[Manitude]

I don't think either side would have survived, but Russian being the largest country in the world would require more warheads to completely destroy all infrastructure and government.

[Rascacielos]

If Russia and America had gone to war, it would have gone nuclear. Europe and America would both be a pretty big mess now.

[Architects Asylum]

Ignoring Strategic or Tactical use of nukes, I'd say in general, Soviet Victory in Western Europe after a long drawn out slog fest in West Germany and France, and then stagnation after that - American Naval Superiority but not Supremacy on the seas due to the Soviet Doctrine of Submarines and such. American Aerial Supremacy due to superior planes and training, but the size of the USSR and its airforce.

I'd stay continental europe would go red, UK would be back to where it was in WW2. Ultimately I'd say the USSR would 'win' because the USA as a democracy wouldn't be able to sustain a fruitless war against the USSR as realistically landings would be repulsed by Soviet landforce, despite aerial and naval superiority, while the Dictatorial USSR would be able to sustain a war much longer. Thus allowing the USSR to establish communist puppets in Western Europe. Though the earlier the better for the Soviets, the T 54 was a good tank compared to the POS the T 80 was/is.

With Tactical Nukes (the most likely imo) it could go either way really depending on who launches first over the Iron Curtain.

With Strategic use then ultimately the USA would be able to do more damage, as IIRC the USSR had more nukes in its later days but still didn't have methods to deliver more than the United States. But the USSR would be able to sustain far more damage than the USA due to its Size and Government.

[Dumachi]

Neither if they had turned to nukes

[Architects Asylum]

(Original post by JIRAIYA-ERO-SENNIN)
The USSR''s advantage in conventional warfare only extends to the size of its army and the size of it's territory. The USA throughout the Cold War had a massive technological advantage in terms of conventional arms. American tanks such as the M60 and the Abrams M1A1 were superior to their soviet counterparts such as the T-55, T-72 and T-90. In fact the Abrams M1A1 is widely considered to be the best tank in the world; no single M1A1 has been destroyed by an enemy tank in combat. So although, the soviets were able to produce more tanks than the USA, the USA's tanks are so much more effective than soviet tanks that comparison between them is meaningless; the American tanks simply cannot be destroyed by other tanks. Furthermore, American tank crews are widely regarded as the best trained tank crews in the world, the British are their only real competition.

Now its been a long time since I took interest in military matters, so I'm prepared to get shot down (pun not intended).

I wouldn't say it was massive, but it was there. The superiority of American equipment over Russian equipment was more due to the doctrine choices of Russia than technological advantage. Russia went for a bigger army, but they designed their weapons with war against the Americans in mind. I highly doubt that Soviet Design bureaus designed their weapons in a way that they were not able to compete with comparitive American and NATO designs. Now, and this is highly iirc, the T-55 and T-64 were both decent tanks for what they were worth, and they were certainly able to compete with the M60 at least. the M1A1 is certainly a good tank and better than the T-90, but you're exaggerating just how good. The only tanks its faced in open combat that I can remember have been Iraqi tanks, I think T 55 mainly and some T 64s, with their poorly trained crews, low morale, and low fire control capabilities, and I think some M1A1s still got disabled by enemies, or at least friendly fire (again I'm really relying on iirc here). And that only came about in the 80s when the USA had practically won the war already. And finally while American tank crews are certainly well trained, I doubt soviet ones were hardly green themselves. Oh, and the Leclerc is probably better than the M1A1 .

I would reply to the rest of your post but I should probably get to sleep.

[Blueberry.]

That's a really interesting question.

Let's say the Cuban Missile Crisis was the specific instance that war broke out, I think the USSR would have definitely won, under the assumption that the missiles in Cuba were fully functional.
It would have taken the intermediate range ballistic missiles a few minutes (about four, I believe) to strike the US and take out most of North America and even extend to parts of South America. An IRBM would have taken out Cuba as well, so I think it is highly unlikely that Castro would have consented to the IRBM being launched.
Which leads me to the conclusion that the USSR and Cuba never intended to launch the IRBM...
It seems to me like a ploy to get the Jupiter Missiles out of Turkey.

All hypothetical, of course.

But really, no one "wins" in a nuclear war.

[Swanbow]

Okay, let's presume neither side had the balls to use their nuclear weapons or signed some agreement rendering them forbidden or what not. Russia had a vastly greater conventional army, although not as technologically advanced. I don't believe the Russians would have a great problem passing through Germany onto France and the rest of Western Europe. But I doubt they could have gone further. Combining the American Navy with the British, and along with their Air forces the Russians would struggle to step foot on Britain. An invasion of Alaska would be probable as well, and I don't have a clue which way that could have gone.

An argument most people use is that as the West had better weapons and were more technologically they would have won the war regardless. Personally I have felt this comment to be silly. Better equipment costs more to make, and takes longer to produce. For every M1 Abrams tank built the Russians could make an two more T-80s. I always refer back to the Second World War, despite superior Nazi designs the Russians beat them due to more cost effective and simpler models which were easier to make.

As for America and Western Europe invading Russia, that would be a different story. To win the Allies would need to open a two door front, one in Western Russia and another in Siberia. I personally believe Europe would not be able to take Russia through eastern europe, and such an invasion would back fire. However the Americans invading Siberia would have more chance of success all depending on how much time the European Nato allies bought them in Europe.

Just my two cents.

[Soyuz]

I can see a lot of uneducated comments here if you dont mind me saying :P.

About M1a1. Do you have any idea about the real capabilities of the abrams? Discovery channle asside, it was and still FAR FAR from the best battle tank in the world, even in NATO. I can list many many flaws with its fundamental design (poor side armour, poor tactical mobility).

T-55, T-72 and T-90 (which is a Russian tank, not soviet) are NOT counterpart to M1a1. T-55 was designed in the late 1940s and early 1950s, its comparable to M-47 and M-48 both of which it totally dominates. T-72 was a counterpart to M-60, Cheiftain and leopard 1, designed in late 1960s. M1 abrams (with 105mm gun) soviet counterpart is the T-80BV (125mm gun, composite armour and 2nd generation reactive armour Kontakt-3). M1a1 soviet counterpart was T-80U OBR 1986 (1986 model).

About M1a1 being best tank in the world... Lets look at the parameters that make a tank the best in the world...

Firepower.. M1a1 has a 120mm l-44 cannon made by german company rheinmetall in germany, same gun fitted to west german Leopard 2a4. Its also fitted to many other tanks, South Korean K1a1, Japanese Type 90 MBT, Leopard 2a5, Merkava Mk III and IV and few more. There are many tanks with much bigger guns. Basic soviet T-72B obr 1985 had 125mm 48 caliber (m1a1 had 44 caliber gun) gun that had much higher muzzle velocity and slightly better effective range. The 125mm 50 caliber gun fitted on T-80U had far higher effective range and muzzle velocity than any NATO gun in cold war. Todays T-90 has upgraded version of the T-80U gun with 20% increase in accuracy. Chinese 125mm gun (not to be confused with Russian one, its actually a new ingeniousness design) is a 50 caliber gun that can fire projectile up to 1780m/s and penetrate around 950mm RHA at 2000m (so far the highest armour penetration of any gun). Leopard 2a6 has a 120mm 55 caliber main gun which is far more powerful than the l-44. Challenger 1 and 2 both have 120mm 55 caliber rifled gun both of which are supirior to the M1a1/A2 l-44. Soviet/Russian/Chinese tanks can fire guided missiles at standoff range. Max range of At-11 fired from T-80U T-90A ZTZ-99A is 5-6km although new INVAR-M projectiles have 7km range. Firing accuracy is 85-90% @5km (far far far higher than any projectiles fired from a comparable tank gun). Typical engagement range for tanks are 2.5-3km with main gun (even with most modern fire control systems). An anti tank missile such as AT-11 can fire at moving tank 5-7km away with 90% probability of hit. Latest Invar-M projectiles have 99.9% accuracy in test firing over Kubinka fields.


Mobility.. M1a1/a2 is powered by 1500hp turbine engine. M1a1 had mass of around 65-70 tonnes depending on loadout, giving it power to weight ratio of 23-21hp/tonne. There are many tanks with higher power to weight ratio, T-80U (27hp/tonne), leopard 2a4 (27hp/tonne) etc. The engine of M1a1/a2 produced around 3700nm of torque, which is less than the much smaller T-80U powerplant which produces around 4300nm. Torque is as important if not more important on heavy machinary than shear HP. Higher torque in a tank means faster acceleration, better capability of climbing sloaps and better of-road capability. Not to mention tactical mobility where M1a1/a2 is probably the worst of any tanks. In terms of the amount of distance a tank can cover before it needs repairs, fuel range, M1a1/a2 is by far the worst tank ever. Whats worse, it cant refuel with its engines off, it needs maintanance every 1.7 houres of operation (from gulf wars experiences). Did i mention its sheer size being the biggest and heaviest tank in service (M1a2 weighs around 75 tonnes fully loaded)? Ever wondered why Abrams couldnt move across most of the Iraq desserts? A heavy tank limits your aproach and makes you very predictable to enemy, killing element of surprise



Protection.
Lets compare facts. This is the armour protection value of M1a1HA (heavy armour). The most capable US tank of cold war. (figs in mm (RHA equivalent))

Turret
600 - 680
1,080 - 1,320
Glacis
560 - 590
510 - 800
Lower Front Hull
580 - 630
800 - 900


COmpared with T-80U (much smaller in size and volume, much higher armour/volume index meaning better more uniform level of overal protection)

Turret
280 - 850
960 - 1,450
Glacis
780
1,080
Lower Front Hull
310 - 430
500


All abrams models have pathetic side armour that cant stand basic RPG-7. Which is why some are upgraded to TUSK standards, with basic 1st gen ERA armour on side. There is a picture of M1a1 from Iraq where on the side there is a tiny hole. THis doesnt seem much, but on the other side, there is a slightly bigger hole. This was an ocassion where a basic HEAT round of an old RPG-7 managed to penetrate the side armour of the tank, torch everything inside it and come out at the other end with the remaining of its cumulative energy. Compared to even older T80B and T-72A/B used in groznies where it faced much more lethel enemies (many of them trained, ex soldiers and generals armed with most advanced anti tank missiles in the world at the time) managing to drive back to base with 9-12 PG-7 rounds hit (with no ERA on).


American tankers best in the world? LOL Yea, with the biggest history of friendly fire.

[Soyuz]

I would like to remind basic NATO tactics during cold war in cold war buffer zone. Westerners tend to hide (low hull position), in a more defensive posture. Soviet army was designed to attack with overwhelming numbers. Soviet tactics was to unless there overwhelming superiority artillary from 122-152mm howitzers to 300mm Bm-30 MLRS firing many types of ammo (even electronic jamming ones). Air supremacy would then be gained by VVS. This was followed by attack from frontal attack aviation (mig-27s, Su-22m3, Su-25s) which shot at anything that remained. Only then soviet motorised division,far far more organised and better equiped than NATO army, with dedicated mobile anti aircraft systems such as SHILKA and TUNGUSKA as well as more advanced command and control vehicals, wheeled and tracks IFV/APCs, mobile artillery would roll in. Unlike NATO army, soviet tanks are always accompanied by special anti air systems such as shilka and tunguska which is a brick wall for any NATO aircraft. And they were also acompanied by many Mi-24s on the sky.



No wonder why once NATO replaced there 155mm howitzers with tactical nukes LOL.

[Soyuz]

"the T 54 was a good tank compared to the POS the T 80 was/is."

T-80 isnt a failed tank. It was the most state of the tank of the cold war. It was never exported (until USSR collapsed, KMBD of ukraine sold them). Its high operating cost dew to its gas turbine engine and complicated chassis (with hydro mechanical suspension) is much more expensive to operate than upgraded T-72s, hence the T-90 (which uses base T-72 chassis and parts from T-80U, but most of its a new tank). Russia still uses T-80s, they are considering upgrading all to T-80UM1 standards.

Ukraine still uses them pretty well, with diesel engines (t-80UD). New Oplot and oplot-m (T-84) uses t-80U chassis

[Nightstar-27]

We would all be nuclear ash

[Bagration]

you guys should read Inside the Soviet Army by Victor Suvorov (pen name) and Third World War: August 1985 by General Sir John Hackett if you find this interesting. It is an issue I have studied quite in depth. In a conventional war the USSR would have rolled Western Europe, no problem. The war would never be conventional tho.

[Jimbo1234]

(Original post by DH-Biker)
Just a question I was wondering this morning. Given Russia's vast Conventional Army, it would almost certainly be a clear victory in terms of a conventional war, surely? However, as the Cold War is famous for being minutes (?) away from global thermonuclear war, would Russia or America have come out victorious?

I thought it would depend on which hit the most crucial targets the fastest and first. Both sides had their early warning systems, and both had their own Nuclear Warheads in fairly close proximity to each other.

But, I was unsure about which would win and how it would play out. A Nuclear War followed by a massed invasion? Who do you think would've won?

If they had used nuclear weapons - total devastation and no one would have won.

If not, then the USA would have won, but Europe would have been destroyed, The Russia tactics came to light a few years ago and they were brutal - storm into cities as fast as possible to prevent heavy bombings and force city fighting etc.
However, the USA were more advanced and that would have just given them the edge of the vast numbers Russia had.

[Bagration]

(Original post by Soyuz)
"the T 54 was a good tank compared to the POS the T 80 was/is."

T-80 isnt a failed tank. It was the most state of the tank of the cold war. It was never exported (until USSR collapsed, KMBD of ukraine sold them). Its high operating cost dew to its gas turbine engine and complicated chassis (with hydro mechanical suspension) is much more expensive to operate than upgraded T-72s, hence the T-90 (which uses base T-72 chassis and parts from T-80U, but most of its a new tank). Russia still uses T-80s, they are considering upgrading all to T-80UM1 standards.

Ukraine still uses them pretty well, with diesel engines (t-80UD). New Oplot and oplot-m (T-84) uses t-80U chassis

One fact people don't know is that USA has never engaged "real" Russian equipment. Almost all Soviet-exported equipment lacked much of the equipment that the Soviet Army actually had, especially in terms of rangefinding, night vision, etc. The T-72 of Saddam's Army is not the T-72 of the Soviet or Russian Army: they were much less technologically advanced because many essential features were stripped out on export. This is true of most Russian equipment which has led to a hugely undeserved under-estimation of Russian military capability.

Most opinion towards Russian military is fueled by crap like Enemy at the Gates that make people think the Soviet/Russian Army is all about "human waves" of crappy equipment. The reality could not be further from the truth as anyone who has studied the matter in detail knows that Russian technological expertise is extremely advanced and so is their operational/doctrinal ideology.

[Soyuz]

In terms of nuclear war, USSR was far more prepared. They can in theory save around 55-60% of the population thanks to much better underground network of bombshelters and better infrastructure which were engineered to deal with nuclear war. Most Subway stations can also be used as fully sustaining shelters in USSR. USA in comparison was only equipped to save the 10% of the elite population, there infrastructure when it comes to saving normal citizens from nuclear war was pathetic compared to USSR.

"the USA were more advanced"

Can you elaborate :P More advanced in what?

[IQ Test]

Neither of them. They'd both have annihilated each other.

[Soyuz]

@ Bagration.

Yes IRaqi "T-72" were not soviet at all. They were made by Poland, which made there own copy of soviet export model T-72M ("monkey model") and handful of T-72M1 some of which were made by ZTS martin of now slovakia. They were vastly inferior to contemporary Soviet T-72B.


Funny thing is, a lot of NATO "fanboys" seem to think soviet equipment always failed in combat with NATO ones bc they faced them in conflicts with 3rd world countries. What they dont know, USSR actually planned a very clever disinformation campaign, they NEVER exported there most up to date equipment. The ones they did export were mainly downgraded versions with less advanced electronics and technical charestaristics. So NATo thought they fought of they best of soviet hardwere where infact they fought against downgraded equipment that were at least a generation behind them.

USSR on the other hand had EXACT knowledge on the very latest of NATO hardwere since they were stupid enough to use many of there most state of the art systems on even small scale conflicts (F-117 in serbia, Ah-64 in panama) etc. Those countries who fought against NATO equipment gave Moscow intell on the very latest of NATO equipment. No wonder why SOviet equipment could counter them..

[Bagration]

(Original post by Swanbow)
Okay, let's presume neither side had the balls to use their nuclear weapons or signed some agreement rendering them forbidden or what not. Russia had a vastly greater conventional army, although not as technologically advanced. I don't believe the Russians would have a great problem passing through Germany onto France and the rest of Western Europe. But I doubt they could have gone further. Combining the American Navy with the British, and along with their Air forces the Russians would struggle to step foot on Britain.

I don't know about this. Soviet VDV Paratroops were six divisions strong as well as 15 independent air assault brigades capable of crossing the channel. So even though Russian Navy wasn't capable of landing forces in Britain, their airborne corp was extremely strong, larger than the British Army, and in fact fully mechanised.

The battle for the air would have been critical to say the least. I don't think USSR could have ever actually annexed Britain, unless it was abandoned by the USA, but it could have forced us into a separate agreement by use of their overwhelmingly strong vertical envelopment forces.

[Steevee]

Russia would certainly not have won. They would never have got to the US mainland. Assuming the world had not been destroyed by Nukes there would have been a stalemate, with neither side possesing the strength to reach out to the homeland of the other.

[Bagration]

(Original post by Steevee)
Russia would certainly not have won. They would never have got to the US mainland. Assuming the world had not been destroyed by Nukes there would have been a stalemate, with neither side possesing the strength to reach out to the homeland of the other.

But the USSR would have annexed most of America's strongest allies, whereas the USA would only have been able to touch Cuba. Strategic and diplomatic victory for the Soviet Union.