few Pershings we had at the time. I’m very confident of the 155 mm of the T30 and the 120 mm of the T34’s ability to easily penetrate the front of the IS-3. Heck, I’m certain that even the 105 mm of the T29 could get through it. Maybe not easily, but certainly doable. I’m not sure why the allies frantically tried to quickly develop a new tank that could counter the IS-3 when the Americans had these things before the west knew the IS-3 even existed. I realize this game is a pretty piss poor historical representation, but their trials were successful as far as I know. I don’t understand why these things were dropped especially since they could do what the allies really needed: beat the IS-3. Maybe I’m leading them on to be much better than they actually were.

 

Also, the IS-3 wasn’t without it’s fair share of problems. If I remember correctly, it was very cramped and had loads of turret and reliability issues, among other things. IS-3 probably would have ended up being something like the Tiger 1 if they continued west: unreliable, problematic, feared by its enemies at first, but countermeasures were quickly developed and fielded.

 

Yeah, the Me 262 was superior to the P-80, but the P-80 was vastly superior to anything the Soviets had. The Brits also has the de Havilland Vampire. The allies would IMMEDIATELY have air superiority, which means that whatever advantage they may have with the IS-3 would be quickly nullified by allied air strikes. Their factories would have been very quickly bombed, hindering their ability to produce IS-3s and even develop replacements such as the IS-4, IS-5/IS-8/T-10, and IS-7.

 

If anything, the Soviets would have had a slight advantage for their first battle in their westward trek, but the moment war get declared.... Game over.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users