Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

world war 3

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4405
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 10 Dec 2004, 16:21
Sukhoi: China's army is not 200,000,000 troops
Their airforce has everything from modern planes to old 1930s ones (no joke), and they have almost no navy to speak of (compared to America's). You have nothing to fear, my friend.

I personally believe that in a modern war, that Russia would lose (their equipment is getting outdated, their soldiers are nothing but poor kids being forced to serve, their command structure is corrupt almost to the point of falling apart).

In a Warsaw Pact-Nato war, the Soviets would flatten Europe, and possibly Britain, and that is where the war would end, assuming no nuclear weapons are used. The Soviet navy would be no match for that of America and the other allies, and the Soviets never had major amphibious warfare capabilities. Even Britain would be hard to get, and America, being so far away, would be even more difficult to defeat.

Red Hammer: The Soviets could never amass an invasion force on Cuba without getting noticed by the USA. Further, the US naval superiority would eventually destroy all the Russian transports loaded up with troops and supplies (even if the Soviets did manage to penetrate land). This would cut off the invaders, and they would be starved into submission. Talking of Cuba as an invasion launching point is therefore useless, in my opinion.

By the way, China is not a superpower yet, and certainly wasn't in the 1980s. Their equipment is mostly outdated and the only way they win is by hurling millions of soldiers at you (Korean war they lost 1,000,000 troops to US's 50,000 approx). And they have no way of getting to mainland America either. In fact assuming China would become a Soviet ally is questionable at best, because they had some pretty shaky relations during those days. Perhaps China would even fight against the Soviets for some of the provinces they lost to the Czars.

The Conqueror: I'm assuming you mean if the USA struck first in a conventional war, because the Winter War would play no role if the USSR sparked the war. If that is what you mean, the Russian winter has no effect on the situation because Soviet troops would be on the coast of France by the next month, where temperatures are much warmer.

Avi: American tanks would not move through Siberia. It would take them years to get to Moscow, even with no opposition
. Europeans would not fight to the death. In fact, in the 1980s France and Italy, two of Europe's biggest countries had major communist parties. They would probably help the Soviets further by engaging in partisan war against their own state (if they felt take-over was inevitable and they could gain from it).
Soviet cogitations: 1445
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Mar 2003, 19:17
Unperson
Post 11 Dec 2004, 13:41
Oh, look, it is Avi! The same person who claimed that Abrams is best tank, LOL!

Quote:
but it would be highly likely that American tanks etc would move though siberia and assault From the rear


LOL! Do you know what Siberia and Far East is?

It is PERMAFROST TERRITORY. Tanks cannot pass it.

And speaking of military, you won't even be able to land. Your transports will be destroyed long before approaching Kuril Line.



Quote:
Most likely what would happen is American forces defeat the russian army


Nonsense. That is physically impossible.





soviet78:

Quote:
The Soviets could never amass an invasion force on Cuba without getting noticed by the USA. Further, the US naval superiority would eventually destroy all the Russian transports loaded up with troops and supplies


What do you mean, "American naval superiority"?

Are you familiar with qualities of anti-ship weapons and anti-anti-ship defences on Soviet and American side?

Soviet hovercrafts like "Zubr" (counterpart to American LCAC) have enough defences to overcome almost any anti-ship missile attack, and has twin vacuum bomb rocket artillery system, not mentioning conventional guns.

American most common anti-ship missiles, like Harpoon and Tomahawk, are easily interceptable and pose no threat. The only threat is probably board artillery.

One other hand, Soviet Mach-3 anti-ship missiles like Moskit swarm-network missiles cannot be intercepted, and have much greater range of fire. With Moskit, a fishing boat can defeat a battlecruiser.

American "naval superiority" is the same myth as American "air superiority" and "ground superiority".

I must say, that American land army is probably much better, than both American air force and American navy.



Quote:
The Soviet navy would be no match for that of America and the other allies, and the Soviets never had major amphibious warfare capabilities.


That's laughable.

I repeat: are you familiar with weaponry specifications and statistics?

Do Americans or British have amphibious vehicles like Zubr?

Do Americans have heavy amphibous transport skimmers?

American and British navies' only superiority is probably numbers, but what the use of numbers, when their anti-ship equipment is obsolete?

Do Americans or British have something even approximately equal to Moskit or Granit anti-ship missiles?

Do they have something like Kortik and S-300?

No, they don't have. That's why their Navies don't stand a chance in actual war.

Surely, you don't think that at least one subsonic (!) anti-ship missile like Tomahawk will reach it surface sea target?

I can guerantee you, that none of these missiles will hit their targets.

Speaking of underwater navy (subs), do you know that USSR had more submarines, than all other nations of planet, packed together?

I repeat: American "naval superiority" is the same myth as American "air superiority" and "ground superiority".


In terms of Navy, Soviet superiority over NATO was much greater, than in terms of Air Force or Land Army, because while Land Army and Air Force expected to take casualities during WW3, Soviet Navy didn't considered that Americans can damage or destroy any war ships - that was physically impossible.

Nair edit: No insults, please.
Soviet cogitations: 283
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Sep 2004, 01:53
Komsomol
Post 12 Dec 2004, 01:32
Hey Interrupt, I have a little question.

The Raduga company developed the Moskit and the Raduga D2.

The D2 is Mach Six capable.

I think it is an anti-ship missile, but I am curious as to why the Russia army favors the Moskit?
When we hang the Capitalists they will sell us the rope we use.
-Joseph Stalin
Soviet cogitations: 288
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Mar 2003, 19:17
Komsomol
Post 12 Dec 2004, 03:18
Well they are introducing the Yahonkt and Brahmos Anti-Shipping missiles, wich are both stealthier, faster and have longer ranges.
Soviet cogitations: 1445
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Mar 2003, 19:17
Unperson
Post 12 Dec 2004, 08:58
Necro99 wrote:
Well they are introducing the Yahonkt and Brahmos Anti-Shipping missiles, wich are both stealthier, faster and have longer ranges.


I doubt this bastard Putin will really "introduce" anything. Russian Armed Forces do not receive enough AMMUNITION, FOOD AND FUEL, not mentioning such stuff as "anti-ship missiles".
Avi
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 44
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 May 2004, 07:05
Pioneer
Post 12 Dec 2004, 13:35


No matter....We will still win.

All I have to say is U.S.S. Nimitz.

Our aircraft will pummell you.....what are you going to use as a power projection platform??? the Small (yet one of my favorites) Kiev Class?

our CVNs would OBLITERATE any navy before they could even get within range....plus our B1bs, B2as, B-52s....all would Squash any advance before it hit the USA...plus, every man,woman, and child would be toting a gun....you simplily cannot win an engagement on US Soil.

American Supercarriers are only gettinger better, and with our aircraft, Russia's massive ground army is nothing....plus its underfunded, underequiped and equiped with outdated weapons....

You simpily would have to rely on your subs....but oh, the AEIGIS Cruisers are around.....plus we have our own subs....so ruleout attacking a US fleet.

It would be over in about 3 years.....with the AMERICAN flag being raised over moscow.
"The death of one man is tragic, the death of millions is a statistic" - Josef Stalin
Soviet cogitations: 1445
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Mar 2003, 19:17
Unperson
Post 12 Dec 2004, 14:57
Avi:


I understand your gung-ho patriotism, but it is getting ridiculous.

America always had second-rate military, just like all naval-based powers.


You are trying to assure you that American tech is better - but I am MILITARY ENGINEER, I know better.

And what do you know about American military tech? What do you know about military tech, anyway?

Do you know how anti-submarine weapons work? Do you know standart equipment of your fleet?

No, you don't.

If you knew it, you won't post ridiculous nonsense like that.



Quote:
No matter....We will still win.


As engineer, I claim that it is physically impossible.

To win, you need to employ some vodoo magic or something else that violates laws of physics.

There is no way any nation, or all nations combined, could win conventional (non-nuclear) war against USSR.



Quote:
All I have to say is U.S.S. Nimitz.


Nimitz is aircraft carrier.

Its only offensive weapon is jets, which pose no threat to S-300.

Nimitz poses no threat to Russian fleet - because its aircrafts pose no threat.



Quote:
Our aircraft will pummell you.....


S-300 can destroy any target that is equal or below Mach 8, from ranges up to 400 km with efficiency (destruction probability) of 95% per missile (two missiles are launched per salvo).

Your aircrafts won't be able to approach close enough to launch missiles.

If they use some vodoo magic and approach close enough to launch missiles, Kortik will destroy the missiles.

Your aircrafts pose no threat to Russian fleet.



Quote:
our CVNs would OBLITERATE any navy before they could even get within range


Like I said, your aircrafts and missiles are useless. They cannot pass defences.

Russians don't need aircraft carriers, because of advanced naval assault and defensive technologies.

Aircraft carriers is WW2-age weaponry.

Soviets didn't even have such class of ship as "aircraft carrier", but "battlecruiser with carrier capabilities".



Quote:
plus our B1bs, B2as, B-52s


They are aircrafts. They pose no threat.

Navies are protected with S-300, and Soviet Union land territory is protected with integrated anti-air defence, which is the most dense in the world.

Their weapons are bombs and missiles.

Kortik (Navy) and Tunguska (Army) easily protect against both.



Quote:
plus, every man,woman, and child would be toting a gun....you simplily cannot win an engagement on US Soil.


Volksturm? I doubt that fat yankee cowboys are more patriotic, than Germans. And we did defeated German Volksturm.

We won a battle on German land, and Germans were much more dedicated and efficient fighters, than Americans.

If we defeated Germans, we will defeat anybody.

Rag-tag cowboyesque militia is nothing against well-equipped and well-trained organized force.



Quote:
American Supercarriers are only gettinger better


So? Big aircraft carriers are OBSOLTETE TECHNOLOGY. The fact that you use aircraft carriers only proves that your navy is ridiculously low-tech.



Quote:
with our aircraft, Russia's massive ground army is nothing


In case you don't know, USSR's airforce was bigger than American, British and European, packed together.

And Soviet Su-27 was best fighter of Cold War. I won't even mention MiG-31, which was best interceptor of Cold War.

Your airforce was much weaker, than Soviet: both in quality and in quantity.



Quote:
plus its underfunded, underequiped and equiped with outdated weapons


Huh? USSR were best in equipment and technology. We were renewing our military vehicles every five years (ever heard of five year plans?).

We produced enough ammunition, food and equipment to win dozen of World Wars.

Do you know, that if, for example, you used some vodoo magic and destroyed ALL bridges in USSR, they would be RECONSTRUCTED by the next morning thanks to Army reserves?



Quote:
You simpily would have to rely on your subs....but oh, the AEIGIS Cruisers are around.....


AEGIS cruisers can be easily destroyed by sub-launched hypersonic anti-ship missiles without entering range of AEGIS ASW systems.

Did I mention Granit? Yes, I did.

You seem to think that Russians are stupid enough to let your ships, jets and subs approach close enough to use weaponry, LOL!

USA army is "parquet army", made for parades and testing grounds.

What the use of AEGIS, when they will be destroyed long before they can use thei ASW equipment?

What the use in aircraft carriers, when American jets are so obsolete?



Quote:
It would be over in about 3 years


According to both NATO and Soviet strategists, conventional war would be over in two weeks.

First week (according to Soviet strategists, even faster: not week, but two days) - Europe falls. Second week - USA falls.

American Generals knew it, they learned in in early 60ies, changing their policy.

THE ONLY THING ON PLANET THAT COULD STOP SOVIET UNION FROM DEFEATING NATO IS AMERICAN NUCLEAR MISSILES.

In conventional war, you are doomed.



Quote:
with the AMERICAN flag being raised over moscow


Laughable. Mighty Germans failed to do that, and softy yankees will never be able to do that.

For the last 7,500 years, Russ never was conquered.

We defeated Darius's, Alexander's, Mamai's, Napoleon's, Hitler's armies, and all other armies that invaded our land (size of Darius's army was twice more than size of modern US Army, by the way).

What makes you think that you are any different?

The only nation that came approximately close to our military might was Third Reich, and we defeated Third Reich.

USSR didn't have any equal competitors in military field on Planet Earth after WW2.

We had best military technology, which are at least one generation ahead of all other competitors, and we had more military equipment, than all other nations of Earth, packed together.

The strongest competitor we had has died in 1945 by Russian hand.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2510
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2004, 20:50
Party Bureaucrat
Post 12 Dec 2004, 16:10
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
with the AMERICAN flag being raised over moscow


Laughable. Mighty Germans failed to do that, and softy yankees will never be able to do that.


I must agree. See Iraq? The mighty US Army isn't able to defeat iraqi rebels. 1250 dead american soldiers, even more dead iraqi soldiers and policemen, political chaos = that's what the mighty US Armed Forces are able to do! So please don't tell us that your crappy army could win a conventional war against Russia.
Image

Ya Basta!
Soviet cogitations: 1445
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Mar 2003, 19:17
Unperson
Post 12 Dec 2004, 17:13
Quote:
I must agree. See Iraq? The mighty US Army isn't able to defeat iraqi rebels. 1250 dead american soldiers, even more dead iraqi soldiers and policemen, political chaos = that's what the mighty US Armed Forces are able to do! So please don't tell us that your crappy army could win a conventional war against Russia.


In fact, Americans have lost almost all really serious local conflicts - Korea, Vietnam, etc.

I don't think that USA will actually RESIST serious conventional war against USSR.

After two days of fighting, American casualities would be so high, that Americans will surrender, like all other Western nations did when they were invaded by overwhelming ground force (remember WW2 - the only continental country that didn't fall was USSR).

While Russians can easily tolerate having 30 or even 100-200 million casualities (again, remember WW2).
Avi
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 44
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 May 2004, 07:05
Pioneer
Post 12 Dec 2004, 17:43
You only say the Nimitz is crap because your poor country can't afford a SuperCarrier of your own...

The Kiev Class, is outdated and all of them are either chinese casinos, scrap...or skeleton crews....oh wait your poor country has only one carrier.

Admiral Kuznetsov - Its not even the OREL...that woulda put me in agreement with you...because you actually would have had a compareable carrier...something that actually would have posed a threat.

Image


I know more than you would ever give me credit.

Your country is simpily too poor to defeat the United States!
"The death of one man is tragic, the death of millions is a statistic" - Josef Stalin
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 866
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Mar 2003, 16:07
Komsomol
Post 12 Dec 2004, 18:17
I guess you know nothing of real warfare, kid.

Fighting wars is not bribing warlords to make them loyal (Afghanistan), not pumping up money into opposition (Serbia, Montenegro, Georgia, Belarus, Ukraine), not buying all general staff and HQ of a foreign country (Iraq). In all wars that you fought with weapons you met embarrassing defeat.

Now WE do not fight WITH money, and we do not fight FOR money. As interrupt_00h said, we can accept millions of casualties if needed. It is chimera that a poorer country cannot defeat a wannabe superpower. Some time ago your propaganda also called your stealth planes invulnerable, before simple Serbian AAA shot one down. Same will happen if you dare to come knocking at our door... We shall show you the beauty of winter Russia, invite you for a sightseeing to Moscow and then walk you back to the Washington to bury you there... Well, see you in the crosshair...
Image
Avi
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 44
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 May 2004, 07:05
Pioneer
Post 12 Dec 2004, 18:28
Shooting down a 20 year old F-117 is one thing, taking down a B2 Spirit bomber is another thing my friend.

I am well aware of that, I actually have the photos on my comp fyi.

You must not forget, without the SUPPLIES of the United states provided to the USSR in WW2 kept it afloat so it could turn that tide...otherwise, you'd be long dead and burried in mass graves...courtesy of the nazis.

Im still trying to figure out where you get the gaul to understimate the victor of the cold war....


BTW - I know nothing about war? how about you play me in CWC and we can end this topic of discussion...over a realistic RTS about the cold war.
"The death of one man is tragic, the death of millions is a statistic" - Josef Stalin
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 866
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Mar 2003, 16:07
Komsomol
Post 12 Dec 2004, 18:36
Avi wrote:
You must not forget, without the SUPPLIES of the United states provided to the USSR in WW2 kept it afloat so it could turn that tide...otherwise, you'd be long dead and burried in mass graves...courtesy of the nazis.


In that case I'm going to say that USA wouldn't exist at all if Tsar Alexander II didn't send two squadrons of ships to help the North against the South...
Image
Soviet cogitations: 1445
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Mar 2003, 19:17
Unperson
Post 12 Dec 2004, 19:18
LOL! Guys, look at this clown - he judges war by computer games!



Avi:

Quote:
You only say the Nimitz is crap because your poor country can't afford a SuperCarrier of your own...


What do you mean "can't afford"? Red Army had unlimited funding.

That means, if they wanted, they could make aircraft carrier made of gold, if they could mine enough gold.

Only capitalist countries have monetary limitations, while Soviet Union was not capitalist, it had PLANNED ECONOMY.

That means that Soviets could afford anything. The only limitations are matter, energy and time.

Do you know that hydroreactive torpedoes on Russian subs include lots of platinum components?

Americans didn't use them because they are too expensive.

Do you know that Soviet tanks use metalloorganic monocrystals as penetrators in armor-piercing shells?

Americans didn't use them because they are too expensive - they preferred to use inferior, but cheap depleted uranium.

America is rich country, and American army has huge funding.

But USSR didn't employ capitalism at all, and Soviet army had UNLIMITED funding.



Quote:
The Kiev Class ... Admiral Kuznetsov


Why do you list them? They are not aircraft carriers, they are BATTLECRUISERS with carrier capability.

You seem to miss the point. With missile and cannon equipment like Soviets had, it was more efficient to build large ships instead of relying on fighters.

Fighters can only carry light equipment, and almost no defence. They are good for shore bombardment, but not for naval warfare.



Quote:
Your country is simpily too poor to defeat the United States!


Check above. USSR was not limited by monetary constrains. USSR had monocrystal armor-piercing sabots, while Americans used cheap, but inferior depleted uranium.

USA is much more "poor" compared to USSR, since USA used capitalist economy.



Quote:
Shooting down a 20 year old F-117 is one thing, taking down a B2 Spirit bomber is another thing my friend.


No. F-117 is harder to destroy, because it has limited fighter capabilities.

On other hand B-2 is just bomber. It is "missile fodder".




Quote:
BTW - I know nothing about war? how about you play me in CWC and we can end this topic of discussion...over a realistic RTS about the cold war.


LOL! HA-HA-HA! YOU JUDGE WAR BY COMPUTER GAMES! LOL, YOU ARE REAL CLOWN! HOW I CAN TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY AFTER YOU SAY SUCH STUPID THINGS?

It is like if you said: "hey, I watched Rambo, I know lots about cold war".

As for "Cold War Conflicts", it is not realistic - it is just mod for "Sudden Strike"!

It is not any more realistic then various "cold war" mods for "Red Alert".

How old are you, kid?



Quote:
You must not forget, without the SUPPLIES of the United states provided to the USSR in WW2 kept it afloat so it could turn that tide...


Your "supplies" (rotten food and Sherman tanks - it was better to be OUTSIDE Sherman tank than inside it when battle starts) arrived in Russia when Kursk battle was already won and Nazis were running like hell back to Germany.

You sent much more supplies to GERMANY, than to Russia.

Ford Company produced tanks for Nazis. American companies provided Germans with fuel. IBM company provided calculation equipment for Nazi concentration camps. And so on.

You was playing on side of Nazis, and we defeated you both - both United European Union (under command of Germany) and Anglosaxon bankers who funded Hitler.

And, like Ognen said:

Ognen wrote:
In that case I'm going to say that USA wouldn't exist at all if Tsar Alexander II didn't send two squadrons of ships to help the North against the South...
Avi
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 44
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 May 2004, 07:05
Pioneer
Post 13 Dec 2004, 09:35
I judge war by how fast I can nerve gas your asses while you charge machinegun posts without rifles and bullets!


Oh so your going to dismiss the B-25,The B-17s and the BAR Rifles we supplied you with??? You give yourselves too much credit....for a country that didn't have enough guns for everyone talking shit to us about that period doesn't help you.

Im well aware that Henry Ford hates jews....well, I hate ford cars because they are crap! I like my Corvette.


The red army had unlimited funding?

Thats why the OREL, Spiral and the burna where never used, much less built (save for the buran) and the oh of course THE USSR FELL BECAUSE IT WAS BANKRUPT!! - NO MONEY FOR PEOPLE
Thats also why gorbachev lives here now.

Nope, the admiral is a wannabe carrier, they had to settle for second best...because they couldn't afford to defeat america's NIMITZ, they had the blue prints and everything...but they didnt do it.

You are just trying to hide Soviet Decficencies against U.S. superiority...you cant just take down a Supercarrier, you have to take its fleet...which is impossible for soviets unless they wanted to lose their entire navy stopping one battlegroup...what are you going to send at us? a few kotlins and a kiev?

You would have to have viusal contact with a B2 to even stand a chance at attacking it...you can't pick it up on radar yet.

You talk about western propaganda and conspiracy...perhaps you are a little too ignorant and blind to understand the futility of attacking a country like the US.

Afterall, we won the cold war, we could just as easily win it if it went hot.
"The death of one man is tragic, the death of millions is a statistic" - Josef Stalin
Soviet cogitations: 1445
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Mar 2003, 19:17
Unperson
Post 13 Dec 2004, 11:56
Avi:


Quote:
I judge war by how fast I can nerve gas your asses while you charge machinegun posts without rifles and bullets!


LOL! Have you seen A RIFLE in real-life?

Do you know how M-16 looks like?

Here's question for you: how many parts are there in M-16, and how fast you can assemble and dissassemble them?

Every kid who have seen M-16 rifle in real-life can answer these questions.



Quote:
Oh so your going to dismiss the B-25,The B-17s and the BAR Rifles we supplied you with???


You must be kidding? You never send us it!

B-17 and B-25 is HEAVY STRATEGIC BOMBERS, in case you don't know!

They were not even SUPPOSED to be part of Lend-Lease to Russia.

The Lend-Lease included stuff like Studebecker trucks, old tanks (Sherman, Lee, Matilda, Churchill) and some rotten food.

It was not supposed to include strategic bombers or firearms - we didn't need strategic bombers (they were useless in continental war), and we had more than enough firearms.

Heh, did you read at least YOUR OWN American version of history, or you are not interested in history at all?



Quote:
You give yourselves too much credit....for a country that didn't have enough guns for everyone


LOL! You must be kidding, clown!

Ever heard of MOSIN RIFLE? Or, maybe, PPSh submachine gun?

These two are THE MOST WIDELY PRODUCED FIREARMS OF WW2. And both are RUSSIAN.

And do you know that we also had huge stockpile of earlier model Mosin rifles, produced during WW1?

You watch too many hollywood movies!

Russians produced more rifles, than Allies and Axis, and our rifles were best - Mosin rifles are still popular today as sniper mods.

That's why we WON - we outproduced German-controlled Europe both in quantity and quality.



Quote:
talking shit to us about that period


This period is really annoying, actually.

We bought equipment, sending you lots of gold, materials and oil. We spent lots of resources on that.

And in exchange, we get few crappy tanks, some old trucks, and rotten food, which was useless, and arrived too late.

HEY, YOU CHEATED US! GIVE US OUR MONEY BACK!



Quote:
The red army had unlimited funding? Thats why the OREL, Spiral and the burna where never used, much less built (save for the buran)


Simple - because USSR turned capitalist in 1985.

When USSR fell, it was neither "Soviet", nor "Socialist".

In 1991, USSR was capitalist, market economy, multi-party democracy.

Modern Russia still uses law code, based on 1985-1991 Soviet law code - because it is capitalist.

So, the reason why USSR fell is because it turned into capitalist country.

The reason why USSR turned into capitalist country is that you managed to recruit Gorby as your agent.

That is the nature of Cold War - PROPAGANDA WARFARE.

It has nothing to do with economy or military.



Quote:
and the oh of course THE USSR FELL BECAUSE IT WAS BANKRUPT


Now, it fell because it was disassembled by Gorby and Yeltsin.

If USSR was "bankrupt", they would simply print more money, or use direct planned command.

Soviet Russia during War Communism and USSR under Stalin was much more "bankrupt", and were in much worse shape, than USSR in 1985.

So, it has nothing to do with money, but with political leaders.



Quote:
Nope, the admiral is a wannabe carrier


Whom are you trying to cheat? It is classified as "avianesushchiy kreysier" - "carrier-capable cruiser". Pretty self-explanatory.



Quote:
because they couldn't afford to defeat america's NIMITZ


You ignore simple laws of physics.

One salvo of "Moskit" or "Granit" - and Nimitz is fish fodder.

Ships, that are included in aircraft carrier group, do not have any equipment that is PHYSICALLY CAPABLE of intercepting this missile.



Quote:
You are just trying to hide Soviet Decficencies against U.S. superiority


Americans didn't have any "superiority". They are crappy engineers and even more crappy soldiers.

Soviets were much more afraid of China, than some sort of nation of fat (80% of americans suffer from obesity) cowboyesque clowns that judge warfare by hollywood movies and computer games.



Quote:
you cant just take down a Supercarrier, you have to take its fleet


LOL! Are you stupid or what?

You surely is proof that your army is "parquet army"!

Who plays by the rules? We can simply ignore supercarrier fleet and launch anti-ship missiles from safe distance.

Then, your fleet will simply look at your Nimitz sinking, and thinking "what the hell happened?"

Stupid yanks.

Or, if we are planning to destroy the entire battlegroup, we can simply destroy your carrier protection from safe distance.



Quote:
which is impossible for soviets unless they wanted to lose their entire navy stopping one battlegroup


Look, did you read my post?

Thanks to stuff like Kortik and S-300, Soviet fleet is INVULNERABLE to American anti-ship weaponry.

While Americans do NOT have anything that can intercept missiles like Moskit.

That means, even if Soviet navy is commanded by complete idiots, it would still destroy entire American fleet without losing a single warship, because it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to hit Soviet ships with primitive equipment you have (Harpoon, Tomahawks, American jets, etc).

ONLY thing we will lose is AMMUNITION, spent on destruction of your ships.

That is not a question of good or bad funding, that is question of PHYSICS.

Soviet Navy won't lose a single ship in conventional battle even if it would be commanded by complete idiots.



Quote:
...what are you going to send at us? a few kotlins and a kiev?


Well, I can arm fishing boat with Kortik, S-300, anti-ship missiles and ASW equipment, and go hunting. You won't be able to sink this fishing boat. That's PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, you see - PHYSICALLY!



Quote:
You would have to have viusal contact with a B2 to even stand a chance at attacking it...you can't pick it up on radar yet.


We could pick "stealth" aircrafts on radar long before you build first. Don't forget that it was we who invented "stealth" - you simply stolen Ufimtsev's technology, but you didn't have enough scientific knowledge to understand how it works.

B-2, just like any flying object, is perfectly visible by long-wave radars, by near-to-zero frequency sensors, by ground-based quantum scanners, by everything.

You stolen our tech, but was too stupid to understand that it is useless.



Quote:
You talk about western propaganda and conspiracy...perhaps you are a little too ignorant and blind to understand the futility of attacking a country like the US.


I have more intelligence, than all your yankee neorepublican cowboys, packed together.

I AM MILITARY SPECIALIST. I have enough expertise to command a division.

And you are just kid, who doesn't even seen M-16 rifle in real-life!

I bet you don't even know difference between lieutenant and lieutenant colonel.



Quote:
Afterall, we won the cold war


Exactly. You won COLD WAR.

But there is also ARMS RACE, which simply doesn't have anything to do with Cold War.

Cold War is PROPAGANDA WARFARE.

Whoever recruits leader of competing country to his camp, wins.

You won - you recruited Gorby. Well done.

BUT WHAT IT HAS TO DO WITH MILITARY TECHNOLOGY?
Soviet cogitations: 283
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Sep 2004, 01:53
Komsomol
Post 14 Dec 2004, 00:01
Avi wrote:
Thats why the OREL, Spiral and the burna where never used, much less built (save for the buran) and the oh of course THE USSR FELL BECAUSE IT WAS BANKRUPT!! - NO MONEY FOR PEOPLE
Thats also why gorbachev lives here now.

Afterall, we won the cold war, we could just as easily win it if it went hot.


Gorby lives in America because him and Yeltsin were paid in millions to dismantle the Soviet Union.

USSR was unbreakable.

Money was NEVER a problem.
When we hang the Capitalists they will sell us the rope we use.
-Joseph Stalin
Soviet cogitations: 2848
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Nov 2004, 20:31
Party Bureaucrat
Post 15 Dec 2004, 01:22
Stealth..

It was this spirit and love for the motherland that helped the Soviets capture Stalingrad and take 250,000 men from Fieldmarchal Paulus' army prissoners. You US chickens would have surrendered in the first month of the war against the Soviets

The battle started in the end of June 1942 and ended in early April 1943. After six month of fighting 90000 Axi soldiers surrendered to the Soviet troops, not 250000.
Soviet cogitations: 39
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Nov 2004, 15:18
Pioneer
Post 22 Dec 2004, 01:29
[quote="interrupt_00h"]What do you mean "can't afford"? Red Army had unlimited funding.

That means, if they wanted, they could make aircraft carrier made of gold, if they could mine enough gold.

Only capitalist countries have monetary limitations, while Soviet Union was not capitalist, it had PLANNED ECONOMY.

That means that Soviets could afford anything. The only limitations are matter, energy and time.

Do you know that hydroreactive torpedoes on Russian subs include lots of platinum components?

Americans didn't use them because they are too expensive.

Do you know that Soviet tanks use metalloorganic monocrystals as penetrators in armor-piercing shells?

Americans didn't use them because they are too expensive - they preferred to use inferior, but cheap depleted uranium.

America is rich country, and American army has huge funding.

But USSR didn't employ capitalism at all, and Soviet army had UNLIMITED funding.[/quote]
I think this mindset is one of the reasons why Soviet Union collapsed.

It is wrong to consentrate on money. Even capitalist countries can print money if they need it so desperately. (But adverse effects of that are seen both in capitalist and soviet system, but that is another story.)

You were close to truth when you stated that limitations are matter, energy and time. You although missed one important component: people.

There is zero-sum game going on there: One has limited number of competent engineers, miners, chemists etc. and if you put them to the military production, they are away from the civilian production. Same with the materials: any ton of steel produced which is used to armors is away from civilian use.

The value of certain materials are not arbitrary, but they reflect the amount of investments which has to be done to acquire those. And once again: if those investment are done to military, they are away from civilian use.

In real world there is no such thing as unlimited supply of anything.
Soviet cogitations: 1445
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Mar 2003, 19:17
Unperson
Post 22 Dec 2004, 01:56
Whiskey wrote:
I think this mindset is one of the reasons why Soviet Union collapsed.
............................................
You were close to truth when you stated that limitations are matter, energy and time. You although missed one important component: people.
............................................
The value of certain materials are not arbitrary, but they reflect the amount of investments which has to be done to acquire those. And once again: if those investment are done to military, they are away from civilian use.


EXACTLY!

That's why when USSR allocated two-thirds of its population on military-related stuff, only one-third was working on civilian stuff.

But - that has NOTHING to do with Soviet "collapse".

Want to know why?

Because amount of resources, allocated by USSR on civilian needs were MORE THAN ENOUGH for healthy life.

You see, USSR satisfied all basic NEEDS of population, and also satisfied lots of WANTS of population.

There was simply no point in investing too much more in civilian sphere.

What are the goals of any healthy society?

Population growth, social protection, increase of physical health and intellectual level of citizens.

In other words - all HEALTHY needs and wants of individual. These needs were satisfied.

And satisfied BETTER, than in West - I posted price/wage comparision table somewhere on forums - average Soviet citizen was living better, than "top middle class" in USA.

So, there was simply no point in spending more - "luxirity items" and other "conspicuous consumption" is not healthy needs, but sign of degeneration.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.