This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

If the Cold War had turned 'Hot', would Russia or America have won?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 100

Flibbles

Something like this would of happened.. :biggrin:

Reply 101

Aj12

Original post by Soyuz

" US bombers such as the B-52 had the capability of destroying any target within the USSR, so any soviet factory is in reach."

Oh REALLY? Ever hurd of soviet airdefence? What makes you think a giant bomber can fly into soviet airspace, not get detected by the most advanced integrated air defence network and not get shot down by a SA-2 or SA-3 surface to air missile, never mind Mig-21, SU-15, Mig-25 and later Mig-31 intercepting them? Ever hurd of U2 being shot down at extream high altitude by Sa-2 surface to air missile in soviet airspace? How about the scores of B-52s shot down over vietnam by SAMs?

"The USA would have air superiority because US fighter planes such as the F-15, F-16, the crusader, the F-4 phantom etc are superior to their Soviet counter parts; US pilots are also better trained than their soviet counterparts. ""

You clearly never hurd of Su-27 (F-15 counterpart), Mig-29 (f-16 counterpart), mig-21 (F8 and phantom counterpart), mig-23 (phantom counterpart).

Russian radar was very weak and Russian air command just plain awful to the point that Soviet airmen had to ask whenever they made any change in height. Their command was very very rigid and the West had ways of blocking their radio frequencies.

Reply 102

Soyuz

"Russian radar was very weak and Russian air command just plain awful to the point that Soviet airmen had to ask whenever they made any change in height. Their command was very very rigid and the West had ways of blocking their radio frequencies."

FACTs and Figures NOW!? Russian radar were actually the most powerful systems fielded in cold war and even today, both with small mobile radar systems to large scale phased array systems.

About ground control, GCI (ground control intercept) was actually very succesful in Vietnam. But you obviously dont know that much about PVO. GCI was only rigid when it came to dedicated interceptors such as Mig-25 and Mig-31 which had advanced data link systems btw (only aircrafts in the world to do so) which uses AWACS as well as GCI along with other air units for intell. TWO mig-31 can cover the area of around 400km, in radius more than any aircraft.

Reply 103

Soyuz

You may find this interesting...

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Russian-SAM-Radars-DKB.html

Reply 104

Soyuz

"Soviet airmen had to ask whenever they made any change in height. Their command was very very rigid and the West had ways of blocking their radio frequencies"

You clearly dont understand the whole point of GCI. And by the way, Mig-29s, su-27s had no such rigid command structure. But PVO is a COMBINED INTEGRATED defence systems which employs large and small radar systems/mobile and stationary along with AWACs, satellite info and air units to scan and locate enemy intruders.

But i ask, if Russian radar was soo "weak", why did garry powers get shot flying at extream altitudes. Also, in the 1980s, two SR-71 was actually tracked by soviet radar (flying at extream altitude and mach 3) and sent 2 Mig-31 to intercept them. The Migs chased them away all the way to Estonia where it left soviet airspace..

And Russian SAM/Radar systems are by far the most succesful in the world.

Reply 105

Soyuz

Also, funny how USAF chose the "stealth" road to counter "very weak" soviet radars since they had no way of practically penetrating it.

And that wouldnt have helped it much either....

Most stealth design features are intended to scatter incoming illumination in a controlled fashion, evidenced by the use of edge alignment, faceting and other geometrical shaping features, supplemented by the use of absorbent materials. All of these techniques are intended to defeat radars operating in the geometrical optics and less frequently, resonance regimes of scattering. The precondition for this to work is that the wavelength be much shorter than the cardinal dimensions of the shaping feature of interest. An edge aligned engine inlet of typical dimensions will perform best in the centimetric Ku- and X-bands, and less so with increasing radar wavelength.

The Russian approach has been to invest in the further development of low band radars, especially operating in the VHF band. With wavelengths of the order of a metre or more, only very large stealth aircraft (e.g. B-2A) satisfy the physics requirement for geometrical optics regime scattering. A fighter sized aircraft such as the JSF will see most of its carefully designed shaping features fall into the resonance or Raleigh scattering regions, where shaping is of little or no import, and skin depth penetration of the induced electrical surface currents defeats most absorbent coatings or laminates.

Reply 106

Suetonius

As has been stated numerous times, nobody would have "won" per se. It's generally accepted that the United States had the largest nuclear arsenal in the first half of the cold war, and that the USSR did in the second half. So, if you judge it by who could launch the most nuclear bombs, then it alternated. This would be a silly way to look at it though. If Kennedy had his way, all life on earth would have been wiped out in 1962.

Reply 107

Soyuz

I really do wonder, do people just make stuff up...

Reply 108

morris743

Original post by Soyuz

I really do wonder, do people just make stuff up...

Clearly. See twitter the past week and you'd think your hometown was a shell due to riots.

Guess most people are just SAD.

Reply 109

Soyuz

As for the original question, i take the position no side would win, the amount of casuelties on both sides even in conventional war would be too much. However, USSR had far better infastructure to protect its civilian by having the best air defence systems as well as nuclear bunkers for citizens. And they were pretty big self sustaining networks of underground shelters, some even powered by nuclear power which means they can stay there for indefinate amount of time. There were far better state planning on post nuclear situation in USSR. If your average joe in new york, best you can do is duck and cover your eyes..

But yes, cold war could have ended humanity as we know it

Reply 110

Drewski

Original post by Soyuz

Nice use of copy and paste. Have your own opinion, or do you just want to use other people's work?

And don't even try to pretend that's yours, your standard of written English isn't anything like that.

Reply 111

Soyuz

Yes its copy and paste, and i provided a link..

And english isnt my first language, how about you having a go at my language?

Have you got anything better to say or just personal bashing?

Reply 112

Soyuz

Your level of argument is far worse than my english level.... But i still await for your arguments if you have any.

Reply 113

Drewski

Original post by Soyuz

Your level of argument is far worse than my english level.... But i still await for your arguments if you have any.

I'm waiting for you to have your own balanced opinion coming from information learned from a multitude of sources.

I think I'll be waiting longer, tbh...

Reply 114

itsmyname

Skynet would have won

Reply 115

Soyuz

"I'm waiting for you to have your own balanced opinion coming from information learned from a multitude of sources."

Actually i was just merely counter arguing many of the made up stuff posted here. I can equally criticise the weakness of both USSR and NATO. But since this discussion clearly lacks further technical discussions, i decided to put some.

PS. at least i back my arguments, your not even capable of any arguments in the fist place.

Reply 116

Architects Asylum

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

I got the T 80 mixed up with the T 72, which from I believe is not quite as capable as the other soviet designs. Seeing as you seem fairly clued up on soviet equipment would you be inclined to agree?

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 117

Soyuz

Original post by Architects Asylum

I got the T 80 mixed up with the T 72, which from I believe is not quite as capable as the other soviet designs. Seeing as you seem fairly clued up on soviet equipment would you be inclined to agree?

T-72 belongs to a different generation to T-80. They make look similar, but comparing T-72 with T-80 is like comparing Challenger I with chieftain.

It depends on which T-72 your taking about. The english letter is almost exausted by the number of designations given to the vast array of variants of the t-72. it is actually one of the most successful tank designs ever made, sold in vast numbers and huge upgrade capability.

T-80 was an expensive tank which was at the zenith of soviet tank design and was not exported by USSR. It was fielded by elite units. T-80 were designed by the same people who designed the war winning T-34.

Reply 118

Soyuz

this is an interesting watch

http://www.youtube.com/user/patrikasLTL?blend=23&ob=5#p/u/6/QfYmmv5uFWE

Reply 119

Red Guy

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?

It really depends which point it happens at, or when you define the Cold War beginning.

From 1945-1949 the US wins pretty easily due to their monopoly on the Atomic Bomb. Up till the mid-sixties the US retained a large lead, probably being able to devastate the Soviet Union and it's Eastern European Allies. Whilst the USSR could damage America and especially Europe, there was little chance of them coming out on top.

Later on nuclear parity was reached which really gave credibility to the idea that a nuclear war would end civilisation. The the Eighties the Soviets had nuclear supremacy, however both sides could still comfortably annihilate each other and their respective allies. Of course as the Soviets had a bigger expanse of territory to move refugees to, and a superior civil defence program, they might come out better in the end, marginally.

1945-1965: NATO 'victory'

1965-1991: Mutually Assured Destruction (Possibly more Soviets alive)