Who would've won the cold war if it went hot

Discussion in 'History' started by fedr808, Feb 24, 2009.

  1. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,754
    Oh right, because you didn't know...

    And the USAF had exactly how many F-22s and F-35s available during the Cold War?

    Really?
    Significantly?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Well I was assuming you intended this modern day time frame, concidering your argueing the case for the T-90 which started production at 1995 pretty much at the end of the cold war.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,754
    YOU mentioned the T-90, which in fact is little more than a late-model (and renamed for marketing purposes only) T-72.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Well, Im sure that Russia would disagree with that, and draqon will flame on about how wrong you are and how you must be an American because your dumb, but you are right, The soviet tanks have mostly been just the older generation tank equipped with new toys, they havent totally redesigned the tank since the T-72, and argueably that is just an upgraded version of the T-34.

    What I always wondered was why dont they just carpet bomb them with cluster bombs? That typically would do the trick.
     
  8. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,754
    Nope the Russians wouldn't disagree with that.
    It IS a T-72 late model deliberately given a new number purely as a marketing ploy.

    Draqon's "expertise" lies in jumping to unsupported conclusions.

    And that would be two errors.

    Oops, the T-80 is NOT a T-72 copy: it's a new design.

    Hardly.
    Not even the same suspension type (T-34 was Christie [US-designed], T-44 onwards has torsion bar).

    Because putting aircraft over a Soviet/ Russian armoured formation turns out to be expensive.
    Shilka (ZSU-23-4) and its follow-ons (Tunguska and some SAM systems) are fully capable of firing on the move.
     
  9. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706

    Yah but than again, there are radar seeking missiles. Of which I believe the US has been idiotic in their development. Yah sure they work well, but they need the plane dangerously close to the SAM's range, soemtimes inside. Why not just make a cruise missile do the job?
     
  10. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,170
    Bump...

    So does anyone know what "won" would mean in the context of this thread?
     
  11. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Reducing the opponent to any of the following:

    A.) Radioactive dust (ruled out by the OP)
    B.) normal dust
    C.) scrap metal
    D.) Killing the opponent
    E.) Imposing western democracy (ruled out for being a weapon of mass pain in the ass)
     

Share This Page