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

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

  1. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    The fact of the matter was that soviet subs arent all that quiet. They still use diesel subs in their fleet which are dreadfully out of date.

    Air power beats your missile cruisers every time. The fact is that if some fa-18 plane got within range what is that 4 missiles coming at you at the same time? 3 more fa18? 12 more missiles? The carrier sends two more 6 plane squadrons, 48 missiles, than it starts sending the tom cats and we all know how many weapons that SOB carries.

    The Russian submarine fleet was scary, but it was bark than bite.

    Their surface fleet even less so.Ever hear of the Seawolf attack submarine? That guy can cruise at 20 knots without cavitating. That is absolutely incredible considering the soviet record is around 10.

    The fact is that you can launch all the torpedos you like and i can pretty much garuntee you not one will hit the Aircraft carrier and I can tell you why.

    Because the carrier is surrounded by cruisers and destroyers.

    A torpedo is too stupid to differentiate between a cruiser and a carrier, or a nixie torpedo decoy. And chances are that the torpedo will go after the torpedo decoy.

    Worst case scenario, the torpedo hits a oliver hazard perry. The ship starts sinking. And the massive amount of air coming out of the ship coupled with more of the ship going under would cause active sonars to bounce off the ship like crazy, any other torpedos would go towards the sinking ship. And by then, youd have around half a dozen torpedos going straight back to your little kilo or akula.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    During the cold war most if not all F-14s were strictly air-air.
    And you're still ignoring the point that the USN wouldn't be up and armed with aircraft - the attack would have been the first they knew that the war was on.

    Of course.
    That's why NATO spent so much on countering it.

    Yeah right: look at how much was spent on countering that.

    Why the hell would they bother with torps, except to finish off cripples?
    Sub-launched anti-shipping missiles would be the weapon of choice.

    Dream on...
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    Have you ever seen those movies like the titanic or poseidon how when the ship is sinking you here that awful groaning of metal and explosions? That amount of noise is way more than enough to draw off a torpedo. Torpedos go to the loudest thing, luckily exploding ammunition, exploding bulkheads is the loudest thing in several nautical miles.

    Anyways, thats the worst case scenario, a few nixie torpedo decoys would be more than enough.

    Also, the US and the Soviet Union in this scenario on the thread declared war and than started fighting. No first strikes.

    The fact is that air power wins every time, we can out range you, out find you, and out gun you.

    Your subs would be detected far before they get into the 50 nm range of your torpedos. Sonobuoys ftw.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    Heres something we can agree on.

    Thank G-d that we did see the cold war erupt.
  8. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    During the cold war (again) most if not all F-14 were air-air and NOT capable of carrying other weapons.

    Are you silly enough to believe that it didn't happen nearly every day during the cold war?
    There was an AGI hanging around every time a US fleet moved.
    And Soviet missiles were/ are over-the-horizon capable - launched at a map co-ordinate and then they found their own targets.

    Close enough?
    Shaddock - 750 km.
    Sunburn - 120 km.
    Siren - 110 km.

    Ever heard of wire-guided torps?

    The first strike would be the declaration of war...
    Link supporting your statement?
    It's not in the OP.

    Still dreaming?

    Only if you know exactly where to put them - and 50 nm is closer than needed for OTH SSMs.

    And now you're just making very stupid assumptions.
    You're wasting my time, I'm not going to argue with an idiot any more.
  9. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Okay dokey.....

    Well thank G-d it never happened and hopefully it wont ever.
  10. WA Lancer Registered Member

    All you have to do is set your sub at the bottom wait for the fleet to go by and launch multiple wire guided torps at the biggest target. And anything that suddenly becomes bigger is a decoy.
  11. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    But thats assuming that a.) the water is shallower than something like 600 meters. And considering that, that is incredibly unlikely.....

    b.) that the bottom is flat

    and finally c.) the bottom is sandy and not rocky and full of razor sharp protrusions that will slice your hull open. Or that it is muddy and your ship will be stuck there because of suction.
  12. halo07guy Registered Senior Member

    Assuming it went nuclear, the US. My reason being because we had a few tricks up our sleeve that the Soviets didn't. For example, the Soviets never really managed to develop MIRV warheads or stealth bombers. The accuracy of their missiles was also marginally worse then American ones. Though in away, they made up for this by developing the more powerful nukes.

    Assuming a conventional war, again the US. If the CCCP and US were to go to war, the CCCP would have been surrounded on almost sides by allies of the US. China and the majority of Europe being the major allies. The US, then and now, had complete dominance of the sea. Nobody could launch an invasion without the approval or destruction of it by a carrier taskforce. That is what makes an invasion of the US impossible. And even if the Soviets managed to mount an invasion of the US, they'd run into several problems. They'd have to deal with mountains stretching almost the width of the nation, a massive desert/grassland area covering approximately one fourth the land, swamps, forests, and more. Assuming the Soviets invaded both coasts simultaneously, the US forces could just pull back behind the Sierras and Appalachians. Those would severely impede any attempt at invasion, forcing them to send their forces through the few passable and narrow areas, or go all the way south through California and Florida. Simply put, the landscape of the US, just like that of Switzerland, makes it impossible to invade.
  13. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    WWII proved that numbers help. Things may have turned out differently had the German military been run by someone other than Hitler.

    And this wouldn't just be USA vs USSR. It would most likely be NATO vs Warsaw Pact. If I had to bet, I would bet on NATO, but it's hard to say for sure.
  14. tommo8993 Registered Member

    I think after 1980 the US/UK (NATO) would of won because there tanks up until the T-90 where the old stop dial in sights fire. plus they couldn't hit targets on the move. the m1a1 Abrams and later the challenger 1 and 2 could fire on the move with computer aided sights.
    for example (this is true) during the 2nd Iraq war 8 Challenger 2 tank took on 30-40 iraqi T-55A's and dint suffer and casualties.

    2. for ever tank NATO had Russia had 3000 to take it on. do you have any idea how much fuel and ammunition not to mention food and water they would need. also the men carrying the supply would need supply too.also they built loads of tanks we built loads of anti-tank missiles one that homed in on targets. the Russian AT missiles where RPG_7's.
    3. Russia has little infantry there mainly conscripts what want trucking everywhere again more fuel.

    that's only on land i haven't put in navel or air power( yet)

    in short its quality not quantity.
  15. draqon Banned Banned

    Soviet Union would have had China as its ally for sure, in addition to that it had Cuba to use for a closer missile delivery to USA. And who would care about Switzerland...it was left alone in WWII and would have been at this war too.
  16. draqon Banned Banned

    granted Russian/Soviet Union naval power is basically pretty bad its air power is as good as NATO.

    And quality huh?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    thats exactly the strategy used by Germans in WWII against Russians, yet...oh my...they lost.
  17. tommo8993 Registered Member

    China and Russia probably wouldn't be allies because there almost at war every couple of years.
  18. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    I can't give you time periods but I'm pretty sure that a long drawn out war would start protests at home and abroad for all sides, this would eventually give way for the breakdown of all governments creating high levels of crime and chaos, as the military is no longer fighting it's allotted enemy but also it's own people who start to turn against them.

    Before you know it, the wars cease as those that try to dictate how the fighting should be fought are themselves turned on. It then all goes a bit Mad Max, until small (very small) states start to emerge with localised Councils. No more super powers, just lots of little pocket states. No more war on a large scale, just one state boycotting another for some bogus reasoning.

    Admittedly technology and science would come to a crawl, it would be another dark age of man... hopefully not as long as the previous one.
  19. superstring01 Moderator

    You're reaching, as usual, because of your desperate (and sadly ignorant) obsession with Russia. While the USSR and China were both communist, the two split almost entirely over various issues. If you had even a fraction of understanding of the issues, you'd know that the USSR had better odds of getting Egypt and India into the fight on their side than China.

    Moreover, the question was about how long it would take nukes to get from point A to Z. Since the US already had nukes in subs parked off the arctic and pacific coast of the USSR, nukes in Diego Garcia, nukes in Turkey and East Germany and nukes in South Korea, the raw fact is, that while Russia would have time to get its nukes away before getting struck, they'd still get struck first.

    They "lost" because the US, the UK and Russia outproduced them by more than 10 to one. Do a little historical digging. Such a disparity does not exist between the USA and Russia. In fact, in shear production capacity, the factories of Japan, Western Europe and the USA account for more than 90% of the world's industrial output, and that includes Russia and the earstwhile USSR. The USSR's plan was ALWAYS "more up front": That is, use their stockpiles to overwhelm the west before the industries of the USA and Japan could gear up. It was always known that most of Central Europe would be sacrificed by bombardment (if not by nuke strikes) which would disable its production capacity. This always pre-supposed a surprise attack that the USSR never had the advantage of (though, neither did the west). IT also presumed the full functioning of the antiquated weapons that made up the bulk of the reserved (there were two "tiers" of invasion forced: the most advanced and newest up front, and the older supplies last). Since no effective build-up could occur under NATO's nose, it would almost certainly be counter balanced by the fast mobilizing German, Dutch, French, Italian and Turkish forces, which would be supported by American, Canadian and British forces. The problem with the "numbers up front" game is that it never quite balance out. Western Europe's military forces were, without American support, already the match in numbers and moneys spent by the USSR in Europe (excluding those within the borders of the USSR proper). Add in the American forces and they already had a man-for-man parity with everything in the Warsaw pact. The only distinct advantage possessed by the USSR, as mentioned, was in the total size of military hardware at its disposal. But, to wit, guns without soldiers to fire them aren't really all that useful.

    Remove nukes from the mix and, for better or worse, the industrial output and population reserves in the west would enable the USA and allies to employ what all great powers have done to win any extended conflict: opponent attrition. That is: Kill more of them, sacrifice less of yours. The west had this advantage. The USSR did not.

    Would this be a good time for one of those immature "rolleye" smileys that you are fond of?

    Last edited: Oct 7, 2009
  20. s0meguy Worship me or suffer eternally Valued Senior Member

    numbers mean little when nukes are involved.

    nobody would've won, both countries population centers would be nuked and that would be the end of it. so it was never going to happen, because both parties understood this, with the exception of some retarded people within both parties.

    and even if it came down to a land battle and nobody used nukes... the countries are just too damn big and both parties would have too many fronts to fight. for both parties it would have been futile to attack each other.
  21. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Well providing WWII was kept to a 1v1 tank-on-tank battle then you're right. Unfortunately it wouldn't have been anywhere near as simple as that.

    Different circumstances entirely.

    So because they outnumbered the West they're at a disadvantage?
    Get real.

    No they didn't, they had to be guided.

    Balls: Sagger, Snapper &c.


    So what?

    Please don't, from what you've already posted your "consideration" isn't up to much.

    In short you don't know what you're talking about.
  22. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member


    I just reread this old thread for about the third time, and I do not see anyone ever defining the word "won".

    Do we mean entire annihilation, unconditional surrender, redefining borders, declared truce (with or without reparations), or what?

    I would think the answer to this question would have a great deal of bearing on answering "who would have won"?

    Yes? No? Or is it just me, and everyone else somehow "knows" what "won" means? :shrug:
  23. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    For every tank nato had Russia had 3000? Bull total and complete bull.

    3000 tanks each manned my 3 men calculates to about 9000 men total, and that would be roughly equal to a division. And right now there are 9000 abrams and around 800 challenger 1 and 2 tanks.

    Your actually telling me that Russia right now has around nine thousand ight hundred tank divisions?

    And to correct whomever uttered the above statement that for every NATO tank Russia has three thousand, Russia has around 25,000 T-72's, yah thats a lot, but to be honest the advantage the US holds in air and tanks compensates for that.

    The apaches would absolutely slaughter them

Share This Page