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

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

  1. tommo8993 Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    that was me i was only going on what my history teacher said
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    18,742
    Ignoring all the T-34s and IS-IIIs in reserve...
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. tommo8993 Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    that's what i was getting at the had loads of them in storage because the tank factories had stopped production for about 30 years.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    6,706
    Yah ebcause a T-34 could really stand up to an m1a1, hell, that little rust bucket couldnt kill a tank if it tried.

    76 mm main gun, the abrams is 120 mm
     
  8. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    tell your teacher that he/she was off by a magnitude of around 3,994 tanks
     
  9. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Wow I posted this months ago and realized that it was a typo and it shouldve been *thank G-d that we did not see the cold war erupt.
     
  10. tommo8993 Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    the T-34 couldn't stand up to the m1a1 nor could most Russian tanks i think the T-80 could and the T-90. but that's it.
     
  11. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    The T-34 was a WW2 tank, theres not a chance in hell it could stand up to an M46 Patton let alone and Abrams.

    The T-80 and T-90 could but even then they were a lot weaker. They could only fire from a stand still, the abrams can fire while moving. The abrams could also out range them.
     
  12. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    If anything, this thread has show that conventional war is incredibly obsolete. It is probably a massive waste of resources to have a large amount of any convention armed force. Better spent on spec ops and strategic weapons/defenses.
     
  13. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Well first off, as the OP I can tell you that strategic weapons arent to be considered in thise debate.

    2.) Strategic weapons arent too handy in a battle, theyre great for blowing static crap up, but not much else.
     
  14. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Which reduces this debate to meaninglessness.
     
  15. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    I chose it that way because if nukes were involved wed all be dead, so I chose conventional warfare only because thats where the competition lies.
     
  16. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Naturally. But in order to approach that question, you have to imagine a completely different configuration of forces and strategies than ever existed.

    Which is fine, if that's what you want to do, but it's no longer "history."
     
  17. Angroid Registered Member

    Messages:
    1
    I personally think that there's little sense in comparing specific conventional weapons (tanks, planes etc). It would be impossible to have a conventional war. Any war would turn sooner or later in a nuclear war, and that would be the end. We would all lose.
     
  18. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,742
    Faulty thinking.
    They were held as second and third-wave reserves - there wouldn't have been any M1s or Challengers left by then.

    85mm.

    Wrong.

    Also wrong.
     
  19. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    76.2 mm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34

    Right, the patton had a 90 mm high velocity gun and twice the armor thickness, an M46 could easily kill a T-34

    The fact is and you know it is that if there were a massive tank battle, M1a1'a wouldnt be the only thing slaughtering T-90's and T-80s, there would be apaches and B-52's, and those two could easily wipe out an armoured division no sweat.

    The fact is that if Russia were conducting the offense which is most likely, the M1A1's would have a number of advantages, first the fact that they are in defensive positions, but also the fact that a T-80 or T-90 has to stop moving in order to fire. Which means that the M1A1's have an advantage in that they can fire first. In the first gulf war, M1A1's slaughtered the T-72's which are Russias main battle tank, there are only 5000 T-80's.
    And the T-72's had the numerical superiority. After the battle only half a dozen M1A1's were disabled and only I think 1 was outright destroyed
     
  20. pjdude1219 screw watergate i want to know about zaragate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,938
    well technically he is right a T-80 or T-90 is capable of firing its gun on the move. now as for hitting what its aiming at is a whole different story
     
  21. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Well anyone can fire a gun on the move pj, Im saying firing a gun on the move and hitting something.

    The armor on a T-90 is a special steel composite.

    On an M1A1 abrams, the armor is a special type of steel, than a layer of Chobham armor which breaks up enemy munitions including shaped charges, and a layer of depleted uranium, and than another layer of steel and Chobham.
     
  22. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,742
    Read your own references:
    On paper, sure.

    Iraq != Russia.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Export Soviet/ Russian tanks are "monkey-models": downgraded capabilities for one thing.
     
  23. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    A T-34-85 is not a plain old T-34, next time be a bit more specific.

    Well for starters the fact is that the US would have air superiority, especially if you were to factor in the F-22 raptor and F-35.

    The armor on a T-90 is significantly inferior to that of the M1A1
     

Share This Page