Was there ever a point in world history where Russia could have

Depends where the war is.

If it's in the US, that's iffy even under the best of circumstances.

If it's in Russia, most of history.

File: 1466320901793.gif (2MB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x150px

>>1574075
(Why?)
What type of war?
What is the purpose of the war?
Invasion of the US?
Invasion of US European allies?
Nuclear war?

The answer, in general, is no.

At any point of history the US military attemping to directly attack Russia in its mainland would result in failure unless with a successful nuclear first strike at hands (which is highly, highly unrealistic to happen without Ruski retaliation).

The Soviets until the late 50s had more military power than the Americans. They could have overrun Western Europe and launched a first strike against US forces

Also Vietnam.

>>1574075
I think due to the distance whoever attacked would lose but if they were neighbors Russia would win any time until the latter half of the 20th century

>>1574075
Hard to say, at almost at times it would've ended in a stale mate. MAD or not.

In general the Soviets had less advanced, or less reliable equipment, but had superior numbers.

>>1574075
At any given point of time between 1800 and 1890. Even afterwards under certain cirumstances the odds would have been very much in favour of Russia/SU. Of course that all depends what kind of war we are talking about and where and with that goal.

In general I would say that its only after WW2 that the US clearly surpassed Russia

OP is an ignorant retard who watches too many movies and thinks any and all wars involve two countries fighting until one completely destroys the other and takes it over, keeping its land forever and ever.

>>1574173
>watches too many movies

More like plays too many RTS games.

>>1574075
>I will not accept answers for any year before 1800 because the USA was barely even a country at that point.
Okay, 1800 to ~1943 Russia could have roflstomed the US.

US military was a joke before and even during world war 1 and it only started developing into what it is today not even before ww2 but during it and it didn't actually flourish as the world's most powerful combined military until after ww2 and Cold war and it wasn't unopposed as the world's most powerful military until AFTER Cold War.

Meanwhile Russian Empire was one of the most powerful empires in Europe from 1721 to 1815 and one of two most powerful empires in the world from 1815 to late 19th century when it started losing ground to Germans and the British and the Japanese and even the French. But it was still powerful enough to win against US for all of the 19th and at least half of the 20th century.

>>1574075
Honestly, in 1966-72 the Warsaw Pact probably could have taken Western Europe while the US was pinned down and/or demoralized by Vietnam. Colin Powell even said as much in American Generals, and described 72 as the low point.

>>1574226
>Honestly, in 1966-72 the Warsaw Pact probably could have taken Western Europe while the US was pinned down and/or demoralized by Vietnam
Warsaw pact had better/larger army for most of the Cold War. The main reason Americans wanted to develop the nuke was because they knew they couldn't beat USSR in a land war and nuke is a great equalizer in that sense because it relies on science and industry being top notch to even produce it and then on your industry being able to outproduce the enemy and on air superiority which again goes to industrial superiority.

>>1574217
Between the establishment of the soviet state and the WWII

There would've been no possible way for the soviets to defeat the US, their economy and the purges of Lenin and Stalin would have crippled their armies.

Even with the fact that we barely had a trained fighting force post WWI.

At one point the US was providing food aid to the soviets during a particularly bad famine.

>>1574250
>There would've been no possible way for the soviets to defeat the US, their economy and the purges of Lenin and Stalin would have crippled their armies.
Funnily enough there was another chap who thought the same. I think his name started with Adolf and ended with something weird like Schicklgruber. He figured he'd just send the lads in and they'd have a picnic, bit of a field day, go around, kill some Russians and take over the country and get on with the real plans.

1970s.

Soviet was at their peak power and the US military was in shambles because of post Vietnam cuts and end of the draft.

>>1574084
>implying anyone could invade America
You'd have to go through at least 20 million armed militiamen, probably closer to 50 million should the government supply arms to volunteers, all fighting to death for their homes. And that's AFTER you go through the US military.

Plus you got the pond on both sides, so supplies need to be shipped overseas, meaning you'd need to completely wipeout the US Navy unless you want your supply lines constantly pirated.

>>1574217
>1943
>implying the Russian navy, who couldn't even beat the Japanese navy, could have beaten the much larger, more advanced, better trained American Navy from any point in history

The US has always had a powerful navy. In the War of 1812 the US trounced the British on the high seas regularly. In 1812 the Russians could not have hoped to compete, especially not so far away from home. Any time after 1812 the US navy only grows larger, and the Russian navy more and more irrelevant.

>>1574075
>Was there ever a point in world history where Russia could have actually beaten the US in a war?
No.

>>1574262
And he would have been at least partly right about that too if his country hadn't been at war with Britain and the USA as well as the soviets.

>>1574101
>first strike
Lmao

>>1574075
Most of the Cold War, I'd say 1989 at the absolute latest although the match would have been much more even then.

>>1574075
>offensively
Absolutely not
>defensively
Every point in history except directly after the fall of the Soviet Union. The US could technically beat Russia in a war now, but it would be far from a total war. It would be much more of a blockade and deep strike bombing missions from stealth aircraft, very little actually shooty shooty bang bang would happen and the conflict would be very low key to avoid nuclear escalation. The war's terms for defeat would also be very light, probably bordering more on the humiliation side of things than any actual demands and certainly no territorial changes would take place, except perhaps land going back to Ukraine.

>>1575289
>1989
lolno
The Russians lost the advantage in the 70s. Maybe before that they could have steamrolled Europe if nukes could have been avoided, but the Russians fell behind super hard in the 70s, especially in regards to aircraft. By the 80s, especially '89, the Russians were a fucking joke of an armed forces. Armies don't do well when a country goes bankrupt.

>>1574217
>implying the US wasn't a top 3 world power by 1890
You actually have no idea what you're talking about.
Kill yourself.

>>1574101
>russians could have launched a first strike
>all doctrine for Russian forces was for a retaliatory strike because they knew the US had much superior first strike capabilities, especially in regards to nuclear weaponry

Real life isn't World in Conflict.

>>1575297
>amerifat got triggered

>>1575311
Well memed!

>>1575319
Hey I'm not a dumbass that jumped in an argument and started telling people to kill themselves.

>>1575296
The Warsaw Pact still outnumbered NATO in 1989, and their technology was about on par. They would however have to deal with a bunch of internal unrest.

>>1575331
>and their technology was about on par.
No it wasn't.

>>1575333
>American tests in the 90's showed that the M1A1 Abrams's 120mm gun could not reliably penetrate the T-80U's armor
>MiG-29s achieved incredibly lopsided K:D ratios in wargames with the German Air Force

Sounds on par to me.

>>1574217
>US military was a joke before and even during world war 1

Because they had no reason to have a standing army or any large size. Hell we still had militias until the National Guard became a thing in 1903. In percent of total population in the military, the Union Army had been larger than America's WWI military. Unless you account for potential size it's not a very good metric.

The Russian Imperial military at the beginning of WWI wasn't much better. They liquidated a ton of assents and especially gold and still needed substantial loans and equipment from the British, a position very similar to their needs fulfilled by Lend-Lease in WW2.

>>1574075

During the Carter administration.

Though, it would be more the fault of Carter than the Soviets being better.

>>1575331
They outnumbered NATO in the age of cluster bombs, MLRS, cruise missiles, and 120mm depleted uranium shotguns. And of course, they were not technologically on par.
Again, the USSR started to shit the bed in the 70s, they completely fell behind in the air, with the F-14 and F-15 especially being two planes they simply could not compete with, which is why the Russians doubled down on SAM systems. An already shaky keep up became an impossible gap to close. Computer systems in general were laughably behind the West, which led to the West outpacing the East in practically every area. Fire control, Command and Control, radar, aircraft, night vision, you name it. But it would also be due to the USSR simply collapsing in on itself. Their supply lines faltered, most units went without new replacement tech entirely, training faltered, their satellite countries were openly refuting them by the late 80s even. The USSR was a shitshow by the 80s.

>>1575346
The first one simply isn't true, the second one is irrelevant.

>>1575357

The peacekeeper missile, the Ohio ballistic missile sub, and the stealth bomber were all started under the Carter administration and finished just in time for Reagan to claim credit for them.

>>1575346
>armor
1990 called. Soviet doctrine a shit. Also, not all, or even most, of soviet union units had access to t80s of ANY model, nor would production be bale to fix this in the event of war.

The reverse is not true as far as the us army is concerned.


>mig-29
Performed terribly the few times it had to face f15s. Those being the american air superiortiy fighter.

>>1575346
MiG-29's also had a laughably pathetic flight radius.
Something like 500 miles, if I recall.

>>1575367
>1990 called. Soviet doctrine a shit
The shit? But >>1575346 was talking about late 80s and 90s

>>1574075
1960s-1970s

There was a lot of mistrust towards the US government from the populace. There were also numerous gangs and armed organizations like the Black Panthers, Black Guerrilla Family, Black Liberation Army, Puerto Rican independence groups, etc. Pair all this with a failing economy and obvious constrained racial relations, then it's likely many groups would rise at the chance to rebel while uncle sam is heavily distracted.

The Soviets also had loyal and sympathetic terror groups operating worldwide. These groups would answer the call to attack American logistics and supply lines. The Soviets also have Cuba, and Cuba is notorious for sending its military trainers to foreign lands. Imagine the Black Panthers being trained by the KGB and Cuban military. Imagine the Cubans making a surprise attack in New Orleans or Houston or elsewhere.

The only way the US could defeat the Soviets would be to convince Mao to join against the Soviets. Even then, terror groups and rebels would still reek havoc upon the mainland and the US would be greatly fractured.

>>1575378
Weren't most of those groups absolutely riddled with government agents?

>>1574075

The geography of both countries make them almost impossible to invade and fight a conventional war. It would probably require significant internal uprising.

Retarded question

Russia would never defeat the United States in the United States. The United States would never defeat Russia in Russia

>>1575378
>reek havoc

>>1575384
Maybe, but the US gov't would be tied down with the war.

>>1575430
I'm pretty sure insurrection started by agents of the enemy would be considered part of the war, anon.
And its not like the FBI would suddenly stop existing just because of a war.

>>1575384
Oh completely.
Some guy on /k/ had a dad who was part of a state police force, who created a honeypot for a white supremacist group, who then seeded an assassination attempt on a senator to see if the group was serious and if so, arrest the fuck out of them, and it turned out like everyone in the group were FBI or police and even a couple guys from the ATF trying to find machine guns or bombs.
The whole thing was a government honeypot and the only people who took the bait were other government officials and LEO.

File: a well regulated militia.jpg (61KB, 467x488px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 467x488px

>>1575441
Here senpai

>>1575437
Federal funding though.

>>1574075
>I will not accept answers for any year before 1800 because the USA was barely even a country at that point.

So was Russia.

>>1575488
Governments just don't suddenly shift all their funding to the military in times of war.
And like I said, if these anti-government groups were a sufficient threat, they'd probably be dealt with.

>>1575377
Goo look up what happened in 1990 and 1991, anon. Then look up the soviet reactions to it. I'll wait.

>>1575498
Still though, covert operations would seem less important.

Plus, if KGB came into the mix, it's likely suspected informants would be purged.

>>1574075
I'm going to ignore nukes because nukes just make everyone lose.

No. Russia has some navy but they are not a naval power. They don't have the means to support an invasion across the pacific into the USA.

>>1575378
>black nationalists were a threat
A few dozen roof Koreans managed to put down the nigger rebellion during the Rodney king riots, these group were controlled opposition at best and glorified drug dealing gangs at worst. Not a legitimate threat in any regard.

>>1575516
>covert operations would seem less important.
On the contrary, subversive action against the government in times of war is a pretty serious matter.
There is a reason why the gubbament has multiple branches, its so they can concentrate on multiple things at the same time.
You think the US government hasn't taken into account possible insurrection in times of war?

>>1575498
>Governments just don't suddenly shift all their funding to the military in times of war.
lol are you serious? No no governments totally don't care about a state of war while they're in a state of war fighting a war. Who would be crazy enough to raise war funding at such obviously peaceful times?

>>1575542
Nor do they dedicate all of their funding to the military.
There's still a country to run, which takes funding.

>>1575548
>There's still a country to run, which takes funding.
Funding, yes, but reducing funding. Believe it or not a war is a pretty serious thing and countries tend to stop caring about less important things when they're in times of war. And not to mention if it's a state of total war; then 100% of the economy or damn near close to that is dedicated to the war effort.

>>1575559
But what I'm saying is homeland security would be seen as an equally important part of the war effort.
If the enemy is trying to disrupt your nation's stability by funding and training subversive elements, yes, the government would indeed take that as a serious threat, and try to stop int.

>>1575493
Is this a joke? Or is this another 'Russia so backwards' dig.

>>1575559
Are you retarded? Homeland security is considered fucking important in a war, especially when you KNOW that both you and your enemies are actively trying to subvert each other and have been for decades. On top of that, things like the state police don't just lose their funding in a war, even if the white house goes full fucking retarded and forgets to pay the FBI.

Stop playing rts games. They're turning you into a moron.

I love this R-RUSSIA CAN'T BE INVADED! L-L-LOOK AT HISTORY! meme

Those invaders were retards and did not properly prepare and were too arrogant. If you give Russia the due respect you can easily take it.

>>1574075
What do you mean by defeating?

For the entire cold war Russians could streamroll over continental Europe which is why NATO didn't even consider non-nuclear scenarios(WP did). They didn't have chance to invade mainland US, so I don't know if you count it as "beating".

File: Allied_army_positions_on_10_May_1945.png (481KB, 1216x769px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 1216x769px

>>1574075
Probably in 1945 if they played their hand well.

If we're just talking about armies, the Soviets in 1945 could have defeated all of Europe with American deployment included, but it would have achieved nothing, just a ton more of dead people.

>>1575592
>If we're just talking about armies, the Soviets in 1945 could have defeated all of Europe with American deployment included, but it would have achieved nothing, just a ton more of dead people.
This. The westerners realized it too which is why there was Operation Unthinkable but they pussied out at the last chance.

File: 1429597436546.png (256KB, 500x364px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 500x364px

>>1575589
This map is disingenuous and I wish people would stop posting it.
An Allied division was made up of around 20,000 men. A Soviet division was made up of 2,000-4,000 men.

>>1575297
It had almost no trained reserves. Zero. The army was smaller than British Army and due to lack of funding it was trained/equipped worse than Brits(who performed very well in 1914 despite their limited numbers for instance).

The navy itself was quite strong but navy doesn't win wars alone, so countries like France with strong navy(weaker than US but still formidable) and ability to mobilise much, much faster would theoretically beat it easily in head-on clash.

Of course, there's the other problem which many people don't realise. US, similarly to UK needed and needs strong navy, army was an afterthought(not anymore). French for instance needed huge army and reserves, same goes for Germans or Italians as all of them bordered with potentially hostile great powers. Therefore in 1890 nobody in the US cared about army being weak, neither did anybody consider them less of a Great Power because of it, the army was still stronger than Mexican army and UK/Canada wasn't really hostile towards them for a loooong time now so nobody cared. You shouldn't take it personally as well.

File: 1457385058501.jpg (29KB, 650x644px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 650x644px

>>1575623
Well first off, the US had a massive amount of armed population (militia) compared to everyone else. The army being small is less of an issue when you have a large pool of qualified shooters who will enlist or can be drafted from.

Second, the navy guarantees defensively the army will never actually be used, making that whole deal completely irrelevant. Offensively, it means the US would never attempt more than a blockade until the US had drafted and trained said armed population into a usable army. The US army was small because there was literally no need for it to be big.

>>1574101
Buuullshiiiiit

The US could have militarily defeated Russia in a conventional war from about 1890 to 1949 when they got nukes.
The US propped up Russia during WW2 and if it wasn't for that economic aid USSR would have been rolled by Germany, succinctly.

The US militarised quick enough due to it's overwhelmingly superior economy so any arguments of the US having an inferior or dysfunctional military prior to the war are minimised- the war would be fought over two continents by two extremely large nations, so it wouldn't be quick. US had enough time to reform its military and the economy to do it.

Russia, just as much as the US at any point prior to 1949, needed to reform it's military but it didn't have the economy to do it.

>>1575629
You're basically saying the same thing I've just said.

It's also worth of note that militia alone isn't really example of "trained reserve" as evidenced by American Civil War. Aka. hicks with rifles aren't even close as easy to turn into soldiers as a conscripts who spent 1-3 years in the army few years ago. Things like cooperation between different branches and units, although still not really advanced(lack of coordination between infantry, artillery and support troops was one of the main reason why WW1 devolved into trench warfare) was still beyond the reach of militia because of the scale of the whole thing.

>>1575641
That's not really what I mean.
You can draft anyone to the military, but men who have grown up using a gun all their life are much more likely to make a good soldier than someone who's never even seen a gun before. The US has historically been very quick to create a usable military, much faster than comparable nations have, and largely because so much of its population was very used to, well, using guns.
Not to say other nations weren't able to create massive armies out of civilians, but well, Russian conscripts were simply not the same caliber of troops an American GI was. Germans turned out great quality men with years of training pre war, but during war new soldiers were distinctly under trained by 1944. Largely due to their geography. The US has quite favorable geography, allowing them to create and train armies largely at its own leisure, as basically nothing can actually interrupt said training.
I'm not really saying a militia is a replacement for uh, replacements. I'm saying it's way easier to turn a militia into a military than it is to turn a Californian into a military man.

>>1575583
Just don't count the USA among those who could. The USA citizenry wouldn't tolerate those kinds of casualties.

>>1575666
The US population hates overseas casualties. All casualties at home does is make the US enlistment rate skyrocket and make liberal soccer mom's cry for the blood of the children of our enemies. Any mainland invasion of the US, and subsequent civilian casualties would turn the US into the most militant, nationalistic, Ghengis Khan-esque warrior nation the world has ever seen.

>>1575666
>the USA citizenry wouldn't tolerate those kinds of casualties.
that would depend on who started the war first.

File: huey p. newton.jpg (210KB, 600x916px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 600x916px

>>1575532
If black nationalists weren't a threat, then why were their groups subject to mass surveillance, COINTELPRO, and political assassinations (Fred Hampton)?

Might I remind you these weren't crips or bloods. These were highly organized groups, led by educated blacks, which were successfully providing for their communities. They had a relatively clear ideology/goal in mind, and they were armed. They had connections too; Huey P. Newton even met with Chinese leadership. If they were to have more arms, proper training, and funding, they would be able to start an extensive urban guerrilla campaign.

>muh niggers!
Go back to /pol/

>>1575674
>The US population hates overseas casualties.
Only in the context of military adventurism.

If you can make a case that the US was attacked first-or if it actually is-nobody gives at a shit.

People got raw, uncensored footage of Tarawa, including of Americans dying.

It fucking raised homefront morale.

>>1575958
You only need to see the first few years after 9/11 too.
Even the Democrats were out for blood.
If the US public have enough reason to believe they were attacked first, they'll be gung ho about fighting all right.

File: moralebooster.jpg (1MB, 3000x2425px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x2425px

>>1575958
This is the beach at tarawa. That's a pile of dead marines. That's a fucked american tank.

People were shown this with the war in full. Fucking. Swing. They died fighting over some shitty island nobody cared about, against a foe they MASSIVELY outnumbered.


The meme of America not tolerating casualties is exactly that. A meme. A shitty one started by edgy kids and Europeans pissy that their entire continent is militarily impotent.

>>1575675
>>1575674
Well since we were just talking about Russia getting invaded, what did you think I meant?

>>1575152
mexicans are doing a pretty good job right now m8.

>>1574217
Russia/USSR military was also a joke. Stalin made the purgs, so the army was lacking good leadership, their defensive lines were a joke. Their tanks were awful, their air force was poor. The navy was the only good thing.
Do i need to remidn people taht the german army was at a merely 15 km from Moscow during the barbarossa operation?
If they had conquered Moscow the entire USSR would have collapse, as the capital served as a transportation hub and every road and railroad went to there.
The russian advantage at that time was their high patriotism values, their hunt for revenge, the winter and their endless divisions reinforcing the front.
I believe that after ww2 both armies were more or less on the same level and kept that way until the late 70's

>>1575744
>surrender your weapons you racist gun nut
>theres no way you can resist the government drones

>a group of niggers armed with shotguns and hunting rifles could have overthrown the government if they wanted

Left wing logic

>>1577069
>strawman
/pol/ logic

>>1577069
>hunting rifles
He's actually holding a bolt action shotgun, and a shitty one at that.

Capacity is all of two shells in the magazine plus one in the chamber, with mediocre sights.

>>1577252
Great argument. As expected from a leftist cuckold.

>>1574075
1776

The could have beaten anyone and everyone in 1945.

>>1578105
No.

>>1578116
It's literally the reason for the creation for NATO.

>>1578125
>anyone and everyone
No.

1801

>>1574101
>which is highly, highly unrealistic to happen without Ruski retaliation

not between 1945 and 1950, when they didn't even have the bomb.

Patton was right.

>>1574075
I think the the best window of opportunity the soviet union could've used to attempt to defeat the US in a conventional war, at least on mainland europe would've been between the prague spring and the start of detente. Maybe possibly extending into the late seventies even.
Soviet advances in military technology allowed for the commencement of mass production of new equipment such as T-72s, which by the CIA's own admission outclassed American tanks in protection, firepower and mobility.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0001066239.pdf

This was before the advent and mass fielding of later generation western tank designs such the m1 abrams, which were expected to be equals to the T-72 series. Which were only fielded in considerable numbers in the late 80s or so.

I don't know as much about the airforces of both countries in this time and I do know the american military had yet to make use of aircraft such as the F-14 and beyond hadn't fully replaced older models of aricraft, and that may have meant that the soviet and american airforces were roughly on equal terms.

>>1575656
>men who have grown up using a gun all their life are much more likely to make a good soldier than someone who's never even seen a gun before.

yo believe it or not, the army prefers to train people who have little to no firearms experience cause they won't have picked up any bad shooting habits or flinches.

And it's true, citizen militias are great but most American gun owners aren't on that semi-professional level.

>>1578199

The F-14 is crap though. It was basically a missile launch platform with 0 actual air combat capabilities. It was designed to defend carriers from russian bombers carrying nuclear anti-ship missiles, i.e track them and kill them with long range AA missiles before they get in range to fire.

It's not an air superiority jet. Hell even an old rusty mig-21 would easily kill a F-14 if it comes to a dogfight.

>>1575289
>SU/Warsaw Pact winning a war against Nato/ USA after 1985
>lol Wut

As it was stated again and again the 70s would have been their best chance. In the 80s the best weapons the SU had in its Arsenal where worse then what the NATO started introducing as standard armaments. In regards of computer technology they had a disadvantage of 30 years and weren't even able to reproduce a lot of the the western designs they stole (btw. it is estimated that 60% of soviet weapons were based on stolen designs).

So we assume a conventional war in europe breaks out. I think its safe to assume that after some initial struggle NATO would have air superiority. WP certainly would overrun several NATO defensive positions in the start. At some point a mix of air superiority, stretched logistics, Partisans and equipment malfunctioning would prevent the soviets from further attacking. At this point the better individual quality of NATO troops and armaments would come into play leading to a push back and eventual collapse of WP troops.

>>1575744

this mulatto thinks he wuz zulu and shit

>>1578265
Thanks for informing me, but as whole I do think during the time period the USSR and USA were on par with each other in regards to the capabilities of their aircraft. Though when it comes it sheer numbers the soviets probably outnumbered the americans, at least on mainland europe, but I'm not sure to what extant.

>>1574075
If you count mainland tackeover, the russians would've probably had the petential to shrek the early us up until 1820.
In a limited meme war, like the spanish-american, russia would've probably won at any point before 1890.

Other than that (in nukes aren't involved)
>1944-47
>1955-75
And again, in both periods, russia couldn't have gotten anything better than a strategic victory (as in kicking out nato from eurasia and preventing the us from pulling d-day 2.0)

>>1575979

'With the Marines at Tarawa' was the first time the American public had seen that kind of imagery and it only happened because FDR was personally convinced by a veteran.

That, later, the horrendous casualty numbers on Peleliu and Iwo were sacrificed for islands with no strategic value and criticism only came about after the war suggests it had more to do with the public's war fatigue on islands nobody had ever heard of before, not apathy toward lives lost.

>>1575152

>all fighting to death for their homes

Because militias are world renowned for defying death with superb discipline.

>>1574075
>I will not accept answers for any year before 1800 because the USA was barely even a country at that point.

Then the year 1800, and basically any year until the 1870s

>>1575152

>invading murica

https://youtu.be/1uUNL6rW-Ck?t=12

>>1575744
>If black nationalists weren't a threat, then why were their groups subject to mass surveillance, COINTELPRO, and political assassinations (Fred Hampton)?
You're pretending that other groups that also weren't threats weren't subject to mass surveillance, illegal projects, and political assassinations. For fucks sake, do you think Guatemala was in any way a threat in 1954?

File: 1459025311690.jpg (205KB, 1162x850px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1162x850px

>>1578801

God bless our firepower.

>>1575617
>A Soviet division was made up of 2,000-4,000 men.

Wrong.

>>1580577
Not entirely.
Many divisions were made up of 2000 or 4000 men. The average numerical amount of men in a rifle division in 1943 was 7000, with half their rifle divisions containing anywhere from 4000 to 6000 men and the other half containing 7000 to 9000 men, but 43 was the height of the size of Russian divisions, before and after that divisions contained less men.
Rifle divisions had more men in them than armored divisions did, and armored divisions had more men in them than anti aircraft divisions did.

At any rate, he was factually correct in stating the map is misleading, as Russian divisions were 4-2 times smaller than American and British divisions on average. The Soviets still had an overwhelming superiority in men and armor, 3 to 1 in infantry superiority and 5 to 1 in armored superiority, but that map makes the situation look significantly more lopsided that it was historically.

>>1580643
Also doesnt take in account the Allied Air Command, which would take all of a month or two to sweep the Soviet airforce from the sky. At that point, its just a slog till the Russians give in somewhere in Belarus.

>>1580701
And the US navy.

File: 1447546846432.png (129KB, 275x226px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 275x226px

>>1580701
Please don't start this conversation.
It would be highly unlikely the Allied Airforce, although superior, would be a deciding enough factor to destroy the VVS in a month, and even were it capable of doing so, it is unlikely air superiority would have guaranteed enough strategic mobility to deal with how lopsided the group war would have been. Aircraft were great at destroying cities and strafing unarmored trucks with machine guns. Bombs and rockets were absolutely terrible at destroying armored columns.

>>1580711
Would play virtually no part in a war with Russia. The Russians had nothing to sink, and a naval invasion of Russian anywhere would have been not only retarded, but downright suicidal.

>>1580701
>airforce winning wars
When will that meme die?

During 1st Gulf War Chairforce bragged about the massive destruction they've brought. Our troops will march through all the way to Baghdad they've said. The reality was different.

Not only 90% of casualties in Iraqi army were caused by land forces(mainly artillery) and all the interdiction was likely gigantic failure as Republican Guard retreated safely from the frontline, meaning that logistical and communication routes were nowhere near being cut.

And Soviets had existing and experienced airforce, while they couldn't win overall air superiority but they may have won local one, which was enough to limit the effectiveness of Allied Airforce drastically.

File: 96K6E-Pantsir-S1E-UAE-2S.jpg (295KB, 768x541px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 768x541px

>>1580701
not that the russians exactly lack long and short range SAM systems and all kinds of AAA

>>1580764
NATO planners predicted that the entire production run of A-10s would have been destroyed within 14 days of combat starting in Europe and the pilots would be either killed/captured, or would need to be rotated back to the US or UK for training on F-4s or F-16s or whatever the hell they were digging out of the boneyards and sending to Europe.

And this was against SA-7s and ZSU-23-4s or towed optically directed AA guns, not modern threats like the Tunguska.

>>1578137
>anyone and everyone in Europe

fixed

>>1580871
no they didn't russaboo

>>1580932
https://warisboring.com/an-a-10-pilot-could-hope-to-last-two-weeks-against-the-soviets-1ebff9bfa4df

Reminder that the A-10's reputation has been built up in Operation: Useless Dirt and Operation: Bomb Goatherders, and every time they went up against Republican Guard units with working AA systems in 1991 they got shot down. (likewise look at the service record for the Su-25 and what happened when it's been used against foes with air defenses.)

>>1580952
>warisboring
lol

>According to Combat Aircraft magazine, the flying branch predicted that, if the A-10s went into action, seven percent of the jets would be lost per 100 sorties. Since each pilot was expected to fly at most four missions per day, each base would in theory generate more than 250 sorties daily. At this pace, a seven-percent loss rate per 100 flights equaled at least 10 A-10s shot down at each FOL every 24 hours—and that’s being conservative.

assuming the estimates are accurate (keep in mind many things from this era were inaccurate), that's plenty of time to inflict massive casualties against the soviets. and a-10s wouldn't have been the only form of american air power the russians would've had to contend with.

also
>f-16s
>f-4s
>boneyard
>1980s

lolwut? f-16 was probably one of the most advanced multirole fighters in the world at the time.
i agree though that the a-10 is pretty overrated these days. b1b and f16 have probably killed more insurgents in gwot than the a-10. nothing inherently wrong it or the frogfoot, any plane that's designed to go low and slow is going to be susceptible to ground fire.

>>1574075
If Nazi Germany maintained its alliance with the Soviets/Japanese, their combined military might could conceivably overrun the continental United States

>>1578662
>1944-47
I find that doubtful. They were nearly bled dry by the Germans. They lost about 10 percent of their population.

File: F-16 block 1.jpg (18KB, 750x389px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 750x389px

>>1580988
>lolwut? f-16 was probably one of the most advanced multirole fighters in the world at the time.

Actually the F-16A was pretty much just a highly maneuverable light fighter like the F-5 Freedom Fighter. It could only carry dumb bombs and Mavericks for ATG and heaters for air to air. It's radar was down between the pilot's legs and it didn't have any support for radar missiles due to the fighter mafia. Pierre Sprey talks big about how he "invented" the F-16, but he didn't and he was against including most of the features it has now.

It wasn't until the the late 80s Block 20-30 aircraft started getting upgrades for the radar, capabilities to carry radar guided missiles and so on.

In this video you can see that it's multi-function display (called the "stores control panel") is a far cry from the modern multi-mode screens we think of today, it's really just a LCD calculator screen with buttons for selecting bombs/guns/missiles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT7S4zAzVu0

>>1581035
That doesn't really mean it wasn't the most impressive plane in service. It just means the bar hadn't been set very high yet.
Its performance was well above anything the East could throw at it.

>>1574075
Not before 1800? Fine, between 1800-+/-1870 then.
Otherwise maybe at the end of ww2 the Soviets might have been able to drive the allies of the continent, but didn't have the navy to invade the US, it never did really.

>>1574075
In the decades after the napoleonic wars, Russia was considered the strongest military power in europe. So i'd say up until around WW1 or maybe a decade earlier. After that probably not.

>>1581033
Yes, but they had 10 million veterans with decent equipment, somewhat stable supply system, sizeable airforce and a huge industrial base, geared towards war, in the rear, where the allies can't bomb it.

>>1577069
>Drones in 1960

File: 800px-Ironclad_warship_Pyotr_Velikiy.jpg (81KB, 800x568px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 800x568px

>>1574075
From the 1830s to 1853, and again from 1876 to 1895, Russia could of handily won a war at sea against the US. From 1896 to 1904 it would be anyone's guess.

For a land war in Europe with allies the USSR would of won in the years 1945 to 1947. Why ? The land elements of the US and its allies were out numbered by about 4 to 1, and if only looking at tanks and mechanized units that gap gets larger. Effective nuclear weapon platforms come on line in 1948, a large amount of F-84 fighter came into service, early soviet fighters like the MiG-9 & Yak-15 had major issues, etc...

The US and its allies had the strong upper till thru 1967. In 1968 the US high command felt a all out war with Russia could go either way. Same for 1969. In 1970 during the yearly war game on said subject matter the US figured out that the USSR would win a all out war against them. By 1973 it was so bad the US believed that in the event of a war NATO would be kicked out of mainland Europe in 4 to 5 days. By 1982 the balance of power came back to the US/NATO.

But how did they lose the balance of power in the first place? A very big part of it was that the US started to withheld the sales of its better defense goods to its own allies over political disagreements under JFK and LBJ. Richard Nixon let on the matter in 1971, however by then the damage was done. The US really need to get its allies to start having up to date weapons, and they could not be french in origin do to a couple of issues.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkrtxDdaWuM

File: regytju776.jpg (508KB, 1361x1062px) Image search: [Google]

508KB, 1361x1062px

>>1574217
The US and the USSR are not next to each other, nor did they have allies on a landmass next to each other. Any war before 1945 between the US and the USSR would of been at sea. In 1941, even if the first four Sovetsky Soyuz-class battleships were further along then they were in real life and thus in service, the USN would of eaten the Red Fleet alive and asked for second's.

Sure, there was a good part of 19th century were it was the other way around. But at no point from 1905 to 1944 could Russia on its own of won a Naval war with the US on its own.

>>1581137
>That doesn't really mean it wasn't the most impressive plane in service.


Early F-16 were a bit crude. The block 1 thru 15 era F-16 were over all less able then the F-15 A/B and C/D models, the F-14A, and if we are being honest the MiG-23M & MiG-23MLA also.

BVR combat was being more common, and a lack of support for radar missiles was a big issue for the F-16 in the 1970s.

>>1574075
Was there ever not a point.....?

>>1580733
>During 1st Gulf War Chairforce bragged about the massive destruction they've brought. Our troops will march through all the way to Baghdad they've said. The reality was different
Probably because U.S. troops didn't even enter Iraq.

>>1577069
>government drones in 1960
>/pol/ in charge of strawmen

File: 1471632599180.jpg (584KB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 3840x2160px

>>1577049
>russian navy
>good

>>1575638
>The US propped up Russia during WW2 and if it wasn't for that economic aid USSR would have been rolled by Germany
t. Hans Heinrich Glück

>>1587124
>>1581868
You lefties got BTFO so hard you're pretending to be retarded in a last atand

>>1577069
>governmnet drones in 1960

you fucking retard, this was all in context of the 60's black power movement, take a history class

>>1587124
>>1577252

>>>/lgbt/

>>1574119
>but if they were neighbors Russia would win any time
Well duh, of course removing the US navy would give Russia an advantage. That's massively changing the strategic situation.

>>1575459
That's fucking hilarious.

>>1580715
>Bombs and rockets were absolutely terrible at destroying armored columns.
So then, why exactly were German tank columns hiding in forests during the day so they wouldn't be spotted and destroyed by allied air forces?

Also, they don't really even have to destroy the armor. those unarmored trucks you mentioned earlier are very important. In the event of allied air superiority being achieved, Russian divisions would soon be undersupplied, underfueled, and starving, due to all of their supply lines being destroyed.

>>1574217
/thread

>>1575297
i'm american, and you clearly have no idea what you're talking about

>>1574075
Buying Alaska was a pretty sweet move. After that, very difficult. All out nuke exchange doesn't really leave winners and losers.

Never. The Russians never had a navy capable of transporting troops to the mainland. Not only that, they have a huge logistical problem in their own country, let alone invading a country across an ocean.

This is a dumb thread and I am an idiot for ever responding.

no point
Russia never really had a huge navy that could cross the world and launch a huge invasion force. That is why nearly all their possessions were continental.
If it was before the Civil War they would have to either transport all their troops to Asian Russia and build ships and land troops on the remote west coast where most would die, or sail from Novgorod. Even if they did the US would beat them the same way they beat the UK in 1812.
Past the Civil War the US had a large enough navy to beat them.

>>1588989
because nobody likes being bombed, even though aerial bombardment and rockets were inaccurate as fuck

>>1589690
>Past the Civil War the US had a large enough navy to beat them.
The U.S. Navy was absolute shit between the Civil War and 1890ish (really the 1910's for blue water power projection). The whole reason we beat the fuck out Spain was because their navy was even worse than ours and half their empire didn't even know we were at fucking war until our ships rolled up on them.

File: smug lesbian japanese nationalist.png (171KB, 450x449px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 450x449px

>>1588587
>>1588650
>w-w-w-w-well you're j-just a butthurt l-l-lLEFTIE haha

I bet you're gonna call me a cuck next

>>1589705
well I bet the Spanish navy was better than the Russian one

>>1574075
In any land war, the defender would win. Both Russian and American strategians recognized this.

>>1589713
Not even close. The Imperial Russian Navy was actually pretty famous, particularly the Black Sea Fleet. In fact, Russia built the first steel gunship. The world was fucking flabbergasted in 1905.

>>1589724

What was it called?

>>1589728
Oпыт

>>1589724
>n fact, Russia built the first steel gunship
Didn't they promptly lose it through the sheer incompetency of their Navy?
something something Tsushima

>>1589734
>incompetency
That meme greentext about Doggerbank aside, not really. Tsushima WAS disastrous, but the Russians were outnumbered by more than double.

>>1589746
Its not just 4chan funposts that mention Russian fuckups in the Battle for Tsushima Straight.

>>1589724
ironclad ships had already been around for ages and the first one was technically french

>>1589754
Ironclads weren't built from steel, but iron hence the name. Russians built the first steel "iron"clad.

>>1589771
initially they weren't yes but things changed as time went on
Redoutable was made entirely of steel

>>1589943
>Redoutable was made entirely of steel
In 1876... The Oпыт was built in 1861.