U.S.A Versus Russia in an all out War?

btw en.wikipedia.org... is written by just normal people.

Originally posted by Rook1545
reply to post by Arc Angel

 

They don't need a navy, they just have to wait on dry land for you to come ashore. Any planes trying drops would be taken out. The logistics of even trying to do that would be ridiculous.

PS You didn't win WW2, the Russians did.


[edit on 18-6-2008 by Rook1545]

Yes, because we have to go through China to get to Russia, right? (Take a look at where Alaska is)

Russians were fighting WW2 alot longer then we were. And during that time Europe, North Africa, and parts of China (And even Vietnam) were over-run.

US steps in, and we fight a two front war pushing back the Germans and Japanese at the time until their surrender. Most of the Germans were killed by Russians, however Russia was barely holding its own. (Stalingrad was a blood bath, and thank god Hitler chose to commence with Operation Barbosa despite delays. Allowing old man winter to set in)

I don't recall Russia pushing back the Germans until we stepped in. And do we forget so soon who was giving weapons to the 'Allies'?

reply to post by Arc Angel


I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you are in the 14-17 year old age bracket.

Am I right?

Originally posted by slackerwire
reply to post by Arc Angel

 

Given your willingness to disregard the Constitution, how about we simply put a foot in your ass by removing your Constitutionally protected rights?

After all, given the number of times you have already been proven wrong, you really don't need your 1st Amendment rights do you?

How have I been proven wrong? This is the thread "U.S.A Versus Russia in an all out War?" is it not? If there's an all out war wouldn't we instill a draft? I don't give a # of whether it's Constitutional or not, it's what the US would do to fight an all out war.

And going back to the 'No Navy thing.' Funny how you take everything I say litterally, in a desperate attempt to prove me wrong. So, let me spell out what I meant:

"China's Navy is an inferior POS compared to the US Naval Fleet. It is in fact so inferior that it would easily be dispatched by US Naval Command, virtually eliminating the small threat."

Oh, and I've noticed no one has stated 1 #ing thing Russia could do in a similar fashion as my orginal thread. You people are more concentrated on proving me wrong on the points I've stated then the topic at hand.

Originally posted by Arc Angel

Originally posted by slackerwire
reply to post by Arc Angel

 

It would help if you actually researched your claims

Are you ever right about anything?

I can use wikipedia too.

en.wikipedia.org...

Take a look at the # of Aircraft carriers China has. Compare them to the US. Take a look at the # of Destroyers, Cruisers, etc. and compare them to the # we have. I rest my case.

OK I am going to throw this out and pretty much let you flounder with it.

1. You are talking about invading the largest nation on earth. They can put plants for production all over that country.

2. Russian equipment while not A1 like the US equipment is still really good, the bonus they have is that their equipment is cheaper to build, it was made that way for a reason. Cost for 1 F22 is $100 million, Cost for 1 Su-37 $25 million. The Russians with the production facilities and lower price can field more equipment.

3. If the US is invading, who cares about carrier groups? Unless they can grow wheels they are useless on land.

4. The Russians have proven before they are not against throwing bodies in the way of bullets. Keep advancing the line by just keep throwing people in front. Quite effective.

Originally posted by slackerwire

Originally posted by Arc Angel

So you got 250,000 Marines pushing West; 250,000 pushing East;

Anyone who disagrees is wrong?

Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but your little theory here about 500,000 Marines hitting Russia from 2 sides would be a little difficult......

Do you know of an extra 270,000 combat ready Marines sitting around somewhere that no one else knows about? If not, YOU ARE WRONG.

It really helps if you do some research before making a post and ending it with "if you disagree, you are wrong".

[edit on 18-6-2008 by slackerwire]

I have to commend you on this one. I was about to point it out myself. Being USMC/DAV I watch these things. Having a son about to go to Iraq is enlightening as well.

This scenario has too many errors IMHO.

I wouldn't write China off completely... at least in their own region:

www.telegraph.co.uk...

But I still say there won't be an all-out war with the US fighting Russia, China, or the moon.

No doubt it certainly will continue spending like it will, though. Those damn moonians with their filthy moonunism!

[edit on 18-6-2008 by mattguy404]

reply to post by Arc Angel


Saying they have NO NAVY is vastly different from saying "China's Navy can't compete with ours".

So you willingly admit you don't really care about the Constitution? Nice.

Your numbers of Marines were grossly exaggerated in your little pretend fantasy here. You were proven wrong on that front for starters.

Need I continue to embarrass you?

Reading this thread was fun while it lasted.

Originally posted by Arc Angel
Yes, because we have to go through China to get to Russia, right? (Take a look at where Alaska is)

I never said you had to go through China, I said China would never let you get to Russia.

Russians were fighting WW2 alot longer then we were. And during that time Europe, North Africa, and parts of China (And even Vietnam) were over-run.

US steps in, and we fight a two front war pushing back the Germans and Japanese at the time until their surrender. Most of the Germans were killed by Russians, however Russia was barely holding its own. (Stalingrad was a blood bath, and thank god Hitler chose to commence with Operation Barbosa despite delays. Allowing old man winter to set in)

Russia was barely holding their own? Hitler threw his best men at Russia, not to mention huge numbers. When the Allies came into Western Europe it was guarded by second rate soldiers.

I don't recall Russia pushing back the Germans until we stepped in. And do we forget so soon who was giving weapons to the 'Allies'?

Would that be the same group of people that was supplying weapons to the Germans at the same time? They never needed to push back the Germans, they had a non aggression pact until 1941. Seriously, read some histroy before you try this.

Wow, this is the first real reply to my thread.

I don't think Russia would be able to put up the facilities in time to have an effective production. Granted, Russians have always been geniuses at low cost and good quality materials, but the US can afford to spend so much more w/o the impact on the Economy. The reason the carrier groups are significant is because we can land troops very quickly on their home turf. We can also lauch missiles from there, as well as planes, supporting our guys on the ground. And as I said before, the US equipment would make up for the #'s. It's just too damn strong.

reply to post by Arc Angel


6.) "What if they built up their #'s then declared war?" Well, we have Apaches that can single handedly take out an entire tank column. We can fire tomahawk missiles from hundreds of miles away and blow up planes, tanks, rockets, people, before they even see us. Russia wouldn't even be able to attack America, THEY HAVE NO NAVY! What are they going to do, swim?
I really dont think you know what your talking about...here you say they have NO NAVY...with this hypothetical possibility.....and in this post..you theorize on the limits of the Russian Navy while saying you said they have ALMOST no Navy...so which one is it???

Originally posted by Rook1545

Originally posted by Arc Angel
Yes, because we have to go through China to get to Russia, right? (Take a look at where Alaska is)

I never said you had to go through China, I said China would never let you get to Russia.

Russians were fighting WW2 alot longer then we were. And during that time Europe, North Africa, and parts of China (And even Vietnam) were over-run.

US steps in, and we fight a two front war pushing back the Germans and Japanese at the time until their surrender. Most of the Germans were killed by Russians, however Russia was barely holding its own. (Stalingrad was a blood bath, and thank god Hitler chose to commence with Operation Barbosa despite delays. Allowing old man winter to set in)

Russia was barely holding their own? Hitler threw his best men at Russia, not to mention huge numbers. When the Allies came into Western Europe it was guarded by second rate soldiers.

I don't recall Russia pushing back the Germans until we stepped in. And do we forget so soon who was giving weapons to the 'Allies'?

Would that be the same group of people that was supplying weapons to the Germans at the same time? They never needed to push back the Germans, they had a non aggression pact until 1941. Seriously, read some histroy before you try this.

Wait...what? US supplied the Allies with weapons, which after the attack on Russia included the Russians. The Germans pushed all the way to Stalingrad before being bogged down. (1943 Battle was pronounced over) US landed troops in N. Africa during that time period as well as the battle of guadacanal happening. We took pressure off of Russia at this time. I don't understand how you don't see that? It was directly because of us we won WW2.

reply to post by Arc Angel


Ahhh...here is where it gets tricky. As soon as the US goes to war with Russia, China pulls the plug on the US economy. Now the country can't afford the fuel to move the carriers.

Russian missiles from the shore would take care of the carriers, not to mention the gross amount of subs they have.

The production facilities are already setup. You don't think that they tore them apart after the Cold War, hell no they use them to produce Ladas and other crap, but I am sure they can be put back to their original use in a matter of hours.

I am trying to find the numbers but I am pretty sure that Russia has an ungodly amount of planes, probably more planes than the US has missiles (a joke...sort of...wouldn't surprise me if they did, we know how they plan).

Originally posted by Arc Angel
Wait...what? US supplied the Allies with weapons, which after the attack on Russia included the Russians. The Germans pushed all the way to Stalingrad before being bogged down. (1943 Battle was pronounced over) US landed troops in N. Africa during that time period as well as the battle of guadacanal happening. We took pressure off of Russia at this time. I don't understand how you don't see that? It was directly because of us we won WW2.

The US supplied Germany with weapons and parts up until 1941. Which would be why alot of American companies have been accused of war profiteering during that time.

Guadalcanal was not US and Germany, it was US and Japan, that did not relieve any pressure off of Russia from the Germans. It was because of US assistance that WW2 was won in 1945, without the US it would have been won by 1947 by the Russians completely. The Russians were in Berlin a full month before the US. They would have kept going if need be.

its funny to read how self confident americans are. germans were sure they will win WWII, history showed otherwise. you americans should learn from that instead of acting gods of the world

Originally posted by slackerwire
reply to post by Arc Angel

 

Saying they have NO NAVY is vastly different from saying "China's Navy can't compete with ours".

So you willingly admit you don't really care about the Constitution? Nice.

Your numbers of Marines were grossly exaggerated in your little pretend fantasy here. You were proven wrong on that front for starters.

Need I continue to embarrass you?

What fantasy? "USA Versus Russia in an all out War?"
What does the USA do in an all out war? Lets take alook at history, hmm...ah, we draft people.

Being an ignorant ass about the way I say things to sound quick witted completely up to you. The topic is (Stated again) U.S.A Versus Russia in an all out War. I'm pretty sure in an all out war we'd have 500,000 Marines as well as at least a million GIs. Russia will probably outnumber us, however I stated in my original thread that USA technology would make up for that pitfall.

You have yet to state a valid point on how Russia would be able to win a war against us. I'm embarrassed? You're the one making an ass of yourself trying to prove a guy wrong on things he's clearly stated inside his parameter. And the best comeback you have against me is "Saying China has No Navy is different then them having a Navy that can't compete with ours."? Get a life.

"So you don't care about our Constitution?" Topic of the Article is "USA Versus Russia in an all out War." not "Constitutional rights for ignorant pricks who don't know a threat to Freedom until it disrupted the power to their Xbox."

Actually, when USA starts a war against China, Russia will strike along with some other countries - with no warning. The Russians know where America keeps their nuclears and will launch missiles at them, having fatal consequences. There is 3 main places where the Russians will invade when USA is in war against China. Alaska, Minnesota, and Florida. Korea and Cuba will join against the US as well.

They are tired of having the Americans lead the world, and want to lead it themselves. When Americans are kicked out of Europe, they can do anything they want for it. The Americans in Taiwan will be kicked out first, attacked from behind. They have their plans ready, and USA is not going to win that easily, no matter how powerful they are. Russia will not strike alone. They are not that stupid. And now when the economy is weak.. It will be their chance, soon, in very few years.

just out of curiosity, does anyone think that while yes america has a pretty good chance at winning, that there really isnt much to compare it too, as a war i mean. sense america hasnt really been in a war with a real threat since WWII, maybe korea, that maybe fighting an army that has spent the past 50 years training to fight the U.S. might be somthing in their favor.
take iraq for example, they fire chinese and russian weapons that shoot 7.62 mm rounds vs the americns 556, now iraqi insurgents realy coudnt hit the braod side of a barn are not very well trained and suffer from lack of discipline. russian soldiers on the other hand are actually fairly disciplined fighters, are well trained in the use of thier firarms and can hit you in the sappi plate on your interceptor body armor from a good distance out. that alone the mere fact that you are fighting a force of actual soldiers in my mind gives you a chance. im not saying they would win but 7.62 is a force to be reckoned with in the hands of a skilled shooter. an american body armor while it can take a hit from one or two cant take repeated hits. if throwing bodies at your enemy is thier game then i would hate to go toe to toe with them.
thats a conventional stance however. as of right now where would they even get the money to fight america?
last time i saw russian soldiers they were so poor that thier soldiers were wearing old tennis shoes and collecting ammo belt links after every live fire exercise.